Laws of Attraction: Pt 1 - Physical aspects

Laws of Attraction: Pt 1 - Physical aspects, do i make you horney? Sorry for the absence, but due to circumstances, my posting abilities have been downgraded due to the exciting life such a Sex_God has! What attracts you to the opposite sex? Is it physical, emotional or do they just "DO" it for you? Seems like quesitons that our generation has had trouble facing. Hell, in the times of the cavemen, they'd just grab any gal they'd fancy and bobs ya uncle, they've got a wife...maybe the hairy muscular females would do the same, but did male nerds exist back then? Back onto topic, seems no matter how much we look into it, us gals can't figure out what a guy wants. It can also be said that us guys find it hard to even get a gals attention. Lets break it all down gently by looking at the physical aspects of attraction. Sounds like a prac session, BUT i think we'd all enjoy this. Especially if we can sit down and just LOOK at people such as Robbie Williams, Jessica Alba, Chad Michael Murray and Jennifer Hawkins. Each and every one of these people have something to DIE for and/or things we'd wish we could see/feel up closer! Yes, dont be embarrised boys and gals! I know i would like to see Hawkins' red G closer than what we did on telly! But what actually does it? You can say, by default, that guys die for THE breasts and butt, and for the gals, you got the pecks and the all time favourite arse! But is that it? And do we even need to look at the emotional/personality side? After some much needed research, and a couple of hrs reading the rag mags such as Dolly, FHM, etc etc, i am both intregued and scared at the same time. We'll start from the top! For both men and women, the face is an important feature in a partner! I mean, we cant all just use paper bags on our lovers...paper bag companies would be filthy rich! For both sexes, it seems that a cheeky/smooth/cute smile and strong twinkling eyes that, quote "ones that make you melt and have your pants off before you know it...." seem the way to go! Hair is also an important feature. There are so many things you can actually do with hair, let alone what attracts the opposite sex. My tip - clean hair is kinda a default! Shampoo and condition boys and gals! Keep up with the trends obviously. You dont want anything that is sooo not in! Some oddities include those big lips, the "right" sized ears, and facial hair...men AND WOMEN! =\ Scary stuff! Heading down to the body, seems we all have different ideas of what we want! For women, many seem to like a tight butt and muscles left right and center! Seems a bit demanding, i know, but what tops the list is obliques, the muscles that run from the side to the groin area. Though, a unique bunch of gals have likes ranging from long fingers (quote: short and stubby fingers arent sexy >_<) to hairy legs. I guess that later seems to be something many guys wont have to worry about! Guys themselves can name many turn ons, such as legs, breasts, hips, abdominals, breasts, hair, lips, breasts, eyes, and did i mention breasts?!? Seems an important part, though, something that doesnt 100% dictate their actions, are these brests! Thats the message many advertising companies are pushing along! In fact, if it wern't for these induendo's made by the media, the next generation of men might not concentrate as much on these wonders of nature! Muscles for men are a turn OFF, so dont be heading off to the gym so hastily sisters! For both sexes however, we tend not to be attracted to the ends of the scales, suck has stick thin women or obese men, and vice versa! Put it this way, we dont want to lose our partner down a street drain, and we dont want to have to buy a steel enforced bed just to keep off the ground! Bottom line, we cant please EVERYONE, hell, its just as hard to please the MAJORITY let alone the MEDIA! But there are basic things we can all bank on. This must be said, for i still see people on the street, in the mall, etc etc, that dont wash their hair, wear extremely tight clothing with bodies that do not do the clothes themselves any justice, and, well, lets face it, faces that really weren't touched by god in any way shape or form! Those paper bag companies might be on to something... People! Presentable is important! Lets not go crazy with the make up though, just, well, if your looking to attract and catch the attention of the opposite sex, play 50% with your own touch, 25% with the defaults/media views and the other 25% by ear. Seems that this posts needs to be broken up! Thus, today i have brought to the couch the physical aspects of attraction! Next week: Personality wise, do my basket of goodies do the job?

I'm Back

I am back, by popular request. I have decided on a slightly modified format. I shall be removing "Today's Maths Lesson," renaming "Today's Grammar Lesson" to "This Week's Grammar Lesson" and adding "Word of the Week." I am in no way trying to detract from Bodie's last (and rather hilarious) submission. Please also read and comment on that. This Week's Grammar Lesson -- Nouns Each week I shall post another lesson. I shall start with the simple and work to the more difficult topics. I shall be disappointed if I catch anyone on 'The Couch' making a mistake that I have addressed. Definition Nouns are naming words. They name people, places, things, and ideas. Examples My friend Buddy has a Ph.D. in physics. The squirrel stole nuts from the chipmonk. My dog watches television in the evenings. The purpose of this exam is to scare the life out of you. The weight of gold is measured in karats. Definition In English, nouns are classified as either common or proper. Common nouns are general nouns: magnet, gargoyle, angel, orchid, subway, persimmon, petticoat. Common nouns do not begin with capital letters unless they start sentences. Proper nouns are nouns that refer to specific people, places, or things: Dmitri, Sisley, Scarlett O'Hara, Little Orphan Annie, Rutherford B. Hayes, Marlon Brando, Ichabod Crane, Zaire, Denmark, Alcatraz. Proper nouns always begin with capital letters. Word of the Week The word of the week will provide a challenge for those of you who choose to accept it. The challenge is to use as many words of the week in any sentence. There are two rules: the sentence must make perfect grammatical sense, and the sentence must be one for which you can provide a plausible situation in which it would be used. This week's word is quite an amusing one (in my opinion). DOXY n. A prostitute; also, surprisingly, a belief or religious doctrine.

Oh Schick!...How the war on terror was really a campaign by shaving companies to link beards to terrorism, hence making everyone shave

Paddy suggested it, and I thought, what the hell, what's the harm in doing so... It has often been suggested that the current "War On Terror" is actually a smokescreen for American capitalist imperialism taking hold of oil stocks in countries such as Iraq and, probably inevitably, Iran. Also, such megacorporations as Haliburtons, Microsoft and so on have gained lucrative contracts "rebuilding" Iraq, whereas in fact, as we all surmised, this is just a flimsy excuse to make flipping great wodges of cash. However, little attention has been paid to the possibility that there could be another side to this capitalist enterprise. Indeed, even the mundane aspects of life have been irrevocably altered by the war. I refer, of course, to the fine art of shaving. Here are three photographs for your perusal...they are of men possibly well-known to you. They are of men who no one in society who condemns senseless murder would want to emulate in any way. Osama bin Laden, head of al-Qaeda, officially the world's most wanted man. Bin Laden, of course, was behind the shocking attacks of 11 September 2001, but previously masterminded the attack on the USS Cole and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa. Abu Bakr Bashir, the head of Jemaah Islamiyah, the extremist Islamic organisation in Indonesia. Many believe Bashir was the force behind the 2002 Bali bombings. Abu Hamza, the fundamentalist Muslim cleric from Britain, who has recently been indicted by the US on charges of supporting al-Qaeda. Hamza has been an outspoken supporter of bin Laden. These guys all have three major things in common, besides being terrorists. Firstly, they are Muslim. However, as true Islam does not condone or even tolerate these shocking terrorist activities, it would be wrong to say that Islam itself is bad. Islam, like all other religions, is legitimate, and to say that all Muslims are terrorists because of a very minuscule number who are, is like saying that all Australians are murderers because of Martin Bryant, the Port Arthur killer. Secondly, they're all men. Surprise surprise. But I'm not a terrorist. So masculinity is not an important factor. Finally, they all have big beards. And this is where the crux of the matter is. No one wants to be identified as a terrorist sympathiser. But past instances has shown that people are identified due to generalisations: anyone in Bavaria in 1919 who carried a red flag, for example, was classed as a Communist and executed, despite the fact that the red flag was also the sign of chimney-sweeps who were in no way connected with Marxism. So let's consider how people think. I stress a lot that this is only very vague and does not show my own thoughts about the issue, I am only using generalisations that are apparent in the coverage of such issues. Terrorist = male + religious zeal + big beard So, what from this can we, the people partaking in these generalisations, change, in order not to be seen as a terrorist? It's pretty drastic to change one's gender, and most people will not change their religious beliefs for anything (and good on them, too). BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACIAL HAIR??? Let's also not forget the Taliban: the press reported many instances where men were flogged, or even killed, for not having enough of a chin growth. And no one likes to be thought of as either Taliban or one of the oppressed, do they? It's no coincidence that razor sales have gone up greatly since the September 11 attacks. In 2003, for instance, Gillette razor sales rose some 11% in the second financial quarter of the year, continuing a trend that began-you guessed it-in September-October 2001. People don't want to be thought of as terrorists. So, whereas a beard might once have been looked upon as chic, now people look for the Schick in order to get rid of said growth, or at least make it not so...Osama-ish. Not all beards are "bad", though. Juan Legaspi, for instance, sports a fashionable stubble, which makes him look decadently western and business-savvy...which is the look he wants. No one would ever accuse Osama bin Laden of being decadently western because hey, that's what he wants to destroy. Bodie Ashton sports a sorry excuse for a goatee-moustache combination, and it looks simply like I couldn't be bothered shaving because I'm a lazy university student. Scotsmen, too, can get away with having a bloody large beard, because Scotsmen are supposed to be big, burly individuals who wear tartan skirts and have big, red, curly, hedge-like facial hair exploding from their chins. It's when you start looking like Abu Hamza that people stroke their chin and reach for their trusty fridge magnet, to call that terrorist hotline the Federal Government set up. And that's what the shaving companies want. It's always been said that war is good for business. Now, it seems, Gillette are cashing in on that. Dust off the Mach3 Turbo razor, guys...

Ranting and raving

Greetings and toast everyone. Bodie Ashton is back in the land of the living (ie. not the Bodie Mansion, where the phone line has gone belly-up), and I'm in the mood to rant. However, this one's a little different than the last few times. This time, I'm wanting to refer to my most recent Casbah post about heroes and heroism, or specifically, the response I received from that. I'm over the moon that there were some twelve comments to that post. It's good to know that my posts end up doing what I want them to do: provoke thought and lively discussion. After all, this is what the Couch Casbah is here for: it's a public forum for the airing of ideas and opinions. But I'd like to focus, and if necessary, rebut some comments left on the post. Let's start off with the most critical of my original post: Stephanie: "Your appraisal of the mass-media reflects little understanding of journalistic practice in contemporary culture. In perhaps puerile terms, the journalist is a storyteller- and an inherent feature of every narrative is the existence of heroes and villains. Your post suggests that the very nature of heroism has been corrupted by opportunistic agents of an elusive and ill-defined 'free printmedia', and that we, an easily led public, blindy accept this 'trivialised' and diluted definition of true bravery. It's simply untrue." [...] "You are no more qualified to determine what constitutes heroism than any other person. We all have heroes and idols. Just because they don't save lives, or place themselves in physical danger, does not render them any less heroic. The father who labours from 7am-7pm, in order to provide for his family, is a kind of hero. The unfortunate soldier charged with thankless latrine duties, who works in abhorrent conditions under enemy fire, is a hero. The passengers of an ill-fated helicopter journey, scheduled to deliver aid in the devasted Aceh region, are also heroes, having placed themselves at risk, (which you duly acknowledged) in order to assist the less fortunate. An unwell man, held captive by violent and irrational extremists, for political purposes with which he is not involved, demonstrated poise and courage in a period of exceptional adversity. In emerging from this ordeal (relatively) unscathed, even Douglas Wood, he of ostensibly suspicious financial motives, is a kind of hero." First of all, I believe your idea of what a journalist is leaves a bit to be desired...and yes, I am well aware that you are studying journalism. But that doesn't make you a recognised expert on the subject. I study history. I am not an historian, and I do not believe I am, at this point in time, able to claim that I have superior and intimate knowledge of the historian's work, simply because it's what I study. Why do I not like your opinion of journalism, Stephanie? Quite simply, because it is not the obligation of the journalist to craft a story within which one can find virtue, tyranny, and the battle of good versus evil. Rather, the journalist has the obligation to report events, circumstances and situations as objectively as possible, in order to provide information to the public. Yes, there is always some form of subjectivity, but that should be acknowledged so that the public can create their own informed opinions on a variety of subjects. This is the ideal, this is what all journalists should strive for. If they want to make heroes and villains, they have no right peddling their wares as they do, as informative tomes. Furthermore, the public is easily led and blind to reason in these instances, if you will forgive the generalisation. This is the reason why such things as propaganda exist: because they are successful, because given enough prompting the public will blindly follow anything that sounds like it has any foundations in authority and reason. The media is one of these authorities. We rely on the mass media to provide us with information about the outside world; they are, if you'll forgive the hackneyed analogy, the eyes and ears of our society. Unfortunately, it seems that the media wears colour-shaded glasses and has selective hearing... It then seems odd that you, as a student of journalism, can then deny the very reason journalism and the media exist; as I stated earlier, the media is there so we can craft our own opinions. Yet you seem to think that I have no right to my opinion that Douglas Wood, Ted Smout, and indeed many others, do not deserve the title of hero or idol. If it were indeed the case that opinions should be censored, as you evidently believe by saying that I have no right to opine, then I should surely have deleted your comment, because I don't believe you to be right. But I wouldn't want to do that. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'm just disagreeing with you, as I have a right to. I have further problems with your comment, but I don't want it to seem like I'm just dismissing your opinion out of hand. Certainly not. It's well thought out. The fact that I've bothered to respond indicates this. Jacob: "The only argument i can possibly add as a counter(well, sorta) argument to bodie's rant, is that the journalists are too dimwitted to find a more appropriate word for someone that 'got into a difficult situation but escaped somehow' or had an unfortunate accident befall them." As our good friend Stephanie indicated beforehand, the media provides what the public wants. While, as I have already stated, the obligation of the journalists lies with objectively presenting information, there is equally no doubt that stories are embellished, detailed avoided, others exaggerated, in order to create something for which we will buy newspapers and watch television. After all, what evokes more emotive images than the word 'hero'? One's mind turns to a swashbuckling character, Zorro-like, going through great adversity for their fellow man with naught but a gleaming smile and a kind word or two. Then we realise that this 'hero' is an odious expatriate who went to another country to exploit the impoverished masses and make money, got caught by militants, got rescued and now makes even more money from the whole episode. Sure, we feel let down. But we still spent money and time reading and watching, and that's all that matters. So yes, it may seem that the journalists are too dim-witted to find another word to use, but in actual fact they are being shrewd and devious, and it is in fact we, the lay public, who are dim-witted for constantly getting sucked in by their promises of a 'real' hero. Stephanie: "Thank Christ there was not a shred of academic rationale in your comment, Jacob." To be perfectly honest, Stephanie, my original post didn't have any academic rationale. But that doesn't make it any less correct in my view or, indeed, in other people's views. In a similar fashion, I like Eskimo Joe. You think they're boring. There's no academic merit to either opinion, but they are both as correct as each other. Jacob: "i came here to rant steph, not write a fucked up english essay. who needs academics when the plain truth and sheer annoyance with the world of news "medium" (are you happy jason?!)can get the message across without having to stoop so low as to use or need "academic rationale". waste someone elses time with your argumentative bullshit and bullying. your not always right, and the argument you posted is proof. GOOD DAY!!" Angus: "To Stephanie: Note the Casbah's slogan (at time of publishing)of "In Rant We Trust". That's RANT, not REASONED ACADEMIC DEBATE. To Jacob: Stephanie is invoking her God because if you made a decent academic argument she would be forced to defend her point from your roguish desecration and drag this unseemly debate further" To both Angus and Jacob, there's nothing wrong with being academic in one's assertions. I disagree with the claim that an argument is invalid just because it is not necessarily academic (see above), but so too do I disagree with the assertion that a rant cannot be academic in any way, shape or form. Juan's post on the market economy was a prime example of a good academic rant. Stephanie's original comment is another, and while you and I disagree with her view, it was not a waste of time. You responded to it, and so am I. Obviously, if we're taking the time to reply, we think it worthy of comment. And Angus, the point of my post was to lead to a reasoned debate. There is no point in making a blanket statement if you cannot back it up with some form of evidence. So thanks to everyone for commenting, but don't forget to keep it civil. And last but not least to Jason, in the modern era, 'media' is referred to as singular, and correct or incorrect, I shall adhere to social norms. -The end- (yep, this could have been a News Limited fairy-tale if I wanted it to be...)