Even though I'm overweight I can buy suits off the rack so the advice in the first link to lose weight would apparently push me away from average.
That Wall Street Journal piece is gendered as all hell.
On average, humans have one testicle. But the average person does not have one testicle.
I read the second link, also liked him, but disagree with this:
It's not that you can't use statistics, it's just that you don't use group statistics.
For one thing, that's just not going to happen (to use one extreme example, LD50 is a group statistic, and it's still useful), for another, I feel like you could accomplish a lot just by asking people to always publish standard deviation along with the averages, and for summaries to report it as a range (e.g., "The average height for a woman in the US is 5' 3" - 5' 7" rather than, "The average height is "5' 4.6').
Ugh. The first was a combo of gender normative bullshit and common sense advice framed in the worst way possible. Like, the fifth one was "don't be an inconsiderate asshole" which somehow requires game theory. Though I guess if you need game theory to understand that, you're probably an inconsiderate asshole.
Also, my hypothesis is that people who write articles about how they've figured out relationships generally have pretty miserable ones. We know this woman shuts up and does the dishes because it's easier to do all the housework than fight with your sexist spouse, has sex like it's a daily chore, is terrified of gaining weight (see sexist spouse), and has to treat kindness like some sort of contract negotiation.
3- Actually it's more like 1.005 although the number goes up as people age- at birth it's only 0.966.
5: common sense advice framed in the worst way possible
So much this. No article about marriage should contain the words "think like a game theorist." WTactualF.
Also, my hypothesis is that people who write articles about how they've figured out relationships generally have pretty miserable ones.
The paradox of "self-help" writing generally. Many of the people motivated to do it are actually the last people you should be taking advice from.
has sex like it's a daily chore
To be fair, this is the hottest kind of sex.
9: and, conversely, do your daily chores as though you were having sex. Every Saturday, spend nine and a half minutes haphazardly hoovering and then fall asleep for eight hours.
The dumbest part of the first article was that it seemed to be directed at women when there's no reason why anything she mentioned wouldn't apply to both partners in any marriage, irrespective of whether hetero or same sex. Though no way in hell am I going to give up wearing sweatpants around the house.
10: When I got my dick stuck in the garbage disposal, the EMTs did not maintain a professional demeanor.
Also, my hypothesis is that people who write articles about how they've figured out relationships generally have pretty miserable ones.
Nah. The Paradox of Coaching.
Great Players usually make bad coaches. Average "players" make good coaches for average players. And the motivation to coach is what makes them.
AFAIK, works in almost all fields. You don't study Joyce to become a novelist, you study Zane Grey, S King, Cartland. Unless you will be on Joyce's level.
On average, humans have one testicle.
One might think that the average would be slightly less than one, as there are more female humans than males, and some males have fewer than two testicles. But when you take George Washington into account . . .
7 to 15, although 13 is a counterexample since Apo's count apparently went down as he got older.
I found the first one really funny, because it was very clearly supposed to look egalitarian/for couples, and would occasionally gesture at men in passing before returning to using male pronouns for the person the target of the advice was supposed to do all these things for. It was like it was written directly as "advice for wives" and then he realized how obviously, ridiculously sexist it was and tried to go back and fix it to make it gender neutral. Only, because he is a giant sexist, he still couldn't do it convincingly at all and it ended up being a really transparent sham.
But I am not so clear as to what "good, average and bad" would entail in relationship knowledge and skills.
Is someone who readily makes friendships but can't or won't keep them good or bad?
Did Mickey Rooney write a book?
Or, looking back it, she. I just assumed from how stupid and offensive it was that it was written by a man, but apparently not.
I also cracked up at this bit:
And what's marriage, if not a union between two trading partners?
I mean, I'm not an expert on love or marriage or anything but I feel like there's supposed to be more to it than that.
Still double-dangled, but you would not believe how many garbage disposals I have had to buy. Those extended warranties are useless.
20: Just replace one last year.
They last about three years, cost $100
I try not to sweat shit that cost less than donuts or movies.
Bob, there's a fuse for when it jams- if the red button pops out, use a hex wrench to turn it in the opposite direction it normally goes, which will remove the jammed item, then push the button back in. We still have the same disposal that came with the house 11 years ago.
12: Yes, that's what's so annoying. All of that advice might be good advice, if aimed at *both* couples.
Initiate sex more, both of y'all. Do whatever chores need doing, both of y'all. Get more exercise, both of y'all. You know, that's good advice.
(Though I don't see anything wrong with sweats, frankly.)
18: Rooney wrote a memoir titled Life is Too Short, published by Villard Books in 1991. A Library Journal review said that "From title to the last line, `I'll have a short bier', Rooney's self-deprecating humor powers this book." He wrote a novel about a child star, published in 1994, The Search For Sunny Skies.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Rooney
As far as OP1 goes, whatever. If you enjoy doing those things, they may or may not work for you, depending on your partner. If you are miserable doing those things, I suspect your relationship will suffer in other ways.
There ya go.
My suckitude at extended relationships is legendary. Also, don't enjoy them, don't want any, and don't approve of them in general.
Why can't we all treat each other like strangers and guests, anyway? WWJD?
I agree. Jung would definitely put out.
Jesus would put out too. You know, give unto Caesar and all that.
But would Jung or Jesus wash the dishes? I'm thinking not.
Is there a more hateable title than "Spousonomics?"
Did Jesus need to lose weight?
Jesus obviously would just turn the dishes into extra wine/loaves/fishes, thus making him the most eligible of all trading partners.
30: Not after 40 days getting His fast on, desert-style! #fitspo #Lent #gettheebehindmeSatanandcheckmysquatform
Totally agree with 5 and 23. The piece of advice that nobody is discussing yet is "talk less."
I concur in objecting to the personality the writer is projecting, I also object to her scoping the advice generically. Yes, there are blabbermouths who lack boundaries and blend repeated petty complaint with complaints about deeper problems. For them, sure.
But also possible is to express very little personal feeling before the point of rage. Or to be willfully deaf about something apparently small, like maybe the dishes, which then become an actual synecdoche for deeper failings in the relationship. In that dynamic, backing down and talking less is a mistake. Which television spouses should get this advice? Not Carmela Soprano. How about the brilliantly realized Lois in Malcolm in the Middle? Is "talk less" good advice for her?
Framing the discussion in economic terms suggests she's an idiot as well as a jerk, unless maaaybe it's just a pose to get an editor or publisher interested.
"Talk less" is an extra-gendered swipe at "nag less", which has a kernel of truth in it but is also already gendered.
Locusts are definitely paleo. Honey presumably likewise, unless disqualified by carbs.
33: Shouldn't Carmela not stay married to a murderer, thief and racketeer, rather than restrategize her communication objectives?
36. a) What about the kids? b) Catholicism c) He's trying, kind of, there's all this money, and she kind of loves him. d) How well is asking for divorce likely to work out, given hidden money and his professional life?
Would you equally blithely suggest that Roseanne break up with what's-his-face, or Lois with Hal? I'm not sure you're up to the rigors of participating in telenovela fantasy football.
37: Yeah, what are you thinking, Flip? Maybe Carmela could leave Tony and get her own TV show? And then she could ask for a higher salary? Spousonomics, indeed!
It's a bit early in the conversation for going meta-Marxist.
Also, I feel more could be done with my social media fitness model Jesus conceit. #messiahgoals
40: I think the Jesus diet has already been done, but there may be a place in the market for the Jesus workout.
40. Flips, I have a cousin who peddles dietary supplements and healthy lifestyle enthusiasm on fb. I strongly suspect that she's incapable of detecting irony. If you are sufficiently interested, I bet there's a way I could put the two of you in touch.
#Barabbasabs #INRIthezone #PontiusPilates
#brodoyoueventakeawaythesinsoftheworld
#PontiusPilates
"What is truth?" asked jesting Pilate, and flexed his lats.
19. Obviously the US and China should have more sex.
neb, you get me. #onthisrockibuildmysquad #squadgoals
It's a shame the name "CrossFit" is already taken.
"Talk less" is an extra-gendered swipe at "nag less"
I would be so much calmer and happier if the rest of my household talked less, but best I can figure they are all concerned that they might cease to exist if they stop making noise. Nagging isn't even the problem. It's just talking for the sheer sake of talking, and not even to anybody specific. I really don't need a full narration of your internal monologues, fam. Seriously, I spare you mine (because roughly a quarter of it is "shutupshutupshutupshutup").
As someone who has gone months without conversation, I can definitely relate to that part of the OP and apo. Talk less.
||
Which...maybe after this post scrolls down a bit I will write some thoughts on the classic masterpiece anime I just finished Cross Game. 50 episodes of a romance with a terminal Tsundere built around a HS baseball team.
"lovestruck kindergartener who pushes you into the sandbox." The reasons behind a Tsundere's behavior vary widely, but usually boil down to the conflict between their feelings of affection towards a love interest, and their reaction to having those feelings.
Secondary character cleanup hitter is named Azuma. Azuma literally cannot remember anyone who is not useful or interesting to him. You can sit next to him in class for three years and if he meets you on the street he will go "Do I know you from somewhere? Oh. Ok" Then it will be the same next time. This is of course funny. Is Azuma dysfunctional, hostile, harmful?
Nobody talks much at all in Cross Game. It is the mangaka Adachi Mitsura's style to always always show not tell. When Azuma simply says "Hi Kyoko!" the first time a whole heart is revealed.
Post point: I may be tsundere*. Or just borderline.
But nagging can be intense affection, and compliments and affection can be controlling hostility. People are different and complicated, and I fucking hate rules.
*the gendering is complicated.
|>
52. Explain helpfully that Northwest coast native people have a tradition of using the talking stick during meetings. Have the youngsters embark on the weeks-long task of making the elaborate staff in the garage, while other members of the household prepare snacks to sustain them.
I agree 110% with the critique of the WSJ article.
That said, to apo's 52, I have consistently found that I am most exhausted by spending time with people who think by talking. I can't figure out what it feels like to be them -- except I know it's the polar opposite from how I like to think, in part because it feels (whether true or not) that they want a live human sounding board to their thinking-out-loud.* I generally don't want people around at all when I'm trying to think.
*I may be especially touchy about this because I once worked for someone who ate up enormous amounts of valuable time with this behavior.
55. I remember some "making better teams" stuff where everyone could wear a special hat (really a bicycle helmet) to indicate their current mood and how much they wanted to talk.
56. I'll sign on that. It annoys me enormously to have talk to or meet with people whose only way of thinking or communicating is to talk out loud. Can't they write an email? Can't they put forward their ideas on (virtual) paper? People who read their slides: worse than H*tl*r.
Thankfully my co-workers are not "think out loud" types, which means I don't get over-exposed (and I would get cranky quickly). So I can say that there can be value to listening to somebody process verbally, but that it does fall under the rubric of "emotional labor" if you're expected to pay attention and help them sort things out.
Hah. I am those people. I mean, I don't do it to people who aren't okay listening to me think, but I'm about twice as smart if I'm talking out loud about the problem to a helpful person.
Remember Idealist, who used to comment here? He had the office next to mine two jobs ago. About once a day, I'd walk into his office to ask him something that required me to go into about five minutes of detail to explain the problem. By the time I'd explained it, I usually left without needing an answer to whatever I was asking, because I'd figured it out. Surprisingly, he didn't seem to mind.
I'm also one of those people. One thing that works for me is IMing people who aren't necessarily there. My hey *might* be there, so it feels like talking, but often they're not there so it's less annoying for them.
I am with LB. My last job was great because I had a few cubemates who worked the same way, so we could all drop stuff for a few minutes. My favorite is iterative problem solving where I have part of a solution, and someone will fill in the gap, and then I can circle back and improve on their suggestion.
That's how I hold office hours: I make the student talk and they end up figuring it out, 9 times out of 10.
Hah. I am those people.
Even as somebody who doesn't like to be interrupted, five minutes once a day is not much of an imposition.
The thing I miss most about journalism, and especially about working with my great frenemy, is being able to yell out "What's another word for 'quotidian'? No, more like 'banal', but not as strong?" and getting le mot juste yelled back. Sigh.
I'm with LB too. "Let me run this by you." And it's usually faster and more to the point for all concerned than if I were to write an email. Also more entertaining.
No, I'm not talking about what LB is talking about. It's not people who want to talk things out sometimes because bouncing ideas off of someone else is a good way to figure out your own thinking when you're stuck. I'm pretty sure that's a human trait -- goodness knows I do it from time to time, and almost everyone I've ever worked with has too.
I'm talking about people who process every.single.thing out loud, and especially the subset of people who expect you to listen to an enormous monologue -- which if it were on paper would be like reading an entire chapter of Faulkner, nonstandard punctuation and all -- and then sift from that the salient parts, reorder them, and repeat it back in a way that makes them feel smart for having expressed their question so well.
I think I may still be a bit bitter about this.
Well, I sure won't be asking Witt to babysit my three-year-old!
Fine for a three-year-old, but in another grownup an illustration of Laurie Penny's argument. Unless an actual boss?
For me, the most egregious bit of the first one was her example of dividing chores by comparative advantage, and the thing that the husband gets assigned is 'call his parents'--but it's framed as if it would be entirely natural for this to have been the wife's job. Anyway, the author needs to be forced to read all 700 pages of the MeFi emotional labor thread. (Although the book/WSJ post is 5 years old now.)
68: I doubt Witt has many three-year-old colleagues--I bet she'd be a grand babysitter. She was very good with Noser and Rilee at the 'con!
69, 71: I agree that it's age-appropriate there, but I can also assure you it's not much less annoying. (The story where supposedly her teacher Ms. Kasi said "whatever!" followed by each member of the class by name saying "whatever!" in exactly the same tone of voice was sort of amazing and adorable but so, so long.)
What Witt said in 67. What LB et al. are talking about doing is normal human interaction or co-worker problem solving, not constant noise.
I get the feeling that Witt is writing about one specific person here, a person of a type nobody else has met.
Oh, you've met that person. They sit at their computer and talk to themselves all day. "Okay I will just move that to here, okay, and then--wait why did that happen? Grr. Okay, second try, move this to here and then... Right, better. And copy, and paste, apply format, yes! Next page, same thing... Gah, this stupid chair, lift back up. Alright. Where was I? Right, right, right here. Hey, is it hot in here to you, apo? No, just me? Okay."
I get the impression that Witt is talking about people who can't get to the point and ramble, digress, and go off on tangents, burying the point of what they are saying in verbiage that needs to be cleared out like underbrush. I've certainly run into people like this. They tend to be stupid.
I don't know when apo met my wife. Some meet-up I wasn't invited to?
8: I believe that financial self-help advice is the worst for this. "I was $100K in credit card debt and I can help you!"
78: Maybe that will be Kanye's next project.
And man, is that first article awful. Hey, it's not that I'm not doing the chores! She's just naturally better at all of the daily tasks, so I do the once-a-year chores. We're just specializing. Kind of cool that you can get a book contract *defending* the second shift.
74, 75: I've met them, but they're fortunately rare. People like 76 are more common; I don't know that it's "stupid", but often they haven't done the preparatory thought, so it comes at you stream of consciousness style.
One of the many ways that my MIL is an unbearable presence is that she talks to herself in roughly a 75 mode. In fact, holy shit, on Christmas day, we're all sitting around the living room, quietly enjoying our books and devices, and she's doing the fucking crossword puzzle OUT LOUD. And you know, it's not really the Christmas spirit to bludgeon someone, but that's the only reason she's still alive.
79: OT, but he did a completely shit job of working the crowd at SNL last week. He came up on stage and demanded that everyone in the audience stand up, but there wasn't any music playing at the time and there weren't any other attempts to interact with the crowd, so we all just stood there looking bored. I'm sure that the format--come back from commercial break, then play a song--makes things a little awkward, but he wasn't helping. He did the same annoyed "everyone STAND UP!" thing for the second song as well, to as little effect.
I'm sure that the format--come back from commercial break, then play a song--makes things a little awkward
I don't think I buy that at all, actually. ISTM that the performer--especially a vocalist who doesn't need to make sure his instrument is all ready to go--has the opportunity to come out as soon as they go to commercial, spend 2-3 minutes hyping up the audience, then priming them to go quiet for the intro, then go NUTS when they say his name. Plus, it's half an hour into the show; in theory, everybody's warmed up and primed to cheer, as long as he expends a little effort to get them on his side.
This wouldn't be applicable to every artist, of course, but my point is that, if the guy wants the audience to be hyped, he needs to be the change.
if the guy wants the audience to be hyped, he needs to be the change.
You tell that to Kanye.
I hate this person with an intensity only Madeline Kahn could do justice to.
Off topic except to the extent that the topic is bad people, but more indictments coming down for the Bundy ranch stuff. It looks the Feds are aiming for "all of them die in jail" sentences, which seems about right to me. And hopefully even more of the people involved will eventually find themselves in similar trouble as well.
Jesus would put out too.
And treat it like a household chore. Namely, making meals. Three times a day...laydeez.
91 Loaves and fishes. IYKWIM AITYD.
91 reminds me that there's an okcupid question about ideally how often you would want to have sex once a relationship stabilizes, which I'm sure is worded better than this, and I'm curious if there's a standard way to guess what fraction of the answer given is true. Or possibly I'm just being completely paranoid and it doesn't matter because I'm not really bothering with okcupid. But this one, unlike "teaching the controversy" about creationism/evolution or whether people who aren't smart should be allowed to reproduce, isn't something I use to weed people out from any contact ever and so not all that important in the scheme of things. I'm just curious.
Yep, I was there. And your right, J Roth, he certainly missed all opportunities to work the crowd,and didn't seem aware of us at all while performing. I actually laughed at how underwhelmed Melissa McCarthy sounded while introducing him.
93 is an interesting question. It seems like it would be pretty different for women interested in women than for women interested in men. Then it could be deceptive for someone like Sting who would say maybe only twice a week, but that would mean you would just have time for a short bathroom break in between sessions.
ideally how often you would want to have sex once a relationship stabilizes
Once a relationship gives way to torpor and drudgery, you mean?Good question.
Sure, McQueen, but some find providing three meals a day (plus snacks?) drudgery! It takes all types.
93 is remarkably on point for the post title. It's almost remarkable that nobody asked the question earlier in the thread.
Let's all share our salaries, SAT scores and frequency of sex in our relationships.
I may actually have been misreading it, but now that I'm home I've checked that the actual question is Once you're intimate, how often would you and your significant other have sex? I suppose that might mean just once your relationship becomes sexual and not once sex isn't new anymore, but the latter is how I took it.
90: Where to start? I guess actually I'm responding as much to the video I watched before reading the article, so maybe quotes from that will help: "the buyers tend to be these brilliant people...you pretty much need to be hyper-educated to be able to afford this area and I would say just to quantify, probably about a 20-30 point higher IQ score than the sellers....There's been some anger directed at techies and certainly international buyers about long-term residents being displaced from this area....the techies who are working these amazingly long hours and tend to be really brilliant, great people, I'm for that, and just because somebody grew up in this area for a while, I think the person who is working hard at Google has more of a right to be here than somebody just because their parents were here and they complain they can't afford a home. I would say just work harder. Get more education is my advice to them."
But then also in the article he talks about how money really isn't important to him, which is just delightful from someone who obviously has tons of it.
In fairness, the video made me roll my eyes just as hard at the people making the video about how hard it was to afford living in Palo Alto and were all "gosh my needs are simple! myah myah my faaaaamily..."
Shorter all of this: my distaste for this area has metastasized into an on-again off-again contempt for a large swath of humanity, but the guy in paragraphs 1 and 2 is still a shit stain.
Further to 102, although I don't think people should actually answer this here, your options are:
1. Every day.
2. About every other day
3. Once or twice a week
4. A few times a month or less
As with many okcupid questions, the options aren't necessarily very satisfying or pertinent.
102: I would definitely read it the other way from you. The qualifier is just there to establish that OKC≠Tindr. That is, there's an expected gap between meeting and becoming intimate, and that's when you start counting from.
That said, ISTM that the question as you take it is more informative. I mean, most romantic relationships start with a passionate phase with a lot of sex; the question is what is the preferred norm once you're able to keep your hands off each other.
103: I feel dumber each time I pay my rent.
The qualifier is just there to establish that OKC≠Tindr
Except when OKC does = Tinder.
I hate this person with an intensity only Madeline Kahn could do justice to.
Speaking of hateable people, this article seems like unfogged fodder.
Castro is accustomed to powerful men listening to what he says -- and why wouldn't they? More personal transformer than trainer, he receives as much as $15,000 a month to turn Wall Street heavyweights into svelte chick magnets.
He applied a crash-course live-in regimen for one Wall Street whale who needed to drop 100 pounds in 11 weeks for his wedding. The client, Joe D., who declined to give his last name for privacy reasons, lost a total of 112 pounds -- and gave Castro a $25,000 bonus.
Another client, bond broker Matt D'Avanzo, 41, reached out to Castro after being called "a fat f - - k" by his wife. Four years later, his weight has dropped from 230 pounds to 165; he's now in the midst of a divorce and dating a 29-year-old hottie.
Another client, bond broker Matt D'Avanzo, 41, reached out to Castro after being called "a fat f - - k" by his wife. Four years later, his weight has dropped from 230 pounds to 165; he's now in the midst of a divorce and dating a 29-year-old hottie.
Well, that sounds like a happy ending for all concerned. How nice!
There's a short list of behaviors where my sympathy is with the guy dating the 29-year old hottie, but being called a fat fuck by his wife is on that list.
To be honest, if he's a bond broker he is probably called that, repeatedly, by pretty much everyone he interacts with professionally.
And of course we all condemn the sort of sexist spouse who imposes this sort of pressure on her husband.
Plus, 41/29 is totally acceptable per the formula.
112 was me.
The pressure to be a bond trader? Of course.