I've got a few beefs with Facebook that I've been looking forward to airing out on this here blog. The problem is, the theme of this string of posts has been 'people that I can't hang out with' and therein lies the problem. Facebook, in it's very essence, is all about not having to hang out with people. So really, I'll be talking about people that I can't hang out with because of the way they use a website which makes it so that I never have to hang out with them. Does that make sense? No? That's ok, I kind of got lost in that mishmash of logic myself…
Anyways, there's a lot of ways that Facebook can (and most certainly does) annoy. Pictures of the food you're about to eat. New high scores that you've achieved in Farmville. That clever status update about how you're so glad the weekend is finally here. I don't know. Maybe that's the very minutia upon which Facebook gained it's popularity. Maybe deep down those are the details about you that people really do want to see and know. The peak behind the curtain that is the mundane in each and every one of our lives. I mean, 955 million active users can't be wrong… right? But for me, that's the sort of stuff I can do without. I don't know, maybe I'd miss it once it was gone. But for now, I tend to skim past most of it.
But again, these are just minor annoyances. Nothing to make it so that I can't hang out with you. Just things I could do without. And then there's the ones that go beyond. The ones not only could I do without, but also want to make me feed you your keyboard one button at a time and strangle you with the mouse cord. Wait... the wireless mouse cord? Dammit. Anyways, without further adieu, they are:
Photo etiquette. If you take the time to post photos, I'll probably take the time to look at them. I might even grace you with a witty comment or two, depending on how generous I'm feeling. By clicking accept on that friendship request that you sent, I've basically declared that I have an interest in your life. Not just to you, but also to myself. I'm not one to try and have every single person I've ever met appear on my friends list, simply so that I feel popular. No, I consider myself fairly selective, and as such, the number of 'friends' I keep isn't very high. It could probably even be trimmed down by another 20 to 40 people, but for now, it's a manageable amount. So, as long as the album doesn't sound like the most boring thing ever posted in the history of the internet, chances are I'll click far enough in that I'll at least glance at the thumbnail view of the whole album.
Most of the time it's a few quick snaps from the wedding you were at on the weekend. If I'm lucky, it's pictures of you and your bikini clad friends frolicking amongst the waves of some Caribbean paradise. Sometimes it's the aforementioned food that you made for dinner. Either way, it's rarely a waste of my time, and at worst, a mild annoyance. Until you get to one of the offending albums. The albums that make you regret ever having signed up for Facebook in the first place. The camera dump. 250 pictures that easily could have been edited down to 40. Ten of the same shot, while you try to get one where everyone's eyes are open and cousin Billy isn't picking his nose. 20 pictures of your kid on the swing. Look, we don't mind your kid. He's kind of cute. But pick the best one (I'll even let you have two or sometimes three) and let's move on. I might say 'aww…' when I see the first pic, just like you had hoped I would when you posted it. But what good is it, if by the time I get to picture number 30, I start cursing the kid's name? Look, I get it, he's having the time of his life in each and every picture. They're all great, well composed shots, and it's hard to choose which is actually the best. But do it. For the love of all that is good, just do it.
If you're a glutton for punishment - which I am - then you might keep on scrolling. And that's when you get to the pictures whose sole purpose seems to be to annoy me. I'm talking about the ones that haven't been properly rotated (once upon a time this might have been acceptable… but in today's day and age, where it takes just one click of the mouse to get it right, it's a complete and utter slap in the face) or the out of focus ones, or the ones of the ground that you accidentally snapped while pulling the camera out of it's case. I know what you've done. You plugged in the camera and clicked 'upload all'. You think we'll be able to realize and accept this. But all it says to me is that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to edit or arrange the pictures, so why should I take the time to look at them?
I could probably go on for days about proper photo album etiquette. But I won't. You see, there's one more thing that must be addressed, and I'd better get it off my chest now. Status etiquette. You know what a status is, right? Where you type a little blurb and post it for other's to see. Sometimes it's a funny joke. Some times it's a serious announcement. Sometimes it's just simply what you did today. Since it can be almost anything and everything, it's wide open to the annoyances that can come from the unchecked masses that use them. I could probably write a whole book on this. But I'm going to limit it to just one. The one that annoys me the most. The Tease.
If you're at all like me, then you know it well. When someone posts something so juicy, so intriguing, so ripe with drama and melodrama, that you must know more. But more is something you will never get. For they have worded this post in such a way as to completely draw you in, but at the same time, leave out any details that might let you know what is actually going on. For example, a post might read: 'Oh my god! I can't believe this has happened!!!!' Intriguing, right? They could have just been proposed to by their boyfriend, or their mom might have been hit by a car. It could go either way. The only thing we know for sure is that they would not post such a thing if they stubbed their toe or couldn't find the remote control. No, one of your friends could be experiencing a life changing event, and you need to know what it is so that you can offer your help and support if the worst has happened, or your congratulations and well-wishes if the best has happened.
Worst yet, I'm not even the first to read this post. Thirty other people have already responded. Comments along the lines of 'What happened?', 'This sounds serious, what's going on?', etc… But do you ever respond to these queries? Do you leave a comment to explain the situation? No. Not a peep. And this is where the confusion comes in. If the matter is too serious to discuss on Facebook, why post it there in the first place? If it really is serious, your real friends probably already know, so again, why post it? If it's not serious at all, then really, you're just after the attention that comes from such a post, and are the worst kind of person.
Either way, I can't (fake) hang out with you (on the internet).
Friday, August 24, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part IV)
I'm not a monster. Please, try to keep that in mind as you read this.
Look, I like pets as much as the next person. Obviously not as much as some people, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, I like pets, plenty. The problem is: I like pets. Pets. Not four legged friends that we pretend are people. Pets are not people. And that's a line that's become far too blurry in recent years.
Pets are great. They make great companions. They liven up the home. They improve your quality of life. It doesn't take long before pets are basically a part of the family. I get it. I really do. I've loved many pets over the years. And I've always looked back fondly at the time we spent together.
But there is a line. And too many people cross it. I'm talking about the outgoing voice mail (or answering machine, back in the day) where a family might add the dog to the list of names that is read out, as if someone might be calling to leave a message for "Jim, Jane, little Todd or Rover." Or the Christmas card signed from everyone, including the cats. Hilarious, right? Everyone that hears that voicemail is going to crack right up and declare: "Leave a message for Rover? How deliciously absurd!" Or, "How could Mittens sign that Chrismas card? He must think he's people!"
Now, I'm no expert in comedy. And why should I shit all over it, so long as the family is getting a smile or two out of doing it? But I must. It's like seeing a prop comic get out his trunk full of zany gags. It's just a lowly form of humour, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to look down my nose at it.
And here's the problem: much like your newborn child, nobody likes your pet as much as you do. Nobody. You've spend hours and days and years growing to love all the little quirks and nuances that make your pet unique and great. I'm not try to discredit that. I think it's a great part of life. But stop being so determined that everyone must love your pet as much as you do. They never will. Sure, there's nothing wrong with bringing your dog to the lake with friends, or letting your cat sit on their lap and receive a good rub. But knock it off with the Christmas cards and voicemail messages. And for all that is good and holy, don't create Facebook accounts for your pets and then post messages as if they were the ones typing them. Bingo says: "I buried a bone in the back yard today." Really? Seek professional help. Please.
Which brings me to the main topic of debate for this post. Because up until now we've discussed some pretty harmless scenarios. Sure, they might annoy, but big deal; some people are annoying. We can learn to live with it. But what about when it starts to affect that person's life? What about when the vet bills start to creep into the thousands? The ten thousands? I know two separate cases in which people have spent over $6000 and $10,000 respectively on their dogs. And, like I said at the start, I like to think I'm not a monster, but seriously people? It's a pet. I'm not suggesting you don't love that pet. But at the end of the day, it's just a pet.
So am I a monster? Once you truly love a living thing, can you no longer assign a dollar value to it's life? Or should people just accept that death is an inevitable part of having a pet. And it's never easy, but eventually it will come to pass. Sometimes your time with a pet ends quickly and suddenly, sometimes it lasts longer than you could have ever hoped. Sometimes it's not fair, other times maybe you cling on to a pet that's in pain for a little while too long. I'm not trying to deny or trivialize a person's love for their pet, but I still don't think people should be spending that kind of money (or worse yet, going into debt) just to squeeze a few more years of life out of a pet, whose life - for one reason or another - would probably have otherwise come to an end.
Look, their heart might be in the right place - attachment and devotion can be a tricky beast, after all. But at the end of the day, the head should make the final decision. The logical decision. If you think that's too cold and heartless, maybe you're right. Maybe I am. But this is simply my opinion, and these are the people I can't hang out with. Maybe you can.
Actually, saying I can't hang out with such a person is a bit of a stretch. Really, I just think we fall on different sides of the argument between a person that accepts a pet for what it is, and a person that is endlessly devoted to these animals, no matter what the cost. That said, don't get me started on people that take their pets to therapists, or the fact that pets are allowed on planes nowadays. Those people have definitely crossed the line. The ever-increasingly blurred line that separates pet from person. You can love a pet. You can adore a pet. You should never abuse a pet or mistreat it. But if you treat a pet that much as though it were a human being - and often times, even better than you treat other human beings - then I'm sorry, but you're someone that I just can't hang out with.
Look, I like pets as much as the next person. Obviously not as much as some people, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. But, I like pets, plenty. The problem is: I like pets. Pets. Not four legged friends that we pretend are people. Pets are not people. And that's a line that's become far too blurry in recent years.
Pets are great. They make great companions. They liven up the home. They improve your quality of life. It doesn't take long before pets are basically a part of the family. I get it. I really do. I've loved many pets over the years. And I've always looked back fondly at the time we spent together.
But there is a line. And too many people cross it. I'm talking about the outgoing voice mail (or answering machine, back in the day) where a family might add the dog to the list of names that is read out, as if someone might be calling to leave a message for "Jim, Jane, little Todd or Rover." Or the Christmas card signed from everyone, including the cats. Hilarious, right? Everyone that hears that voicemail is going to crack right up and declare: "Leave a message for Rover? How deliciously absurd!" Or, "How could Mittens sign that Chrismas card? He must think he's people!"
Now, I'm no expert in comedy. And why should I shit all over it, so long as the family is getting a smile or two out of doing it? But I must. It's like seeing a prop comic get out his trunk full of zany gags. It's just a lowly form of humour, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to look down my nose at it.
And here's the problem: much like your newborn child, nobody likes your pet as much as you do. Nobody. You've spend hours and days and years growing to love all the little quirks and nuances that make your pet unique and great. I'm not try to discredit that. I think it's a great part of life. But stop being so determined that everyone must love your pet as much as you do. They never will. Sure, there's nothing wrong with bringing your dog to the lake with friends, or letting your cat sit on their lap and receive a good rub. But knock it off with the Christmas cards and voicemail messages. And for all that is good and holy, don't create Facebook accounts for your pets and then post messages as if they were the ones typing them. Bingo says: "I buried a bone in the back yard today." Really? Seek professional help. Please.
Which brings me to the main topic of debate for this post. Because up until now we've discussed some pretty harmless scenarios. Sure, they might annoy, but big deal; some people are annoying. We can learn to live with it. But what about when it starts to affect that person's life? What about when the vet bills start to creep into the thousands? The ten thousands? I know two separate cases in which people have spent over $6000 and $10,000 respectively on their dogs. And, like I said at the start, I like to think I'm not a monster, but seriously people? It's a pet. I'm not suggesting you don't love that pet. But at the end of the day, it's just a pet.
So am I a monster? Once you truly love a living thing, can you no longer assign a dollar value to it's life? Or should people just accept that death is an inevitable part of having a pet. And it's never easy, but eventually it will come to pass. Sometimes your time with a pet ends quickly and suddenly, sometimes it lasts longer than you could have ever hoped. Sometimes it's not fair, other times maybe you cling on to a pet that's in pain for a little while too long. I'm not trying to deny or trivialize a person's love for their pet, but I still don't think people should be spending that kind of money (or worse yet, going into debt) just to squeeze a few more years of life out of a pet, whose life - for one reason or another - would probably have otherwise come to an end.
Look, their heart might be in the right place - attachment and devotion can be a tricky beast, after all. But at the end of the day, the head should make the final decision. The logical decision. If you think that's too cold and heartless, maybe you're right. Maybe I am. But this is simply my opinion, and these are the people I can't hang out with. Maybe you can.
Actually, saying I can't hang out with such a person is a bit of a stretch. Really, I just think we fall on different sides of the argument between a person that accepts a pet for what it is, and a person that is endlessly devoted to these animals, no matter what the cost. That said, don't get me started on people that take their pets to therapists, or the fact that pets are allowed on planes nowadays. Those people have definitely crossed the line. The ever-increasingly blurred line that separates pet from person. You can love a pet. You can adore a pet. You should never abuse a pet or mistreat it. But if you treat a pet that much as though it were a human being - and often times, even better than you treat other human beings - then I'm sorry, but you're someone that I just can't hang out with.
Friday, July 20, 2012
People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part III)
Look, I get it. Some people just like having really bright headlights. Other people treat an email like a hot potato, replying as quickly as they can, and often at the expense of actually 'replying' to the email. There are always just going to be people like that sharing this planet with us. They almost can't help being who they are. It's just in their nature. I still don't want to hang out with them, but I can't exactly get mad at a leopard for having spots.
That's why, in many ways, this next one is even more tragic. Because this one seems completely avoidable. Completely under the banner of conscious decision. And the fact that a person would actually choose to act this way boggles the mind.
I am, of course, referring to the guy that says 'yes' when invited, but always backs out at the last second.
Sure, everyone has had something come up at the last minute that they just had to deal with or couldn't get out of. That's a legitimate situation that we all will probably face at some point in our lives. No, I'm referring to the guy that gets 'the reputation'. The guy that when the hostess says 'your reservation said table for six, are we still waiting on one more?' and you mutter under your breath 'no, that was for Chris, he won't be joining us…' the whole table just sort of nods knowingly.
And that's the most telling part, that no one even questions it. Everyone at that table has been burned by this same person too many times. They certainly aren't surprised by it. If anything, they were almost expecting it. And I just don't understand how a person could let a reputation like that get so bad. I mean, most times they have to know right at the initial invite whether or not they want to be there, right? So, why feign interest? Once or twice, sure. But enough to get 'the reputation'? I just don't get it.
I guess it's a classic case of delaying the unpleasant. Of not worrying about something until later. It's drinking on a work night, knowing that it's going to suck in the morning, but still not holding back. It's putting that new television on your credit card, and worrying about how you're going to pay it off later.
Here's how it must work - I mean, I can really only guess, but this is the theory that I've formed based on a few factors:
Factor 1: Invitations are usually in person. You're looking them right in the eye, they can see the excitement on your face, and hear the anticipation in your voice. They know that by saying 'no' that they'll have to deal with seeing all that excitement turn into disappointment and maybe even sadness. Plus they might have to deal with some nagging as you try to convince them that they should come. Then they'll have to make up an excuse as to why they can't. By simply saying 'yes', they not only get to avoid all that, but they also get to pretend to share in your excitement. Then, when they bail at the last second, it's almost always over the phone or via text (or worst of all, simply not showing up). So, even though the look on your face is even more disappointed as they're bailing at the last second, they aren't there to see it.
Factor 2: Nobody wants to be lame. Being universally loved is pretty much the holy grail for most people. So, saying 'yes' to everything might somehow make it seem like they're the anti-lame: the guy that's always up for anything and everything. The problem is that this pretty much only works out that way in their own mind. In reality, once they get 'the reputation', in the minds of their friends, they've become much more lame than the guy that sits at home on a Friday night, watching American Idol in his underwear before going to bed at 9:30.
Factor 3: Everybody wants to be wanted. Sure, even if you don't want to be there, it still feels good to know that people want you to be there. And everyone knows, that if they get invited to something 9 times, and they say 'no' 9 times, chances are they aren't going to get the invite on the 10th time. And it makes sense, I mean, if they say 'no' to the bar 10 times, people are just going to assume that they don't like going to the bar. Which of course means that people are going to stop inviting them to the bar. But they still want to be asked. Part of them likes knowing that you want them to be there. That you think that your evening will be improved by their presence. It's one of the few proofs they have in life that people don't think that they're an asshole. No one wants to spend their time with an asshole, therefore by being invited out, they must not be one.
Which all ties into the biggest factor of them all, Factor 4: Obliviousness. I mean, they've got to be, right? If they knew how much less respected they were for bailing last second than they would have been for just taking a pass at the initial invite, there's no way they would do it. The ultimate irony of course being that by getting an invite - proof that their friends must not consider them to be an asshole - only to bail at the last second, they have become just that. In fact, it might even be worse. Not only do they not realize that they've pulled a huge douche move, they might actually think that they're coming out ahead. That people somehow think that it's cool that they always say 'yes', and quickly forget when they bail last second. That somehow they'll be remembered as having been there, that people might not know that they bailed, and just assume that they were there.
Unfortunately for them, that sort of revisionist history never actually occurs. At the end of the day, once they get 'the reputation', all people really start thinking about is how much they just can't hang out with that guy anymore.
That's why, in many ways, this next one is even more tragic. Because this one seems completely avoidable. Completely under the banner of conscious decision. And the fact that a person would actually choose to act this way boggles the mind.
I am, of course, referring to the guy that says 'yes' when invited, but always backs out at the last second.
Sure, everyone has had something come up at the last minute that they just had to deal with or couldn't get out of. That's a legitimate situation that we all will probably face at some point in our lives. No, I'm referring to the guy that gets 'the reputation'. The guy that when the hostess says 'your reservation said table for six, are we still waiting on one more?' and you mutter under your breath 'no, that was for Chris, he won't be joining us…' the whole table just sort of nods knowingly.
And that's the most telling part, that no one even questions it. Everyone at that table has been burned by this same person too many times. They certainly aren't surprised by it. If anything, they were almost expecting it. And I just don't understand how a person could let a reputation like that get so bad. I mean, most times they have to know right at the initial invite whether or not they want to be there, right? So, why feign interest? Once or twice, sure. But enough to get 'the reputation'? I just don't get it.
I guess it's a classic case of delaying the unpleasant. Of not worrying about something until later. It's drinking on a work night, knowing that it's going to suck in the morning, but still not holding back. It's putting that new television on your credit card, and worrying about how you're going to pay it off later.
Here's how it must work - I mean, I can really only guess, but this is the theory that I've formed based on a few factors:
Factor 1: Invitations are usually in person. You're looking them right in the eye, they can see the excitement on your face, and hear the anticipation in your voice. They know that by saying 'no' that they'll have to deal with seeing all that excitement turn into disappointment and maybe even sadness. Plus they might have to deal with some nagging as you try to convince them that they should come. Then they'll have to make up an excuse as to why they can't. By simply saying 'yes', they not only get to avoid all that, but they also get to pretend to share in your excitement. Then, when they bail at the last second, it's almost always over the phone or via text (or worst of all, simply not showing up). So, even though the look on your face is even more disappointed as they're bailing at the last second, they aren't there to see it.
Factor 2: Nobody wants to be lame. Being universally loved is pretty much the holy grail for most people. So, saying 'yes' to everything might somehow make it seem like they're the anti-lame: the guy that's always up for anything and everything. The problem is that this pretty much only works out that way in their own mind. In reality, once they get 'the reputation', in the minds of their friends, they've become much more lame than the guy that sits at home on a Friday night, watching American Idol in his underwear before going to bed at 9:30.
Factor 3: Everybody wants to be wanted. Sure, even if you don't want to be there, it still feels good to know that people want you to be there. And everyone knows, that if they get invited to something 9 times, and they say 'no' 9 times, chances are they aren't going to get the invite on the 10th time. And it makes sense, I mean, if they say 'no' to the bar 10 times, people are just going to assume that they don't like going to the bar. Which of course means that people are going to stop inviting them to the bar. But they still want to be asked. Part of them likes knowing that you want them to be there. That you think that your evening will be improved by their presence. It's one of the few proofs they have in life that people don't think that they're an asshole. No one wants to spend their time with an asshole, therefore by being invited out, they must not be one.
Which all ties into the biggest factor of them all, Factor 4: Obliviousness. I mean, they've got to be, right? If they knew how much less respected they were for bailing last second than they would have been for just taking a pass at the initial invite, there's no way they would do it. The ultimate irony of course being that by getting an invite - proof that their friends must not consider them to be an asshole - only to bail at the last second, they have become just that. In fact, it might even be worse. Not only do they not realize that they've pulled a huge douche move, they might actually think that they're coming out ahead. That people somehow think that it's cool that they always say 'yes', and quickly forget when they bail last second. That somehow they'll be remembered as having been there, that people might not know that they bailed, and just assume that they were there.
Unfortunately for them, that sort of revisionist history never actually occurs. At the end of the day, once they get 'the reputation', all people really start thinking about is how much they just can't hang out with that guy anymore.
Friday, July 13, 2012
People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part II)
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 4:52pm
To: Travis
Subject: Presentation
I need a picture that will fit on a screen that will play during the event. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Your Co-Worker
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 4:53pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Presentation
Which picture do you need? Can you send it to me? What event is this for, and when does it need to be done by? What sort of screen will it play on, standard or high definition, widescreen or 4x3?
-Travis-
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 4:55pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Presentation
Yes. Thanks
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 4:56pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, sorry for the confusion, but you didn't really answer my questions there...
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 4:59pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Haha. Oops! I need a picture that will fit on a screen to play during the event. Hope that's a little more clear. Thanks
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:00pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, I sort of work on stuff for every department, so I'm not really familiar with the specific project that you're working on right now. I understand that it's what you're living and breathing every second right now, but I honestly have no idea what this is even for, so I can't really figure out what pictures you need and where to find them. Just a little clarification would be great. Thanks
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:05pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Look, no need to be rude. You could have just asked. I'm sorry that your SO busy that you can't be bothered with my "stupid project" when you have SO much more important stuff to be working on. I'll just try to do it myself.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:06pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I just needed a little more information. Please just forward me the picture, tell me what kind of background you want it on, and what dimensions it will be played at, and I'll get it to you as soon as possible.
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:10pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Thanks
[attachment_20x20_pixels.jpg]
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:11pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, do you have a better resolution picture? The one you attached was pretty low res and would look horrible blown up to fill a screen during a video presentation. Also, are there any other elements to this video, or just the picture? How long does it play for? Do you need it as a digital file on a USB stick, or as rendered video on a DVD or Blu-Ray?
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:15pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Yes
[attachment_40x40_pixels.jpg]
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:25pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Ok, I guess that will have to do. It's still pretty low res, but I did my best to make it look decent scaled up to video resolution. Based on the information given, here's what I was able to put together.
[attachment_video_proof.mov]
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:27pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Why is the video only 10 seconds long? It needs to fill a 5 minute presentation. And I needed it on a blue background with the company logo in the bottom left corner. Where is the music I requested to have playing?
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:28pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, I'll make that background change. As for music, I don't think I recieved a request for that, but if you let me know which song, I can easily add it. As for the length, a single image on screen for 5 minutes is a little tedious. If you have other images, I can add them to the video to extend the length.
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:30pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
I don't have any, why don't you just find some for me? 100 or so should make for a better video, thanks for that advice. By the way, this video is going to play for the CEO of the company in 15 minutes.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:41pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
I can't believe I was able to actually meet that deadline… that's the fastest I've ever worked in my life. Here's the video. Good luck on the presentation!
[attachment_video_final.mov]
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:42pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
That's it? I mean, I was kind of hoping for something that looked like the opening credits sequence from that show I saw on TV that one time.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:43pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, that type of work takes days/weeks/months to complete. Honestly, that's the best I could do in the timelines given, and with no real direction. Plus, it actually ended up being a pretty good video, if I do say so myself, and all things considered…
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:44pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Nah, I don't like it. I'll figure something else out. Maybe a powerpoint slide with a bunch of MS Word clip art scattered at random on the screen. Ya. That'll have to do. Thanks for nothing
And that's why, Co-Worker-that-never-answers-all-the-questions-you-have-for-them-in-an-email-but-still-expects-everything-done-a-very-specific-way, you are a person that I can never hang out with.
Date: July 13, 2012 4:52pm
To: Travis
Subject: Presentation
I need a picture that will fit on a screen that will play during the event. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Your Co-Worker
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 4:53pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Presentation
Which picture do you need? Can you send it to me? What event is this for, and when does it need to be done by? What sort of screen will it play on, standard or high definition, widescreen or 4x3?
-Travis-
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 4:55pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Presentation
Yes. Thanks
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 4:56pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, sorry for the confusion, but you didn't really answer my questions there...
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 4:59pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Haha. Oops! I need a picture that will fit on a screen to play during the event. Hope that's a little more clear. Thanks
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:00pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, I sort of work on stuff for every department, so I'm not really familiar with the specific project that you're working on right now. I understand that it's what you're living and breathing every second right now, but I honestly have no idea what this is even for, so I can't really figure out what pictures you need and where to find them. Just a little clarification would be great. Thanks
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:05pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Look, no need to be rude. You could have just asked. I'm sorry that your SO busy that you can't be bothered with my "stupid project" when you have SO much more important stuff to be working on. I'll just try to do it myself.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:06pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I just needed a little more information. Please just forward me the picture, tell me what kind of background you want it on, and what dimensions it will be played at, and I'll get it to you as soon as possible.
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:10pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Thanks
[attachment_20x20_pixels.jpg]
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:11pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Hey, do you have a better resolution picture? The one you attached was pretty low res and would look horrible blown up to fill a screen during a video presentation. Also, are there any other elements to this video, or just the picture? How long does it play for? Do you need it as a digital file on a USB stick, or as rendered video on a DVD or Blu-Ray?
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:15pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Yes
[attachment_40x40_pixels.jpg]
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:25pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Ok, I guess that will have to do. It's still pretty low res, but I did my best to make it look decent scaled up to video resolution. Based on the information given, here's what I was able to put together.
[attachment_video_proof.mov]
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:27pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Why is the video only 10 seconds long? It needs to fill a 5 minute presentation. And I needed it on a blue background with the company logo in the bottom left corner. Where is the music I requested to have playing?
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:28pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, I'll make that background change. As for music, I don't think I recieved a request for that, but if you let me know which song, I can easily add it. As for the length, a single image on screen for 5 minutes is a little tedious. If you have other images, I can add them to the video to extend the length.
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:30pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
I don't have any, why don't you just find some for me? 100 or so should make for a better video, thanks for that advice. By the way, this video is going to play for the CEO of the company in 15 minutes.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:41pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
I can't believe I was able to actually meet that deadline… that's the fastest I've ever worked in my life. Here's the video. Good luck on the presentation!
[attachment_video_final.mov]
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:42pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
That's it? I mean, I was kind of hoping for something that looked like the opening credits sequence from that show I saw on TV that one time.
From: Travis
Date: July 13, 2012 5:43pm
To: Random Co-Worker
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Sorry, that type of work takes days/weeks/months to complete. Honestly, that's the best I could do in the timelines given, and with no real direction. Plus, it actually ended up being a pretty good video, if I do say so myself, and all things considered…
From: Random Co-Worker
Date: July 13, 2012 5:44pm
To: Travis
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Presentation
Nah, I don't like it. I'll figure something else out. Maybe a powerpoint slide with a bunch of MS Word clip art scattered at random on the screen. Ya. That'll have to do. Thanks for nothing
And that's why, Co-Worker-that-never-answers-all-the-questions-you-have-for-them-in-an-email-but-still-expects-everything-done-a-very-specific-way, you are a person that I can never hang out with.
Friday, July 6, 2012
People That I Can't Hang Out With (Part I)
You know the scenario. You're driving down the highway late at night, just trying to make it home before an uncontrollable need for sleep overtakes you. When suddenly a truck crests the hill in front of you, traveling in the opposite direction. Oh, but this is no ordinary truck. No, this one bathes you in a powerful white light, so powerful that you swear you might be starring right into the Sun itself. You quickly shield your eyes and try not to swerve into the ditch. You paw frantically at the visor overhead, hoping that lowering it will provide some form of relief, and maybe even allow you to return both hands to the steering wheel. Not that safety is even a possibility anymore - no matter which direction you look all you see now are giant white blurs where your vision used to be. You wonder for a moment if the damage might be permanent. If your little rods and cones might have been subjected to a permanent and unrepairable harm. Then, of course, you chuckle to yourself for having used the term 'little rods'.
But this is no joke. Far from it. In fact, you're about to make the biggest mistake of them all. Surely this other vehicle has made a simple error, you think to yourself, and it can all be resolved with one quick gesture. That's right, you reach over and give him a quick flick of your high beams, just to let him know that he has accidentally left his on. You're not trying to be rude. He just forgot to flick his off when he came over the hill, and your friendly reminder will let him know.
Oh, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Unbeknownst to you, this is the exact moment that he's been waiting for. The mistake that he was secretly hoping you would make from the moment he bought those Xenon High Intensity Discharge (go ahead and giggle again…) super-duty, aircraft-landing-gear spec bulbs at the store. The moment that gives him more joy than anything else in the world. You see, now he gets to reveal the truth. Those were his low beams. And, as punishment for your insolence, you get to feel the wrath of the two-headed monster that he calls head lights. He gladly reigns it down upon you: the full brunt of that Xenon fury. The light of a thousand cars combined. You recoil in fear. Your face melting like one of the Nazi's at the end of Raiders of the Lost Art when they opened the Ark of the Covenant. You pray for it to end quickly, for a return to the low beams that - although annoying - were far more bearable then the hellish glare that you are currently meant to endure.
But that relief does not come. The high beams remain on. You are made to suffer every last second of it. To pay the full price for even suggesting that his meagre low beams could in fact be his high beams. As you cower in your driver's seat, begging for sweet relief, he sit's high in his captain's chair, surveying the breadth of his power with a smirk. As your vehicles pass by one another, he catches a quick glimpse of your squint and his lips curl into a full-fledged grin. His actions have been justified, his manhood reaffirmed. He strokes his Ed Hardy shirt lovingly and attempts his best Oppenheimer impression, smugly declaring to himself:
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
As if he were no longer behind the wheel of his truck at all, but rather standing in the dirt at Trinity, watching the mushroom cloud of the world's first nuclear bomb slowly dissipate. Only Oppenheimer said it with a sense apprehension - an understanding of the full gravity that the ramifications of this power might yield. The destruction that he had just unleashed upon the world. Unfortunately, the man in the truck feels none of this. Instead, he feels proud. Superior. Omnipotent. He welds the brightest head lights in all the free world, and the mere mortals that dare face him will all eventually kneel before them.
But the moment has now passed. And that's all that it was: a moment. In your rear view mirror, his truck disappears into the night, searching for it's next victim. Slowly you begin to regain what remains of your vision. And, as the world draws back into focus, all you can do is smile, content in the realization that you're not him. That you'll never be him. That you're better than him. He'll never understand. Never consider for a second that he was the lesser man in that interaction. But that's ok. You know the unspoken contract that exists between men. The underlying agreement upon which all of society is founded. That one man should not seek to better himself if it is to the detriment of others. Sure, he can see further down the road at night. But at what cost? His ability to see is more important than yours. More important than everyone's. And he will let us lesser men know about it each and every time that we have the gall to suggest otherwise with a quick flash of our brights.
He could never accept the dull, yellow head lights that we all agreed were a reasonable compromise for every person sharing the road. But that's why we're a different breed. We would never put ourselves above our fellow man like that. And that is why we can live along side each other as equals. Because we understand the effects that our actions have on one another. We are willing to compromise so that the world is a better place for everyone, not just ourselves. And that is why the guy that not only buys extra bright headlights, but also wears them as a badge of honour, is a person that not only deserves our scorn, but also our pity.
But it's also why he's a person that I can never hang out with.
But this is no joke. Far from it. In fact, you're about to make the biggest mistake of them all. Surely this other vehicle has made a simple error, you think to yourself, and it can all be resolved with one quick gesture. That's right, you reach over and give him a quick flick of your high beams, just to let him know that he has accidentally left his on. You're not trying to be rude. He just forgot to flick his off when he came over the hill, and your friendly reminder will let him know.
Oh, but you couldn't be more wrong.
Unbeknownst to you, this is the exact moment that he's been waiting for. The mistake that he was secretly hoping you would make from the moment he bought those Xenon High Intensity Discharge (go ahead and giggle again…) super-duty, aircraft-landing-gear spec bulbs at the store. The moment that gives him more joy than anything else in the world. You see, now he gets to reveal the truth. Those were his low beams. And, as punishment for your insolence, you get to feel the wrath of the two-headed monster that he calls head lights. He gladly reigns it down upon you: the full brunt of that Xenon fury. The light of a thousand cars combined. You recoil in fear. Your face melting like one of the Nazi's at the end of Raiders of the Lost Art when they opened the Ark of the Covenant. You pray for it to end quickly, for a return to the low beams that - although annoying - were far more bearable then the hellish glare that you are currently meant to endure.
But that relief does not come. The high beams remain on. You are made to suffer every last second of it. To pay the full price for even suggesting that his meagre low beams could in fact be his high beams. As you cower in your driver's seat, begging for sweet relief, he sit's high in his captain's chair, surveying the breadth of his power with a smirk. As your vehicles pass by one another, he catches a quick glimpse of your squint and his lips curl into a full-fledged grin. His actions have been justified, his manhood reaffirmed. He strokes his Ed Hardy shirt lovingly and attempts his best Oppenheimer impression, smugly declaring to himself:
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
As if he were no longer behind the wheel of his truck at all, but rather standing in the dirt at Trinity, watching the mushroom cloud of the world's first nuclear bomb slowly dissipate. Only Oppenheimer said it with a sense apprehension - an understanding of the full gravity that the ramifications of this power might yield. The destruction that he had just unleashed upon the world. Unfortunately, the man in the truck feels none of this. Instead, he feels proud. Superior. Omnipotent. He welds the brightest head lights in all the free world, and the mere mortals that dare face him will all eventually kneel before them.
But the moment has now passed. And that's all that it was: a moment. In your rear view mirror, his truck disappears into the night, searching for it's next victim. Slowly you begin to regain what remains of your vision. And, as the world draws back into focus, all you can do is smile, content in the realization that you're not him. That you'll never be him. That you're better than him. He'll never understand. Never consider for a second that he was the lesser man in that interaction. But that's ok. You know the unspoken contract that exists between men. The underlying agreement upon which all of society is founded. That one man should not seek to better himself if it is to the detriment of others. Sure, he can see further down the road at night. But at what cost? His ability to see is more important than yours. More important than everyone's. And he will let us lesser men know about it each and every time that we have the gall to suggest otherwise with a quick flash of our brights.
He could never accept the dull, yellow head lights that we all agreed were a reasonable compromise for every person sharing the road. But that's why we're a different breed. We would never put ourselves above our fellow man like that. And that is why we can live along side each other as equals. Because we understand the effects that our actions have on one another. We are willing to compromise so that the world is a better place for everyone, not just ourselves. And that is why the guy that not only buys extra bright headlights, but also wears them as a badge of honour, is a person that not only deserves our scorn, but also our pity.
But it's also why he's a person that I can never hang out with.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Oh ya... the Blog. Oops...
I must apologize for the shabby blogging that I've been doing lately. Or not doing, as it were. Basically, I had a coupe weeks in a row where I ended up having to type long, intense emails to people, that I ended up putting a ton of effort and energy into. Then, by the time Friday rolled around, it already felt like I had maxed out my writing threshold for the week. Sure, I could have forced myself to spit out a few words, but really, at that point the blog would have become more like homework than an enjoyable hobby, and I just didn't want to cross into that territory. So, I kind of took June off. Sorry, I had pretty much made the decision to skip it for the full month before it was even half over, and I suppose I could/should have given you a head's up.
Regardless, it's been a nice little vacation, but I think I'm ready to come back. So, mark it on your calendar, folks. Next week will mark my triumphant return! Feel free to wet you pants in anticipation…
Regardless, it's been a nice little vacation, but I think I'm ready to come back. So, mark it on your calendar, folks. Next week will mark my triumphant return! Feel free to wet you pants in anticipation…
Friday, May 25, 2012
Travis Tackle Relationships VII
Look, I know that I promised that these 'Relationship' posts would end mercifully with the whole 'guy/girls/ex's as friends' thing a couple of weeks back. But screw it, I thought of another one, so I'm going to keep going. If you don't like it, well, it's too late now. You've already read this far, and that counts as a plus one on my view counter. And really, that's all you chumps are good for in my mind anyways.
No. Wait. Come back. I'm only kidding. I actually love and appreciate each and every one of you chumps. I just hope you love and appreciate another post about relationships, because well, that's all I've got to offer.
This week I'm going to talk about juggling multiple relationships at the same time. Which of course means that we've re-entered a realm of pure fantasy. One rooted strictly in theory and philosophy and my own half-baked opinions. The very notion that I might juggle multiple ladies at the same time is laughable at best; I can't even get one girl to give me the time of day, let alone several. But I still have an opinion on it. And if I can't give my opinion here, where can I, dammit?
Now, let me start by saying that this is a very different situation than the whole 'cheating' discussion from a few weeks back. Well, maybe not 'very different' but different enough. Cheating is when you know you're in a relationship with someone, yet choose to pursue other relationships anyways. In this case, I'm referring more to that sticky little stretch of time when you've met someone new, maybe gone on a few dates, but aren't yet officially 'dating' each other. And the thing that makes it such an odd and confusing time, is that for each and every person it's completely different when exactly it is that you officially become a couple.
Some people (myself included) just make the assumption. Like, "look, we've been on five dates, we've made out a few times, I know what her left boob feels like, and God willing, I'll be able to say the same about the right one soon enough. If that doesn't make us a couple, I don't know what does." Whereas other people need to be asked, or at the very least have a discussion about it, before they'll even consider putting such a label on their relationship.
It's such a mixed bag and can be so arbitrary that very few people make it through life without thinking to themselves at least once: "Um… did she just ask if we wanted to be exclusive? I thought we already were. Does this mean she hasn't been exclusive up until now…?" Or, "did he just change his Facebook status to 'in a relationship' with me? We went to one movie together, and I don't even like the guy!" The whole situation is ripe for potential misunderstandings and even heart break. And it's all because each and every one of us has a slightly different idea of when the relation becomes official and exclusive.
And that's what this topic is all about. That word 'exclusive'. Because without it, there's a ton of room for interpretation. And when you give a douchey guy an inch of leeway to make his own interpretations, he'll take a mile. Because of this, despite leaning towards not needing to actually to have the conversation myself (sure assumptions leave room for misinterpretation, but I still believe that when you know, you know), I fully and completely understand why some people need to actually be asked before they'll even consider themselves to be 'off the market'. No matter how 'on tonight's very special episode of 1950's high school' it feels like to have to ask your best gal to go steady with you.
But before that happens, there's always that stretch of time when you're seeing each other, but you aren't officially 'seeing each other'. It's during this period of time that some people think that there's nothing wrong with juggling a few different relationships at once. And look, I do sort of understand the logic that these people use to try and justify it. "We just started seeing each other. I don't know if I even like this person yet. Why should I turn down other opportunities until I know for sure?" Which is fine. If you've got a few people that you're interested in, and you really can't make up your mind between them, then maybe you do have to play the field a bit. And maybe the time that you're seeing one person is going to overlap with the time that you're seeing another. It's not like either relationship has gotten serious yet, right?
Well, technically, sure. But I'm not a huge fan of it. Maybe that's just because I'm jealous of the mere notion that some people exist in a world where they could have more than one person interested in them at the same time. That said, on the off chance the situation did arise, I still don't think that I'd try to juggle more than one lady at once. For me, if there's two girls that I'm interested in, there's always one that I'm more interested in. Always. It might not be by much, but there is always a preference. And still trying to date both ladies in spite of this awareness just feels a little too selfish to me. Really, you're just hedging your bets. If the one girl doesn't fall for your charms on the first few dates, you can always fall back on the other one, rather than having to start from scratch, or even risk losing her to another dude. Some guys love having that safety blanket, but really, keeping her on the hook 'just in case' doesn't really sound like the actions of a stand up guy, does it?
It's all about a person's true intentions. "I'm keeping her around 'just in case'" and "I honestly can't decide until I've gone out with both of them" are two very different things. The problem is that no one knows what a person's true intentions are but them. And far too many people like to use this little technicality to their advantage. Unless you can prove it - and nobody can - then whose to say what a person's intentions are? This gives that person carte blanche to act like they're all offended and insulted that you would even have the nerve to claim to know what's going on inside their head. I mean, who do you think you are? When really, they're just trying to guilt you into second guessing yourself. At the end of the day, you really don't know what's going on inside of their head, however obvious it might seem. And until you can provide some allusive and impossible proof to the contrary, they will always 'win' the argument.
For example, let's say that a dude knows deep down that the girl he's been out with a few times thinks that they're 'going out'. But because it hasn't been agreed on verbally - it was so obvious, and the girl didn't want to seem clingy by having an unnecessary conversation about it - then technically it's still open season for him to juggle multiple ladies. And until they actually have that conversation, she can't prove that he obviously already knew that they were a couple. He gets to play the 'ignorance' card, because no one can prove that he wasn't ignorant. "Hey, we never agreed that we were dating, it's your own fault for making assumptions." But really, that's not a case of poor communication leading to a misunderstanding. It's just a dude that wants an excuse to keep multiple ladies on the hook at the same time, and is too self-absorbed to care that he's only 'winning' the confrontations that arise from it on a technicality. For some people, all that matters is that they're technically right. It doesn't matter why they're right, just that they are. Even if every single other person that looked at the situation would say otherwise.
Basically what I'm saying is this: Do what's right, not just what you know you can get away with. We all know what's right and what's wrong. Too many of us choose to ignore this basic gut instinct because we can always claim ignorance. Somehow it's not wrong, so long as a person can get away with it. People are too concerned with being able to defend their actions to other people, and not nearly concerned enough with having to defend their actions to themselves. And this doesn't just apply to relationships and dating. It's just a shitty way to live your life. If you've had three beers and feel a little light headed, call a cab. Sure, technically you probably won't blow over, but you know that you probably shouldn't be driving. Then, another time, the three beers might not hit you as hard, and you honestly are fine to drive, so you can. The only difference between both situations is your own common sense, not some technicality. The same goes for juggling girls before you're officially 'dating' any of them. You know if you're just doing it to stroke your ego, or because you like having multiple gals on the hook, just like you know if you need a couple dates with each girl before you can make an honest decision between the two of them.
Sorry, I know I said that this post would be 'about juggling multiple girls at the same time', so if you came here for a handy guide on how to do so, you're probably pretty disappointed right now. But if that's the case, then you're also probably a complete douche. As such, I'm perfectly happy to have wasted the valuable time that you could have spent polishing the chrome bull testicles that hang from the back of your jacked up truck with the Calvin-pissing-on-another-truck's-logo sticker stuck on the back window. Don't worry, we all think it's as bad-ass as you do... honest.
No. Wait. Come back. I'm only kidding. I actually love and appreciate each and every one of you chumps. I just hope you love and appreciate another post about relationships, because well, that's all I've got to offer.
This week I'm going to talk about juggling multiple relationships at the same time. Which of course means that we've re-entered a realm of pure fantasy. One rooted strictly in theory and philosophy and my own half-baked opinions. The very notion that I might juggle multiple ladies at the same time is laughable at best; I can't even get one girl to give me the time of day, let alone several. But I still have an opinion on it. And if I can't give my opinion here, where can I, dammit?
Now, let me start by saying that this is a very different situation than the whole 'cheating' discussion from a few weeks back. Well, maybe not 'very different' but different enough. Cheating is when you know you're in a relationship with someone, yet choose to pursue other relationships anyways. In this case, I'm referring more to that sticky little stretch of time when you've met someone new, maybe gone on a few dates, but aren't yet officially 'dating' each other. And the thing that makes it such an odd and confusing time, is that for each and every person it's completely different when exactly it is that you officially become a couple.
Some people (myself included) just make the assumption. Like, "look, we've been on five dates, we've made out a few times, I know what her left boob feels like, and God willing, I'll be able to say the same about the right one soon enough. If that doesn't make us a couple, I don't know what does." Whereas other people need to be asked, or at the very least have a discussion about it, before they'll even consider putting such a label on their relationship.
It's such a mixed bag and can be so arbitrary that very few people make it through life without thinking to themselves at least once: "Um… did she just ask if we wanted to be exclusive? I thought we already were. Does this mean she hasn't been exclusive up until now…?" Or, "did he just change his Facebook status to 'in a relationship' with me? We went to one movie together, and I don't even like the guy!" The whole situation is ripe for potential misunderstandings and even heart break. And it's all because each and every one of us has a slightly different idea of when the relation becomes official and exclusive.
And that's what this topic is all about. That word 'exclusive'. Because without it, there's a ton of room for interpretation. And when you give a douchey guy an inch of leeway to make his own interpretations, he'll take a mile. Because of this, despite leaning towards not needing to actually to have the conversation myself (sure assumptions leave room for misinterpretation, but I still believe that when you know, you know), I fully and completely understand why some people need to actually be asked before they'll even consider themselves to be 'off the market'. No matter how 'on tonight's very special episode of 1950's high school' it feels like to have to ask your best gal to go steady with you.
But before that happens, there's always that stretch of time when you're seeing each other, but you aren't officially 'seeing each other'. It's during this period of time that some people think that there's nothing wrong with juggling a few different relationships at once. And look, I do sort of understand the logic that these people use to try and justify it. "We just started seeing each other. I don't know if I even like this person yet. Why should I turn down other opportunities until I know for sure?" Which is fine. If you've got a few people that you're interested in, and you really can't make up your mind between them, then maybe you do have to play the field a bit. And maybe the time that you're seeing one person is going to overlap with the time that you're seeing another. It's not like either relationship has gotten serious yet, right?
Well, technically, sure. But I'm not a huge fan of it. Maybe that's just because I'm jealous of the mere notion that some people exist in a world where they could have more than one person interested in them at the same time. That said, on the off chance the situation did arise, I still don't think that I'd try to juggle more than one lady at once. For me, if there's two girls that I'm interested in, there's always one that I'm more interested in. Always. It might not be by much, but there is always a preference. And still trying to date both ladies in spite of this awareness just feels a little too selfish to me. Really, you're just hedging your bets. If the one girl doesn't fall for your charms on the first few dates, you can always fall back on the other one, rather than having to start from scratch, or even risk losing her to another dude. Some guys love having that safety blanket, but really, keeping her on the hook 'just in case' doesn't really sound like the actions of a stand up guy, does it?
It's all about a person's true intentions. "I'm keeping her around 'just in case'" and "I honestly can't decide until I've gone out with both of them" are two very different things. The problem is that no one knows what a person's true intentions are but them. And far too many people like to use this little technicality to their advantage. Unless you can prove it - and nobody can - then whose to say what a person's intentions are? This gives that person carte blanche to act like they're all offended and insulted that you would even have the nerve to claim to know what's going on inside their head. I mean, who do you think you are? When really, they're just trying to guilt you into second guessing yourself. At the end of the day, you really don't know what's going on inside of their head, however obvious it might seem. And until you can provide some allusive and impossible proof to the contrary, they will always 'win' the argument.
For example, let's say that a dude knows deep down that the girl he's been out with a few times thinks that they're 'going out'. But because it hasn't been agreed on verbally - it was so obvious, and the girl didn't want to seem clingy by having an unnecessary conversation about it - then technically it's still open season for him to juggle multiple ladies. And until they actually have that conversation, she can't prove that he obviously already knew that they were a couple. He gets to play the 'ignorance' card, because no one can prove that he wasn't ignorant. "Hey, we never agreed that we were dating, it's your own fault for making assumptions." But really, that's not a case of poor communication leading to a misunderstanding. It's just a dude that wants an excuse to keep multiple ladies on the hook at the same time, and is too self-absorbed to care that he's only 'winning' the confrontations that arise from it on a technicality. For some people, all that matters is that they're technically right. It doesn't matter why they're right, just that they are. Even if every single other person that looked at the situation would say otherwise.
Basically what I'm saying is this: Do what's right, not just what you know you can get away with. We all know what's right and what's wrong. Too many of us choose to ignore this basic gut instinct because we can always claim ignorance. Somehow it's not wrong, so long as a person can get away with it. People are too concerned with being able to defend their actions to other people, and not nearly concerned enough with having to defend their actions to themselves. And this doesn't just apply to relationships and dating. It's just a shitty way to live your life. If you've had three beers and feel a little light headed, call a cab. Sure, technically you probably won't blow over, but you know that you probably shouldn't be driving. Then, another time, the three beers might not hit you as hard, and you honestly are fine to drive, so you can. The only difference between both situations is your own common sense, not some technicality. The same goes for juggling girls before you're officially 'dating' any of them. You know if you're just doing it to stroke your ego, or because you like having multiple gals on the hook, just like you know if you need a couple dates with each girl before you can make an honest decision between the two of them.
Sorry, I know I said that this post would be 'about juggling multiple girls at the same time', so if you came here for a handy guide on how to do so, you're probably pretty disappointed right now. But if that's the case, then you're also probably a complete douche. As such, I'm perfectly happy to have wasted the valuable time that you could have spent polishing the chrome bull testicles that hang from the back of your jacked up truck with the Calvin-pissing-on-another-truck's-logo sticker stuck on the back window. Don't worry, we all think it's as bad-ass as you do... honest.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships VI
I'm torn about something. You see, in terms of relationships, I've long be a huge believer that "they either like you, or they don't". Meaning, if they're into you, it's pretty hard for you to screw it up. They might play a little hard to get, maybe make you jump through a few hoops, but really, your margin for error is pretty wide. You can say the wrong thing - even do the wrong thing - but you'll still be hard pressed to change a girl that is into you, into one that is not. In fact, based on some of the horror stories that I've heard of first or second dates - where I couldn't believe that afterwards the girl was even still talking to the guy, let alone that she was actually still smitten with him - I've almost come to believe that if a girl likes you, you'd almost have to be actively trying to turn her off in order to actually do so.
On the other end of the spectrum, if she's doesn't like you, no matter how much time and energy and effort you put into it, you're just not going to win a girl over. Not truly. You might get a date or two, maybe even get to see her naked, but in the end, she hasn't really been 'won over' so much as she simply 'gave in'. And this is hard for most guys to accept. Society has sort of built us these weird expectations - almost a sense of entitlement - where a guy believes that if you work hard enough at something, you deserve it. If you put your time in - if you try really hard - eventually a girl will have to like you. It's only fair, right? But that's just not true. If she's not into you, she's not into you. Fair or not, there just isn't a whole lot that can be done to change that.
Look, you can tell when someone likes you. If you can't, you're just not paying attention. The problem is, a lot of guys mistake getting no signals at all for her not having made her mind up yet. When in reality, no signals almost always means no interest. Sure, some girls make it clear right away that they have no interest (this is when most insecure guys start tossing around the term 'bitch') but most girls just give you nothing at all. It's their way of being polite. Us dudes have pretty fragile egos, and at the end of the day, if every girl we met let us know right away that they weren't interested, we'd all be on prozac by the age of fifteen. By the time we were forty, we wouldn't even be able to leave the house. Every one of us would just be a weeping mess, huddled in the basement, paralyzed by the realization of just how many women have absolutely no interest in us on a day-to-day basis. Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance also breeds naivety, and that's why so many guys mistake a girl that gives them no signals as an invitation to try and win her over.
I don't have much of an ego, and as such, I've never really been one to bother when a girl has shown no interest. It has always just seemed like a fruitless endeavour to me. I mean, what's going to happen? I'll show you that I'm not such a bad dude, that I can crack a few jokes, get a few laughs, treat you with respect and pick up the cheque at the end of a meal? None of that really changes the fact that you're not into me. Sure, you want those qualities in a guy - every girl does - but those qualities alone can't make up for an inherent lack of interest. And a girl fooled into trying to think otherwise is just settling at best. And I don't want to be 'settled for'.
The philosophy is simple: why would I want to be with someone that doesn't really want to be with me? I'm sure I could wear down a girl over time. I'm sure I could convince one that I'm worthy of a date or two. Heck, I could even guilt someone into thinking they're shallow for not being willing to date a guy like me, when they claim to only want a nice guy at the end of the day. All of these strategies have worked for countless guys on countless girls for countless years. Yet I just can't get past the whole 'a girl shouldn't need to be convinced/tricked/guilted/worn down' philosophy. Sure, it's resulted in a lot less dating for me than most other guys. And, yes, I'm very aware of that. I'm also aware that if I'd just relax my stance on it a bit, I'd have a lot more success. Especially in the short term. But that's just not me. Sure. it's lead to some pretty lonely nights over the years, but at the end of the day, I've made my decision, and I accept the consequences.
Why then, am I so torn? What could have possibly changed to make me question the philosophy that I have lived by for pretty much my entire life?
Well, the exception to the rule, of course.
Over the past couple of years, I have seen enough cases of girls who initially had no interest in a guy, be worn down and eventually won over, to the point where I'll be attending the wedding of one this summer, and have had to watch another try and heal her broken heart after the relationship fell apart. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I misread the path it took to get there - but in both cases I was given the distinct impression that neither girl was that into the guy to begin with. And seeing as how both relationships saw the girls both fall legitimately in love, maybe my whole philosophy is completely misguided.
Can a woman be won over? Or were these just a few of the rare cases in which the guy had so many good qualities, but they were hidden far enough beneath the surface, that it was less a 'wearing down' and more of a 'once you got to know me…' situation.
I don't know. I'd like to think that I would be a prime candidate to win a girl over with the whole 'once you got to know me…' thing. But obviously that can never happen if I shut down at the first sign that there's no interest. That said, there's been ladies that have 'got to know me' over the years, that have still never wavered in their complete lack of romantic interest. In a lot of cases, that's been just fine, and even preferable (see: the last few posts on 'Guy/Girl Friendships'). But I'll admit, sometimes I think to myself "man, this girl knows me, and has still never shown any sign of interest…" And while that's a good thing - I mean, I wouldn't want them to be interested, seeing as how in most cases I'm not interested back, and would hate to deal with the fallout and awkwardness that such feelings on their part would create - by the same token, it doesn't exactly have me brimming with confidence when dealing with ladies that I am interested in either.
In fact, sheepishly, I will admit, my ego sometimes gets a little bruised by it. I mean, I'd like to think that I'm a good dude. So, if any woman can be worn down, shouldn't I have inadvertently done so by now to a few of my female friends? Again, I'm glad I haven't, but still, seeing as how it's never happened, I sometimes wonder if maybe I'm not such a good dude after all. I mean, I know I'm not great. But I've always assumed that I was at least a little bit good.
But maybe everyone assumes that - even the complete assholes. They might be completely wrong, but I'm sure on some level they must think they're decent people, right? Even if they know that they're a dick some of the time, they wouldn't be able to live with themselves unless they thought the good outweighed the bad. So, maybe I'm not as good a dude as I like to think I am. Maybe I'm just another asshole whose ego is so big that he assumes that he's a good guy.
Or maybe, in the end, it's just as simple as: they're either into you, or they're not.
On the other end of the spectrum, if she's doesn't like you, no matter how much time and energy and effort you put into it, you're just not going to win a girl over. Not truly. You might get a date or two, maybe even get to see her naked, but in the end, she hasn't really been 'won over' so much as she simply 'gave in'. And this is hard for most guys to accept. Society has sort of built us these weird expectations - almost a sense of entitlement - where a guy believes that if you work hard enough at something, you deserve it. If you put your time in - if you try really hard - eventually a girl will have to like you. It's only fair, right? But that's just not true. If she's not into you, she's not into you. Fair or not, there just isn't a whole lot that can be done to change that.
Look, you can tell when someone likes you. If you can't, you're just not paying attention. The problem is, a lot of guys mistake getting no signals at all for her not having made her mind up yet. When in reality, no signals almost always means no interest. Sure, some girls make it clear right away that they have no interest (this is when most insecure guys start tossing around the term 'bitch') but most girls just give you nothing at all. It's their way of being polite. Us dudes have pretty fragile egos, and at the end of the day, if every girl we met let us know right away that they weren't interested, we'd all be on prozac by the age of fifteen. By the time we were forty, we wouldn't even be able to leave the house. Every one of us would just be a weeping mess, huddled in the basement, paralyzed by the realization of just how many women have absolutely no interest in us on a day-to-day basis. Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance also breeds naivety, and that's why so many guys mistake a girl that gives them no signals as an invitation to try and win her over.
I don't have much of an ego, and as such, I've never really been one to bother when a girl has shown no interest. It has always just seemed like a fruitless endeavour to me. I mean, what's going to happen? I'll show you that I'm not such a bad dude, that I can crack a few jokes, get a few laughs, treat you with respect and pick up the cheque at the end of a meal? None of that really changes the fact that you're not into me. Sure, you want those qualities in a guy - every girl does - but those qualities alone can't make up for an inherent lack of interest. And a girl fooled into trying to think otherwise is just settling at best. And I don't want to be 'settled for'.
The philosophy is simple: why would I want to be with someone that doesn't really want to be with me? I'm sure I could wear down a girl over time. I'm sure I could convince one that I'm worthy of a date or two. Heck, I could even guilt someone into thinking they're shallow for not being willing to date a guy like me, when they claim to only want a nice guy at the end of the day. All of these strategies have worked for countless guys on countless girls for countless years. Yet I just can't get past the whole 'a girl shouldn't need to be convinced/tricked/guilted/worn down' philosophy. Sure, it's resulted in a lot less dating for me than most other guys. And, yes, I'm very aware of that. I'm also aware that if I'd just relax my stance on it a bit, I'd have a lot more success. Especially in the short term. But that's just not me. Sure. it's lead to some pretty lonely nights over the years, but at the end of the day, I've made my decision, and I accept the consequences.
Why then, am I so torn? What could have possibly changed to make me question the philosophy that I have lived by for pretty much my entire life?
Well, the exception to the rule, of course.
Over the past couple of years, I have seen enough cases of girls who initially had no interest in a guy, be worn down and eventually won over, to the point where I'll be attending the wedding of one this summer, and have had to watch another try and heal her broken heart after the relationship fell apart. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe I misread the path it took to get there - but in both cases I was given the distinct impression that neither girl was that into the guy to begin with. And seeing as how both relationships saw the girls both fall legitimately in love, maybe my whole philosophy is completely misguided.
Can a woman be won over? Or were these just a few of the rare cases in which the guy had so many good qualities, but they were hidden far enough beneath the surface, that it was less a 'wearing down' and more of a 'once you got to know me…' situation.
I don't know. I'd like to think that I would be a prime candidate to win a girl over with the whole 'once you got to know me…' thing. But obviously that can never happen if I shut down at the first sign that there's no interest. That said, there's been ladies that have 'got to know me' over the years, that have still never wavered in their complete lack of romantic interest. In a lot of cases, that's been just fine, and even preferable (see: the last few posts on 'Guy/Girl Friendships'). But I'll admit, sometimes I think to myself "man, this girl knows me, and has still never shown any sign of interest…" And while that's a good thing - I mean, I wouldn't want them to be interested, seeing as how in most cases I'm not interested back, and would hate to deal with the fallout and awkwardness that such feelings on their part would create - by the same token, it doesn't exactly have me brimming with confidence when dealing with ladies that I am interested in either.
In fact, sheepishly, I will admit, my ego sometimes gets a little bruised by it. I mean, I'd like to think that I'm a good dude. So, if any woman can be worn down, shouldn't I have inadvertently done so by now to a few of my female friends? Again, I'm glad I haven't, but still, seeing as how it's never happened, I sometimes wonder if maybe I'm not such a good dude after all. I mean, I know I'm not great. But I've always assumed that I was at least a little bit good.
But maybe everyone assumes that - even the complete assholes. They might be completely wrong, but I'm sure on some level they must think they're decent people, right? Even if they know that they're a dick some of the time, they wouldn't be able to live with themselves unless they thought the good outweighed the bad. So, maybe I'm not as good a dude as I like to think I am. Maybe I'm just another asshole whose ego is so big that he assumes that he's a good guy.
Or maybe, in the end, it's just as simple as: they're either into you, or they're not.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships V
This one is a doozy, so I'm going to just get right into it: Being friends with your Ex.
If you have trouble believing that a guy and a girl can't be 'just friends' then you're really not going to believe that this one is possible. But, once again, I'm going to argue the unpopular opinion that it is indeed possible. Why? Because I'm friends with two of my ex's, and I'd like to believe that these friendships aren't complete shams.
Similar to the guy/girl friendships discussed last week, the main mental hurdle that most detractors can't get past in this instance is 'why?' And in this case, that is a very important question. The aftermath of a break up is a veritable mine field of irrational decisions, crazy behaviour, and crippling denial. And a friendship formed under any of those conditions is a very bad idea. Especially denial. If you're only staying friends with an Ex in hopes of getting back together, then for one, I don't really consider that a friendship so much as you simply moving back into the 'friend zone', and two, you're probably only doing yourself further harm, and creating greater pain for yourself down the road.
All that aside, the reason I believe in the Ex's as Friends scenario is simple: in most cases (the operative word being 'most') you weren't just with the girl because of her looks. If you were in an actual relationship, chances are it had to do with a lot more than just attraction, and probably most of all because you got along together, were interested in similar things, and generally enjoyed each other's company. Basically, what I'm saying is: you actually liked them. As a person. Not just as a pair of tits that happened to have a person attached to them.
So, the question becomes: just because your relationship ends, do you also stop liking them as a person? If the answer is no, and you're also ok with the idea that you'll never see them naked again (don't gloss over that last detail, put some real honest thought into it before even considering a friendship, because it's very important) then why not remain friends? Sure, you might need a period of time to get over the failed relationship first, but once that passes, I say, why not?
But maybe that's because I've never had an angry break up. You see, I've never really understood the couple that were married for ten years, but now that they're divorced, literally can't be in the same room together. I just don't get it. How could the person that at one point you loved more than anyone else in the world, suddenly be the person you hate more than anyone else? Obviously the term 'suddenly' is a little misused here, as many times the hatred develops over several years as the marriage begins to fall apart, but my point remains. How could that much love turn into that much hate?
I guess the answer is simple: The only person that can make you feel your very best is also the only person that can make you feel your very worst. And maybe hatred is a defence mechanism stemming from that. Sort of like, you know you loved that person, but for whatever reason, you know that you just can't be together any more, and the only way your mind knows how to deal with that is to create this anger towards them to help you not have to deal with those overwhelming emotions. I've never been there, myself. All of my relationships have ended because it was just obviously not working. Some sadness, some disappointment, sure. But rarely any hard feelings or resentment.
Which, of course, brings us back to the question 'why'? If we got along so well - enough to still be friends afterwards - and we were attracted to each other, then why didn't the relationship work out? And here's what I've been able to come up with: as a society, we get a little too confused on the difference between a relationship and a friendship. And I think the real blame for this confusion belongs to the mindset that 'my significant other is also my best friend'. Well, aw shucks, that does sound swell. But I think it's misplaced. There's nothing wrong with having similar interests, and getting along great and all that good stuff - in fact, you absolutely should, if the relationship is going to have any sort of a chance - but i need different things from a relationship than I do from a friendship. And to say that your wife is also your best friend, kind of sells both of those titles a little short.
For you to compare your wife to the beer-guzzling, womanizing, douche bag guys that you went to high school with - the ones that formerly held that coveted title of 'best friend' - pretty much completely devalues the special bond that you two have. It also kind of suggests that you could get that same happiness with any of those same loser friends, and you're just a few shots of tequila and a conversation about ancient Greek culture away from trying to make it happen. Look, I get why people say it, it's sweet. But for me, the things I look for in my friends are much different then the things I look for in a partner. And some of the character traits that I'm fine with having in a friend, might be complete deal breakers in a relationship. Which is precisely why a girl can be just fine as a friend, even though she didn't work out at all in a relationship.
You see, every single one of my friends has at least one thing that kind of bugs me about them. Which is fine; we're all different people, and everyone has their foibles. The world would be a pretty boring place if you only surrounded yourself with people that were exactly the same as you in every way. But what might make for a fun debate over a few beers at the pub once or twice with a friend, might be too difficult to overlook in a relationship, when you're fighting over it for the 91st time, and it no longer feels like a 'cute little difference in opinion'.
Here's an example: I'm a messy dude. I let the dishes pile up, I'll wear the same socks two days in a row, and I sure as hell don't clean the stubble out of the sink after I shave. Some people just can't stand a messy home. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's very normal. But nothing is ever going to change the fact that I kind of like a messy home. Sure, I'm willing to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle with a girl that prefers things are clean most of the time. But a relationship would never work between me and a real neat freak, because eventually even with a bit of effort on my part, it would still drive her completely insane. It just would. I can be friends with that person, because either they could just never come over to my place, or if they did, I could straighten it up before they arrived.
But how often do you see your friends? Once a week? Once a month? It's no big deal for me to clean up those few times a year, or just meet at their place if they really can't stand the mess. But I'm not going to be able to do that if it's a girlfriend that's swinging by 4 or 5 times a week. I'm just not. I might keep it up for a month, maybe two, as we go through that 'look how perfect I am' phase, where you'd never even think about farting, let alone taking a dump when they're anywhere within a five mile radius of you. But eventually that wears off, and the real you starts to emerge. And the real me is a messy dude.
Does that make sense? How, what you can let slide as a quality in a friend - whether it be that they're kind of a dick, or a Calgary Flames fan, or something (although those are usually one and the same) - might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in a relationship. And I think that's the key: differentiating what a relationship is, and what a friendship is. If you're only ever friends with girls in order to eventually date them, then the Friends with your Ex dynamic just isn't going to work for you. That's fine. I'm not saying everyone should be friends with their Ex's. But I am saying that they also shouldn't be so quick to assume that just because it would never work for them, that means it can't possibly work for anyone else either.
If you have trouble believing that a guy and a girl can't be 'just friends' then you're really not going to believe that this one is possible. But, once again, I'm going to argue the unpopular opinion that it is indeed possible. Why? Because I'm friends with two of my ex's, and I'd like to believe that these friendships aren't complete shams.
Similar to the guy/girl friendships discussed last week, the main mental hurdle that most detractors can't get past in this instance is 'why?' And in this case, that is a very important question. The aftermath of a break up is a veritable mine field of irrational decisions, crazy behaviour, and crippling denial. And a friendship formed under any of those conditions is a very bad idea. Especially denial. If you're only staying friends with an Ex in hopes of getting back together, then for one, I don't really consider that a friendship so much as you simply moving back into the 'friend zone', and two, you're probably only doing yourself further harm, and creating greater pain for yourself down the road.
All that aside, the reason I believe in the Ex's as Friends scenario is simple: in most cases (the operative word being 'most') you weren't just with the girl because of her looks. If you were in an actual relationship, chances are it had to do with a lot more than just attraction, and probably most of all because you got along together, were interested in similar things, and generally enjoyed each other's company. Basically, what I'm saying is: you actually liked them. As a person. Not just as a pair of tits that happened to have a person attached to them.
So, the question becomes: just because your relationship ends, do you also stop liking them as a person? If the answer is no, and you're also ok with the idea that you'll never see them naked again (don't gloss over that last detail, put some real honest thought into it before even considering a friendship, because it's very important) then why not remain friends? Sure, you might need a period of time to get over the failed relationship first, but once that passes, I say, why not?
But maybe that's because I've never had an angry break up. You see, I've never really understood the couple that were married for ten years, but now that they're divorced, literally can't be in the same room together. I just don't get it. How could the person that at one point you loved more than anyone else in the world, suddenly be the person you hate more than anyone else? Obviously the term 'suddenly' is a little misused here, as many times the hatred develops over several years as the marriage begins to fall apart, but my point remains. How could that much love turn into that much hate?
I guess the answer is simple: The only person that can make you feel your very best is also the only person that can make you feel your very worst. And maybe hatred is a defence mechanism stemming from that. Sort of like, you know you loved that person, but for whatever reason, you know that you just can't be together any more, and the only way your mind knows how to deal with that is to create this anger towards them to help you not have to deal with those overwhelming emotions. I've never been there, myself. All of my relationships have ended because it was just obviously not working. Some sadness, some disappointment, sure. But rarely any hard feelings or resentment.
Which, of course, brings us back to the question 'why'? If we got along so well - enough to still be friends afterwards - and we were attracted to each other, then why didn't the relationship work out? And here's what I've been able to come up with: as a society, we get a little too confused on the difference between a relationship and a friendship. And I think the real blame for this confusion belongs to the mindset that 'my significant other is also my best friend'. Well, aw shucks, that does sound swell. But I think it's misplaced. There's nothing wrong with having similar interests, and getting along great and all that good stuff - in fact, you absolutely should, if the relationship is going to have any sort of a chance - but i need different things from a relationship than I do from a friendship. And to say that your wife is also your best friend, kind of sells both of those titles a little short.
For you to compare your wife to the beer-guzzling, womanizing, douche bag guys that you went to high school with - the ones that formerly held that coveted title of 'best friend' - pretty much completely devalues the special bond that you two have. It also kind of suggests that you could get that same happiness with any of those same loser friends, and you're just a few shots of tequila and a conversation about ancient Greek culture away from trying to make it happen. Look, I get why people say it, it's sweet. But for me, the things I look for in my friends are much different then the things I look for in a partner. And some of the character traits that I'm fine with having in a friend, might be complete deal breakers in a relationship. Which is precisely why a girl can be just fine as a friend, even though she didn't work out at all in a relationship.
You see, every single one of my friends has at least one thing that kind of bugs me about them. Which is fine; we're all different people, and everyone has their foibles. The world would be a pretty boring place if you only surrounded yourself with people that were exactly the same as you in every way. But what might make for a fun debate over a few beers at the pub once or twice with a friend, might be too difficult to overlook in a relationship, when you're fighting over it for the 91st time, and it no longer feels like a 'cute little difference in opinion'.
Here's an example: I'm a messy dude. I let the dishes pile up, I'll wear the same socks two days in a row, and I sure as hell don't clean the stubble out of the sink after I shave. Some people just can't stand a messy home. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's very normal. But nothing is ever going to change the fact that I kind of like a messy home. Sure, I'm willing to compromise and meet somewhere in the middle with a girl that prefers things are clean most of the time. But a relationship would never work between me and a real neat freak, because eventually even with a bit of effort on my part, it would still drive her completely insane. It just would. I can be friends with that person, because either they could just never come over to my place, or if they did, I could straighten it up before they arrived.
But how often do you see your friends? Once a week? Once a month? It's no big deal for me to clean up those few times a year, or just meet at their place if they really can't stand the mess. But I'm not going to be able to do that if it's a girlfriend that's swinging by 4 or 5 times a week. I'm just not. I might keep it up for a month, maybe two, as we go through that 'look how perfect I am' phase, where you'd never even think about farting, let alone taking a dump when they're anywhere within a five mile radius of you. But eventually that wears off, and the real you starts to emerge. And the real me is a messy dude.
Does that make sense? How, what you can let slide as a quality in a friend - whether it be that they're kind of a dick, or a Calgary Flames fan, or something (although those are usually one and the same) - might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in a relationship. And I think that's the key: differentiating what a relationship is, and what a friendship is. If you're only ever friends with girls in order to eventually date them, then the Friends with your Ex dynamic just isn't going to work for you. That's fine. I'm not saying everyone should be friends with their Ex's. But I am saying that they also shouldn't be so quick to assume that just because it would never work for them, that means it can't possibly work for anyone else either.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships IV
I saved this one for last. Why? Because for once I not only have an opinion on this, but for the first time ever, I also have experience that directly relates to the topic at hand. I know, right? Who knew?
Which brings us to: Can a guy and a girl just be friends?
I'm pretty sure the general consensus is a resounding 'no', but I stand firmly in the 'yes' camp. Why? Because I've had many successful friendships with members of the fairer sex. Now, this tends to lead to the assumption that I fall somewhere in the spectrum of 'simply naive' all the way up to 'completely oblivious about the world in which I inhabit'.
While I can't deny my naivety at times - I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in assuming that everyone is inherently 'good', when this is obviously not always the case - but I don't consider myself an oblivious person at all. If anything, I over-analyze the small details way too much. That said, my response (or often lack thereof) to such analysis can understandably be misconstrued as such. And while I understand why this is, all I can do is try to assure you that it is not the case. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.
Now, before you shake your head and start to question every opinion I've ever had, in response to this unpopular claim that guys and girls can in fact be friends, let's get a few things out of the way: First, and most importantly, I'm not saying that every guy and every girl can be friends. Not at all. There are certainly many instances where this is not possible in the slightest. Secondly, there's a very different situation that one can find themselves in called 'the friend zone'. This is a completely different scenario, and rarely ever turns out well.
With that out of the way, here's why I think that a guy/girl friendship can work:
The main reason that people assume a co-ed friendship is impossible is of course, attraction. The assumption is always that one or possibly even both of the 'friends' are actually hoping that the friendship leads to something more. That one of the them is attracted to the other, and either they've been told they can't be more than friends by the other person, and they hope they can wear them down over time, or else they haven't had the guts to make their move yet and let their intentions be known. And don't get me wrong, this is undoubtedly the most common example of a male/female friendship, and is always, without fail, going to come crashing down at some point.
These friendships are pipe dreams, and quite frankly are impossible. The main reason being, that whether they even realize it or not, one of the people doesn't even want to be friends. They may be patient, they may even be willing to convince themselves that they can just be friends. But eventually the other shoe will drop. Not always in a negative way, mind you, I'm sure some do evolve into that relationship that they were hoping for. But as a general rule, if at least one of the 'friends' is attracted to the other, even in a small way, the friendship is ultimately doomed to fail.
So, moving past that, once we've found the rare two people that have absolutely no attraction to one another, the next thing that people can't get past (and therefore discredit every co-ed friendship because of) is the simple question: Why? Some people definitely have a singular opinion of the opposite sex. Like, a woman is only good for marrying, impregnating, or sewing. So, if you're not after any of those things, then why would you even bother with them? Obviously, no one wants to admit to that narrow and ultimately sexist mindset, but it's actually a pretty common response to a legitimate male/female friendship. Maybe not as blatantly as I've laid it out in my example, but there are definitely people that don't understand why a person would want to be friends with a lady if they don't have some other underlying motivating factor.
And these people will probably never be convinced. So, I'm not even going to bother trying. Just know, some people genuinely enjoy the company of each other, regardless of gender, and not because they eventually want to jump each other's bones.
Trust me, I know. I've been friends with a girl from high school for over 13 years now. And I know I have no interest in her beyond friendship, and I have to assume the same of her, since she's definitely not the type to hold back from expressing her feelings, so I doubt very much she would have kept them bottled up for over a decade. By contrast, I've also been in friendships where interest in an eventual relationship has been the ultimate goal. So, honestly, I do know and am able to recognize the difference between the two.
But if you still have trouble believing that, then let me tell you about another type of guy/girl friendship that most people have trouble wrapping their minds around, that I have also been involved with. Well, actually, I haven't really ended with a good tease in a while, so really, I should say: let me tell you all about it... next week.
Which brings us to: Can a guy and a girl just be friends?
I'm pretty sure the general consensus is a resounding 'no', but I stand firmly in the 'yes' camp. Why? Because I've had many successful friendships with members of the fairer sex. Now, this tends to lead to the assumption that I fall somewhere in the spectrum of 'simply naive' all the way up to 'completely oblivious about the world in which I inhabit'.
While I can't deny my naivety at times - I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in assuming that everyone is inherently 'good', when this is obviously not always the case - but I don't consider myself an oblivious person at all. If anything, I over-analyze the small details way too much. That said, my response (or often lack thereof) to such analysis can understandably be misconstrued as such. And while I understand why this is, all I can do is try to assure you that it is not the case. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.
Now, before you shake your head and start to question every opinion I've ever had, in response to this unpopular claim that guys and girls can in fact be friends, let's get a few things out of the way: First, and most importantly, I'm not saying that every guy and every girl can be friends. Not at all. There are certainly many instances where this is not possible in the slightest. Secondly, there's a very different situation that one can find themselves in called 'the friend zone'. This is a completely different scenario, and rarely ever turns out well.
With that out of the way, here's why I think that a guy/girl friendship can work:
The main reason that people assume a co-ed friendship is impossible is of course, attraction. The assumption is always that one or possibly even both of the 'friends' are actually hoping that the friendship leads to something more. That one of the them is attracted to the other, and either they've been told they can't be more than friends by the other person, and they hope they can wear them down over time, or else they haven't had the guts to make their move yet and let their intentions be known. And don't get me wrong, this is undoubtedly the most common example of a male/female friendship, and is always, without fail, going to come crashing down at some point.
These friendships are pipe dreams, and quite frankly are impossible. The main reason being, that whether they even realize it or not, one of the people doesn't even want to be friends. They may be patient, they may even be willing to convince themselves that they can just be friends. But eventually the other shoe will drop. Not always in a negative way, mind you, I'm sure some do evolve into that relationship that they were hoping for. But as a general rule, if at least one of the 'friends' is attracted to the other, even in a small way, the friendship is ultimately doomed to fail.
So, moving past that, once we've found the rare two people that have absolutely no attraction to one another, the next thing that people can't get past (and therefore discredit every co-ed friendship because of) is the simple question: Why? Some people definitely have a singular opinion of the opposite sex. Like, a woman is only good for marrying, impregnating, or sewing. So, if you're not after any of those things, then why would you even bother with them? Obviously, no one wants to admit to that narrow and ultimately sexist mindset, but it's actually a pretty common response to a legitimate male/female friendship. Maybe not as blatantly as I've laid it out in my example, but there are definitely people that don't understand why a person would want to be friends with a lady if they don't have some other underlying motivating factor.
And these people will probably never be convinced. So, I'm not even going to bother trying. Just know, some people genuinely enjoy the company of each other, regardless of gender, and not because they eventually want to jump each other's bones.
Trust me, I know. I've been friends with a girl from high school for over 13 years now. And I know I have no interest in her beyond friendship, and I have to assume the same of her, since she's definitely not the type to hold back from expressing her feelings, so I doubt very much she would have kept them bottled up for over a decade. By contrast, I've also been in friendships where interest in an eventual relationship has been the ultimate goal. So, honestly, I do know and am able to recognize the difference between the two.
But if you still have trouble believing that, then let me tell you about another type of guy/girl friendship that most people have trouble wrapping their minds around, that I have also been involved with. Well, actually, I haven't really ended with a good tease in a while, so really, I should say: let me tell you all about it... next week.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships III
Last week we got into how you might feel if your significant other had to make out with someone because of their job. You know, like if they were an actor or an actress or an accountant or something. Regardless of how you felt about it, you have to admit, in that scenario, at least you knew about it and sort of had a say in it. Even if they chose the job over you, you still had a say in it.
But what if you didn't? That's right, could you forgive a cheater?
Randy was watching Extract the other day, and thought that the ending implied that (spoiler alert) the couple stayed together in the end. That got him thinking about the aforementioned question at hand. And when Randy starts thinking, guess who the poor bastard is that has to listen to it? Well, now you all get to share in my pain.
As per my usual disclaimer, in which I fully admit to having no real grounds to be giving an opinion on any of this, I should mention that I have never been in love. And I can't honestly claim to know how that sticky little emotion might change my perspective on any of this. I can only guess based on how I think I would feel. So, again, take this all with a grain of salt.
First and foremost is the popular mantra 'once a cheater, always a cheater'. Which I fully endorse. It takes a certain moral ambiguity to cheat on someone that you claim to care about, and I don't think that sort of inherent character flaw is the type of thing that just goes away simply because you got caught once. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say whether it can even be corrected with time and counselling or not. But for the most part, I think it's is a very good rule of thumb. If they cheat on you once, no matter how sorry they seem, there's a pretty good chance they'll cheat on you again, eventually. It's like waking up after a night of drinking, with an awful hangover, and promising yourself that you'll never drink again as long as you live. In that moment you honestly mean it (just as I'm sure an apologetic cheater does). In your mind, you absolutely won't drink ever again. But how many people honestly stick to that promise in the end?
And it's all tied in with that same little character flaw that let's them cheat in the first place: selfishness. To me, the sort of person that cheats is the sort of person that thinks about themselves first and foremost. If they were thinking about your feelings, they could never have done it in the first place, right? If they cared about you at all, they wouldn't be able to do it, knowing how much pain it would cause you. The fact that they don't - even for that one little instant when they give in to temptation - tells me everything I need to know about them. It's a very revealing moment. You learn more about that person in an instant, than a thousand dates could ever reveal.
Sure, they're all tears once they're discovered. And they should be. They aren't complete monsters (or you wouldn't have cared about them in the first place). But it's the difference between someone that honestly cares about you, and someone that only cares whether or not you know about it. Yes, it makes them sad to know that they hurt you, but the mere fact that they're only sad after the fact, speaks volumes. They may not be selfish all the time, but in that moment of truth, they chose themselves over you. Which, to me, is what would bother me more than anything. The thoughts of her in the throws of passion with another man - while it would be tough - I honestly believe I could get past. It's the knowledge of how easily she could cast my feelings aside for her own enjoyment that would be impossible to get over.
It's sort of like that term 'emotional cheating'. Where people get mad at their significant other for having a relationship with someone in a chat room or something. And the argument is that if there's no sex, then it's not cheating. And when you first hear about it, your initial reaction is that getting upset over some harmless emotional cheating is stupid. That it really can't be cheating without sex. But at the end of the day, I kind of agree with the person that's upset. An emotional connection goes much deeper than a physical one, in my mind. And to not understand why trying to have that same connection with multiple people might upset your partner, well, that's just missing the point entirely. It's not about a text book definition of cheating, where everything is black and white, and sex is cheating and everything else isn't. That's not the way it works. It's all grey area. And it's all different for each person. Some people think simply looking at another person - checking them out, or what not - is wrong. Other people could care less, so long as the person looks but doesn't touch. Some wives don't mind if their husbands go to strip clubs, whereas others won't even let their husband look at the Sunshine Girl.
My point is, you should know your partner. If you really care about them, you know what they consider to be ok and you know what will hurt them. And by still doing that which hurts them, when you know that it does. Well, that's the worst thing you can do. Playing dumb, or trying to stick to some rigid definition of right and wrong, where these things are always right and only these things are wrong, well that's just bullshit. If you know it hurts her, then it's wrong. Simple as that.
So whether it's 'just' kissing, or 'just' having sex, you know when you've cheated on your partner, and while the ability to forgive that transgression will vary based on the person and the severity of the act, at the end of the day, you know if it was cheating or not, and if you chose to still do it anyways, then you just didn't care about that person as much as you'd like to think that you did.
Which brings us to whether or not I would take someone back if they had cheated on me. No, I don't think I would. Not because I think adultery is unforgivable - which some people do, and have every right to - but because I think that their true character has been revealed, and honestly, that is not the sort of person I want to be around. It's kind of like the type of person that would torture and kill a puppy. I almost think they should be punished worst than the guy that accidentally ran over an old lady in a cross walk. Not because I value the life of a dog more than the life of a human, but because I think it speaks to a much deeper sickness. If you can look a cute puppy in it's adorable face and without regret, hit it or burn it or cut it or beat it, then there is just something wrong with you. You are broken and probably cannot be fixed. On a strictly psychological level, that guy is a bigger threat to society than the accountant that wasn't paying attention when Nana needed to cross 32nd and Vine.
I'm not trying to compare animal cruelty and manslaughter to cheating, at least not in terms of the severity of the transgressions, but I am comparing them on a strictly psychological level. I'd be willing to forgive the guy that accidentally ran over grandma, but I don't think I could do the same for the guy that could look something so cute in the face and only wish it harm. Just like I don't think I could ever believe a person that looked me in the eye and told me that they cared about me, but then proved that they really didn't by cheating on me. The end result isn't the point, otherwise having a dead person would of course be far worse than having a injured dog. The point is why they did it in the first place.
But, maybe that's just me. I can't factor in what it would be like to have a wife of 20 years cheat, especially if you had kids. I mean, at that point, what do you do? You may not ever forgive them, but you might need to move past it and stay together for the kids. And like I said, it's different for everyone. Maybe you have forgiven a cheater. Maybe that makes a you a better person than me. Although, I doubt it. Really, it just proves that each person has a different set of standards, and no one person's are right, and no one person's are wrong.
Except for Hitler. I'm pretty sure his were wrong.
But what if you didn't? That's right, could you forgive a cheater?
Randy was watching Extract the other day, and thought that the ending implied that (spoiler alert) the couple stayed together in the end. That got him thinking about the aforementioned question at hand. And when Randy starts thinking, guess who the poor bastard is that has to listen to it? Well, now you all get to share in my pain.
As per my usual disclaimer, in which I fully admit to having no real grounds to be giving an opinion on any of this, I should mention that I have never been in love. And I can't honestly claim to know how that sticky little emotion might change my perspective on any of this. I can only guess based on how I think I would feel. So, again, take this all with a grain of salt.
First and foremost is the popular mantra 'once a cheater, always a cheater'. Which I fully endorse. It takes a certain moral ambiguity to cheat on someone that you claim to care about, and I don't think that sort of inherent character flaw is the type of thing that just goes away simply because you got caught once. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say whether it can even be corrected with time and counselling or not. But for the most part, I think it's is a very good rule of thumb. If they cheat on you once, no matter how sorry they seem, there's a pretty good chance they'll cheat on you again, eventually. It's like waking up after a night of drinking, with an awful hangover, and promising yourself that you'll never drink again as long as you live. In that moment you honestly mean it (just as I'm sure an apologetic cheater does). In your mind, you absolutely won't drink ever again. But how many people honestly stick to that promise in the end?
And it's all tied in with that same little character flaw that let's them cheat in the first place: selfishness. To me, the sort of person that cheats is the sort of person that thinks about themselves first and foremost. If they were thinking about your feelings, they could never have done it in the first place, right? If they cared about you at all, they wouldn't be able to do it, knowing how much pain it would cause you. The fact that they don't - even for that one little instant when they give in to temptation - tells me everything I need to know about them. It's a very revealing moment. You learn more about that person in an instant, than a thousand dates could ever reveal.
Sure, they're all tears once they're discovered. And they should be. They aren't complete monsters (or you wouldn't have cared about them in the first place). But it's the difference between someone that honestly cares about you, and someone that only cares whether or not you know about it. Yes, it makes them sad to know that they hurt you, but the mere fact that they're only sad after the fact, speaks volumes. They may not be selfish all the time, but in that moment of truth, they chose themselves over you. Which, to me, is what would bother me more than anything. The thoughts of her in the throws of passion with another man - while it would be tough - I honestly believe I could get past. It's the knowledge of how easily she could cast my feelings aside for her own enjoyment that would be impossible to get over.
It's sort of like that term 'emotional cheating'. Where people get mad at their significant other for having a relationship with someone in a chat room or something. And the argument is that if there's no sex, then it's not cheating. And when you first hear about it, your initial reaction is that getting upset over some harmless emotional cheating is stupid. That it really can't be cheating without sex. But at the end of the day, I kind of agree with the person that's upset. An emotional connection goes much deeper than a physical one, in my mind. And to not understand why trying to have that same connection with multiple people might upset your partner, well, that's just missing the point entirely. It's not about a text book definition of cheating, where everything is black and white, and sex is cheating and everything else isn't. That's not the way it works. It's all grey area. And it's all different for each person. Some people think simply looking at another person - checking them out, or what not - is wrong. Other people could care less, so long as the person looks but doesn't touch. Some wives don't mind if their husbands go to strip clubs, whereas others won't even let their husband look at the Sunshine Girl.
My point is, you should know your partner. If you really care about them, you know what they consider to be ok and you know what will hurt them. And by still doing that which hurts them, when you know that it does. Well, that's the worst thing you can do. Playing dumb, or trying to stick to some rigid definition of right and wrong, where these things are always right and only these things are wrong, well that's just bullshit. If you know it hurts her, then it's wrong. Simple as that.
So whether it's 'just' kissing, or 'just' having sex, you know when you've cheated on your partner, and while the ability to forgive that transgression will vary based on the person and the severity of the act, at the end of the day, you know if it was cheating or not, and if you chose to still do it anyways, then you just didn't care about that person as much as you'd like to think that you did.
Which brings us to whether or not I would take someone back if they had cheated on me. No, I don't think I would. Not because I think adultery is unforgivable - which some people do, and have every right to - but because I think that their true character has been revealed, and honestly, that is not the sort of person I want to be around. It's kind of like the type of person that would torture and kill a puppy. I almost think they should be punished worst than the guy that accidentally ran over an old lady in a cross walk. Not because I value the life of a dog more than the life of a human, but because I think it speaks to a much deeper sickness. If you can look a cute puppy in it's adorable face and without regret, hit it or burn it or cut it or beat it, then there is just something wrong with you. You are broken and probably cannot be fixed. On a strictly psychological level, that guy is a bigger threat to society than the accountant that wasn't paying attention when Nana needed to cross 32nd and Vine.
I'm not trying to compare animal cruelty and manslaughter to cheating, at least not in terms of the severity of the transgressions, but I am comparing them on a strictly psychological level. I'd be willing to forgive the guy that accidentally ran over grandma, but I don't think I could do the same for the guy that could look something so cute in the face and only wish it harm. Just like I don't think I could ever believe a person that looked me in the eye and told me that they cared about me, but then proved that they really didn't by cheating on me. The end result isn't the point, otherwise having a dead person would of course be far worse than having a injured dog. The point is why they did it in the first place.
But, maybe that's just me. I can't factor in what it would be like to have a wife of 20 years cheat, especially if you had kids. I mean, at that point, what do you do? You may not ever forgive them, but you might need to move past it and stay together for the kids. And like I said, it's different for everyone. Maybe you have forgiven a cheater. Maybe that makes a you a better person than me. Although, I doubt it. Really, it just proves that each person has a different set of standards, and no one person's are right, and no one person's are wrong.
Except for Hitler. I'm pretty sure his were wrong.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships II
I'm no prude, but what's the deal with married actors getting a free pass to make out with their co-stars?
"Oh, it's just part of the job…"
Really? That actually flies? I mean, I can see why the actor's don't complain - they get the best of both worlds - but does this honestly not bug their wives at all? Do we just not hear about it? Is there an unspoken understanding, or is it spoken about quite frequently behind closed doors?
Or is it the greatest scam in the history of all time?
Again, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just curious is all. I mean, it can't not bug someone, right? Seeing their significant other chewing on the lip of the next up-and-coming Hollywood starlet. Sure, part of the job is part of the job - and some benefits are better than others - but that alone can't stop jealousy from rearing it's ugly head, right?
Maybe this is why so many Hollywood marriages fail. We always assume it's cheating or something like that that causes the split, but maybe, more often than not, it's just plain old fashioned insecurity. I mean, I would place actors and actresses at damn need the top of the insecure food pyramid. There's only a handful that are immune to the possibility of a younger/hotter/more-talented-one coming along and taking their job. Imagine then, if you're not getting many offers, your agent isn't returning your calls, you audition to play the cool twenty-something, only to be offered the role of her mom, and then you see your husband doing a guest spot on Californication, completely naked on top of a young girl that's half your age, twice your hotness, and making double your salary. There's no way that doesn't lead to a little resentment.
But that's Hollywood. It's easy to shrug such a situation off as being the problems of some far away, strange place, worlds away from your own. But, in the spirit of Hollywood, let's pretend for a second. How cool would you be with it? Because I'm not a jealous person by nature. I don't think I would care too much if my actress girlfriend was making out with some new dude every week on her Sex and the City-for-a-new-generation type sitcom. Not the least of which is because I'd just be so happy to be dating an actress that nothing else would even matter. But, honestly, I don't think I would be that jealous. Like I said before, if has to bug everyone at least a little bit, right? But all things considered, I think I would be on the low end of that scale. That said, you never know. I might not lose sleep over it at all, or I might catch a hint of something that looks like genuine lust and gather up all her stuff and burn it on the lawn right then and there.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm sure I never will. And as much as I like to think that my nickname at the cool Hollywood parties would be 'Cucumber' because I'd be so damn cool with it all, really, I honestly don't know. I've seen guys that fly into a rage when their girlfriend is too flirty with a waiter and I know that there exists in this world normal(ish) guys that are married to porn stars. I'm definitely not the former or the latter. And, as cool as I think I'd be with it, I totally understand those that wouldn't be. There really is no right and wrong here. Different people feel different ways about such things.
Regardless of where you fall on the subject, feel free to forward this blog onto Scarlett Johansson. That way she'll know that it won't be a problem for me, and then, undoubtedly, we'll be married within the year. Thanks.
"Oh, it's just part of the job…"
Really? That actually flies? I mean, I can see why the actor's don't complain - they get the best of both worlds - but does this honestly not bug their wives at all? Do we just not hear about it? Is there an unspoken understanding, or is it spoken about quite frequently behind closed doors?
Or is it the greatest scam in the history of all time?
Again, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just curious is all. I mean, it can't not bug someone, right? Seeing their significant other chewing on the lip of the next up-and-coming Hollywood starlet. Sure, part of the job is part of the job - and some benefits are better than others - but that alone can't stop jealousy from rearing it's ugly head, right?
Maybe this is why so many Hollywood marriages fail. We always assume it's cheating or something like that that causes the split, but maybe, more often than not, it's just plain old fashioned insecurity. I mean, I would place actors and actresses at damn need the top of the insecure food pyramid. There's only a handful that are immune to the possibility of a younger/hotter/more-talented-one coming along and taking their job. Imagine then, if you're not getting many offers, your agent isn't returning your calls, you audition to play the cool twenty-something, only to be offered the role of her mom, and then you see your husband doing a guest spot on Californication, completely naked on top of a young girl that's half your age, twice your hotness, and making double your salary. There's no way that doesn't lead to a little resentment.
But that's Hollywood. It's easy to shrug such a situation off as being the problems of some far away, strange place, worlds away from your own. But, in the spirit of Hollywood, let's pretend for a second. How cool would you be with it? Because I'm not a jealous person by nature. I don't think I would care too much if my actress girlfriend was making out with some new dude every week on her Sex and the City-for-a-new-generation type sitcom. Not the least of which is because I'd just be so happy to be dating an actress that nothing else would even matter. But, honestly, I don't think I would be that jealous. Like I said before, if has to bug everyone at least a little bit, right? But all things considered, I think I would be on the low end of that scale. That said, you never know. I might not lose sleep over it at all, or I might catch a hint of something that looks like genuine lust and gather up all her stuff and burn it on the lawn right then and there.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm sure I never will. And as much as I like to think that my nickname at the cool Hollywood parties would be 'Cucumber' because I'd be so damn cool with it all, really, I honestly don't know. I've seen guys that fly into a rage when their girlfriend is too flirty with a waiter and I know that there exists in this world normal(ish) guys that are married to porn stars. I'm definitely not the former or the latter. And, as cool as I think I'd be with it, I totally understand those that wouldn't be. There really is no right and wrong here. Different people feel different ways about such things.
Regardless of where you fall on the subject, feel free to forward this blog onto Scarlett Johansson. That way she'll know that it won't be a problem for me, and then, undoubtedly, we'll be married within the year. Thanks.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Travis Tackles Relationships
I know that I start pretty much every blog entry with some sort of "let's get this out of the way right now…" wherein I explain that even though I am clearly no expert on the given subject, and probably have no qualifications whatsoever to be writing about it, I'm going to anyways. It's my way of letting you know that I know, that you know, that it's really not my place to be writing about anything. I'm essentially bursting my own bubble in advance, so that you can't slam me in the comments after the fact, saying something like 'u put the ferrari at 1 butt only have the mclaren at 5, i'm not surprised, since ur a little bitch that drives a '99 cavalier…'
First off, ouch. Second, you spelled 'butt' wrong, and now that I've pointed that out, I am the superior internet guy, loser!
And third, that's why I wrote that whole thing at the beginning. Because I know I don't drive a nice car, I know I don't work for Road & Track, and I know that I'm a little bitch. Wait, what? Dammit. Now look what you've done…
Sure, this all probably stems from a much deeper issue - a general lack of self confidence - and it's probably all just a huge unnecessary waste of effort. But it's just something I do. If you're not used to it by now, well you can… you can…
Ah, forget it. You know I'll take whatever readers I can get.
Anyways, basically, what this all comes down to is this: nothing I have written about on this blog has been because I'm an expert on the subject. But at the very least I've had an opinion on it. A horse in the race, if you will. Not any more. Because for the next few weeks, I'm giving my thoughts on dating, marriage and relationships. We're diving into the fairer sex here, gents. And I'm not going to lie, it's a topic that I'm woefully unqualified to be talking about.
So please, be gentle.
This week, I'm going to ease you in lightly. The topic of discussion, as sent to me by one of my readers, whom shall remain nameless, is as follows:
Well, Randy, I would most certainly consider that 'wrong'. The fact that you would even suggest such a horrible thing is demeaning to your wife and the very institution of marriage itself. You are the kind of man that is giving the rest of us a bad name. Shame on you.
All joking aside though, is it entirely wrong? Isn't attraction a big part of a relationship? I'm not talking about love here. I'm talking about attraction. Just because you're not as attracted to someone as you once were, doesn't mean you've stopped loving them. So, well I'm not saying guys should start telling their wives 'if you put on 5 pounds, we're getting a divorce…', I do wonder if it is really that unreasonable to want to stay attracted to your wife, which might not happen if she puts on 75 pounds.
Needless to say this is not exactly going to endear me to the ladies, and probably makes me sound like a complete asshole - and obviously it's not really something you just come out and say as part of your wedding vows - but I still think it's foolish to just assume that once you're married, you'll stay attracted to each other no matter what. And look, I'm not saying a woman should ever be expected to be like she was in her 20's, now that she's 40 and has pumped out a few kids along the way. But sometimes that's an easy crutch to fall back on too.
That said, after a long day of packing lunches, driving the kids to school, working a shift at the office, picking the kids up, making supper, doing dishes... all that stuff, maybe an excuse is all someone needs in order to lay on the couch with a tub of ice cream and watch The Bachelor. I know the last thing I would be thinking is 'I should get on the treadmill…'
So what's the answer? Women work hard and deserve their downtime. Men have an unfair double standard in which they aren't judged as harshly if they 'let themselves go a little' as they age. And the cold-hard-truth is that it takes more work to stay in shape the older that you get. But none of that changes the fact that if you weren't attracted to a heavy-set girl before you got married, you probably aren't going to be attracted to one after you get married. As unfair as that is, and no matter how much you love them.
And my solution? Well, actually, I'm starting to realize that I'm not exactly easing myself in with this topic of discussion, as I had originally hoped when I first brought it up. In fact, it's pretty much a veritable minefield of potential statements in which I can't possibly hope to come away from without having my foot very squarely lodged in my mouth. But here it goes anyways: as with all things, compromise. Men, don't expect washboard abs, or the ass of a twenty year old. She's older now, and so long as she looks like a woman her age is supposed to, you have nothing to complain about. Ladies, stop asking us if anything you try on makes you look fat. You already know the answer, and we're horrible liars, so knock it off already.
There. Done. I've pretty much eliminated divorce from all of society. Be sure to tune in next week for even more unsolicited relationship advice. Don't worry, it has to be good seeing as how I'll be spending the whole week alone in my apartment thinking about what to say.
First off, ouch. Second, you spelled 'butt' wrong, and now that I've pointed that out, I am the superior internet guy, loser!
And third, that's why I wrote that whole thing at the beginning. Because I know I don't drive a nice car, I know I don't work for Road & Track, and I know that I'm a little bitch. Wait, what? Dammit. Now look what you've done…
Sure, this all probably stems from a much deeper issue - a general lack of self confidence - and it's probably all just a huge unnecessary waste of effort. But it's just something I do. If you're not used to it by now, well you can… you can…
Ah, forget it. You know I'll take whatever readers I can get.
Anyways, basically, what this all comes down to is this: nothing I have written about on this blog has been because I'm an expert on the subject. But at the very least I've had an opinion on it. A horse in the race, if you will. Not any more. Because for the next few weeks, I'm giving my thoughts on dating, marriage and relationships. We're diving into the fairer sex here, gents. And I'm not going to lie, it's a topic that I'm woefully unqualified to be talking about.
So please, be gentle.
This week, I'm going to ease you in lightly. The topic of discussion, as sent to me by one of my readers, whom shall remain nameless, is as follows:
Right or Wrong? To tell your finance that she 'better not get fat'
Well, Randy, I would most certainly consider that 'wrong'. The fact that you would even suggest such a horrible thing is demeaning to your wife and the very institution of marriage itself. You are the kind of man that is giving the rest of us a bad name. Shame on you.
All joking aside though, is it entirely wrong? Isn't attraction a big part of a relationship? I'm not talking about love here. I'm talking about attraction. Just because you're not as attracted to someone as you once were, doesn't mean you've stopped loving them. So, well I'm not saying guys should start telling their wives 'if you put on 5 pounds, we're getting a divorce…', I do wonder if it is really that unreasonable to want to stay attracted to your wife, which might not happen if she puts on 75 pounds.
Needless to say this is not exactly going to endear me to the ladies, and probably makes me sound like a complete asshole - and obviously it's not really something you just come out and say as part of your wedding vows - but I still think it's foolish to just assume that once you're married, you'll stay attracted to each other no matter what. And look, I'm not saying a woman should ever be expected to be like she was in her 20's, now that she's 40 and has pumped out a few kids along the way. But sometimes that's an easy crutch to fall back on too.
That said, after a long day of packing lunches, driving the kids to school, working a shift at the office, picking the kids up, making supper, doing dishes... all that stuff, maybe an excuse is all someone needs in order to lay on the couch with a tub of ice cream and watch The Bachelor. I know the last thing I would be thinking is 'I should get on the treadmill…'
So what's the answer? Women work hard and deserve their downtime. Men have an unfair double standard in which they aren't judged as harshly if they 'let themselves go a little' as they age. And the cold-hard-truth is that it takes more work to stay in shape the older that you get. But none of that changes the fact that if you weren't attracted to a heavy-set girl before you got married, you probably aren't going to be attracted to one after you get married. As unfair as that is, and no matter how much you love them.
And my solution? Well, actually, I'm starting to realize that I'm not exactly easing myself in with this topic of discussion, as I had originally hoped when I first brought it up. In fact, it's pretty much a veritable minefield of potential statements in which I can't possibly hope to come away from without having my foot very squarely lodged in my mouth. But here it goes anyways: as with all things, compromise. Men, don't expect washboard abs, or the ass of a twenty year old. She's older now, and so long as she looks like a woman her age is supposed to, you have nothing to complain about. Ladies, stop asking us if anything you try on makes you look fat. You already know the answer, and we're horrible liars, so knock it off already.
There. Done. I've pretty much eliminated divorce from all of society. Be sure to tune in next week for even more unsolicited relationship advice. Don't worry, it has to be good seeing as how I'll be spending the whole week alone in my apartment thinking about what to say.
Friday, March 2, 2012
2012 NBA All-Star Weekend Results/Recap
Last year I did a pretty thorough Dunk Contest Review after the All-Star Weekend had wrapped up. I've done the same for this year's contest, but first let's have a quick look at how my predictions from the other events stacked up to the final results:
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
My prediction: Team Shaq (135) over Team Chuck (120)
Actual result: Team Chuck (146) over Team Shaq (133)
These were some thoughts that I scribbled down right after the game:
Despite only playing 11 college games, the Cavs were absolutely right to take Kyrie Irving with the first pick over all. That kid is a heck of a player. Blake is still the best dunker in the league. DeMarcus Cousins has a ton of talent, but his reputation as a head case looks to be well deserved. If he can't crack a smile during an all-star game, let alone refrain from starring down teammates when they don't pass to him every possession… I can't imagine what he's like on a nightly basis for the Kings. That's gotta be a sketchy locker room to be in. Rubio is the real deal. He's got to be the most fun passing point guard to come in the league since Nash. Cole from Miami and Morris from Phoenix looked really good. Evan Turner was probably the most skilled player on the court. But John Wall stood out to me the most. I've seen him in small doses these past 2 years, but he looked like an absolute specimen out there. I don't know if I've ever seen a player quicker, or faster with the ball. And his athleticism is off the charts. If he had the basketball skills and IQ of a guy like Turner, he would be one of the best players the league has ever seen.
Haier Shooting Stars
My prediction: Team New York
BBVA Rising Stars Challenge
My prediction: Team Shaq (135) over Team Chuck (120)
Actual result: Team Chuck (146) over Team Shaq (133)
These were some thoughts that I scribbled down right after the game:
Despite only playing 11 college games, the Cavs were absolutely right to take Kyrie Irving with the first pick over all. That kid is a heck of a player. Blake is still the best dunker in the league. DeMarcus Cousins has a ton of talent, but his reputation as a head case looks to be well deserved. If he can't crack a smile during an all-star game, let alone refrain from starring down teammates when they don't pass to him every possession… I can't imagine what he's like on a nightly basis for the Kings. That's gotta be a sketchy locker room to be in. Rubio is the real deal. He's got to be the most fun passing point guard to come in the league since Nash. Cole from Miami and Morris from Phoenix looked really good. Evan Turner was probably the most skilled player on the court. But John Wall stood out to me the most. I've seen him in small doses these past 2 years, but he looked like an absolute specimen out there. I don't know if I've ever seen a player quicker, or faster with the ball. And his athleticism is off the charts. If he had the basketball skills and IQ of a guy like Turner, he would be one of the best players the league has ever seen.
Haier Shooting Stars
My prediction: Team New York
Actual result: Team New York
Although I picked the teams correctly, I still didn't even watch this event. And I'm fine with that.
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
My prediction: Tony Parker
Actual result: Tony Parker
2 for 2 with my picks for the Saturday events so far. Can I keep the streak alive?
Chase Budinger (6'7", Houston Rockets)
Dunk 1
I like the self-awareness on this dunk. Because, really, there's no way to say this other than, this is a white dude. Like really white. Something about the blonde hair just makes his complexion all the lighter. In fact, the only way he could look any whiter is if he was an albino. And, as much as we like to think our society has evolved beyond racial stereotypes, you can't help but see this guy and come to a few instant conclusions about him. Particularly about any potential dunking ability that he may or (more likely) may not possess. So rather than be like "I'm just going to come out here and win you over with some nice hops" he does a couple smart things. First, he gets Diddy involved. Think what you will about the guy, but there is a certain amount of 'street cred' that comes with his endorsement that you just aren't going to get if you're jumping over Dirk Nowitzki (although that would be much more impressive, seeing that Dirk is a 7-footer, and Diddy is decidedly not). Second, he references and pays homage (with the t-shirt and backwards ball cap) to one of the great sports movies off all time - White Men Can't Jump - right out of the gate. He's embracing the preconceived notions that eveyrone in the audience has about him right from the get-go. And I think that's smart.
Next up, as much as it pains me, I have to give respect to Diddy (although it's hard to do, when you have to keep calling the guy Diddy). One, for willing to be jumped over in the first place. I mean, it's not that dangerous, but it's not exactly for the faint of heart either. Things can go horribly wrong. And second, he really did throw a good pass. I imagine they must have practiced this a few times, but even with NBA point guards throwing the lobs, I've seen guys need 2 or 3 attempts to get it right, and they got this one down on the first try. So kudos there.
That said, this wasn't exactly a show-stopper. It's a good dunk, don't get me wrong. But it's not a classic. Diddy isn't tall enough to really make this one impressive. But I will give them full points for the slick presentation (theatrical, but concise, not dragging on for too long, or going too overboard) and getting it down on the first attempt.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 16
My score: 41
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans (6'9", Utah Jazz)
Dunk 1
*Yawn*
There's not much here. This would be a pretty basic dunk in a lay up line during warm ups, let alone a dunk competition. The gimmick was supposed to be that he's wearing a camera at eye level so you can see what he sees as he's dunking, but even on a good dunk that still isn't going to make for much of a camera angle. Kind of cool to see once, but again, even on a good dunk it's not going to show you much, unless you're looking right into the rim from the height of your jump. Which he wasn't.
But, even if the camera somehow made for a great point of view shot, that still doesn't change the fact that this was a pedestrian dunk at best. Gotta do better than this.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 37
My score: 35
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George (6'8", Indiana Pacers)
Dunk 1
Jumping over a guy standing straight up is cool. No doubt about it. But it's starting to get played out a bit in dunk contests. I watched both the D-League competition and the amateur Sprite Showdown competition this year, and almost all the dunks in those contests featured jumping-over-guys dunks too. Kind of like, how all we saw for the next few years after Vince went through-the-legs in 2000 was guys doing the same thing. It's impressive, sure. But you can only see it so many times before you start to go "Ok, let's move on to something else…"
But, my own personal bias aside, Roy Hibbert is a legit 7'2". So, clearing him, along with a second guy is no joke. Props should be given. Although, like Charles is quick to point out, he does use a fair bit of that left hand to help him get the height needed. And while it's still impressive, once you factor in a few too many attempts to finally get the dunk, plus the left-hand-vault technique, it does need to be docked a few points.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 44
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Derrick Williams (6'8", Minnesota Timberwolves)
Dunk 1
You know my thoughts on props and theatrics and multiple attempts, so I won't bore you with too much redundancy here. This is just a perfect example of: there's no need to ride in on the motorcycle, it's not impressive enough of a height to clear to really even elevate the impressiveness of the dunk, and a dunk is always better on the first attempt. Always.
But, even with these three things working against it, it was still pretty solid. Good extension on the windmill, decent power. It's not going to win you the competition, but all things considered, not a terrible way to warm up the crowd and get loose on your first dunk.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 19
My score: 39
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Although I picked the teams correctly, I still didn't even watch this event. And I'm fine with that.
Taco Bell Skills Challenge
My prediction: Tony Parker
Actual result: Tony Parker
2 for 2 with my picks for the Saturday events so far. Can I keep the streak alive?
Foot Locker Three-Point Contest
My prediction: Ryan Anderson
Actual result: Kevin Love
Nope. My guy didn't even get out of the first round. But it was a pretty good competition this year, despite some low scores in the finals.
Actual result: Kevin Love
Nope. My guy didn't even get out of the first round. But it was a pretty good competition this year, despite some low scores in the finals.
NBA All-Star Game presented by Kia Motors
My prediction: West (142) over East (127) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Actual result: West (152) over East (149) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Come on, that's a pretty solid prediction if you ask me. I didn't go as in-depth with my notes after watching this game. I just want to say: there is no other player like LeBron. In a game with the very best of the best in the league on the court at the same time, he was still obviously head-and-shoulders that much better than everyone else. Sure, Durant got the MVP (because he had the best stats on the winning team, and they rarely give it to a guy from the losing squad) but LeBron easily had the best game of any player on the floor.
Actual result: West (152) over East (149) [MVP: Kevin Durant]
Come on, that's a pretty solid prediction if you ask me. I didn't go as in-depth with my notes after watching this game. I just want to say: there is no other player like LeBron. In a game with the very best of the best in the league on the court at the same time, he was still obviously head-and-shoulders that much better than everyone else. Sure, Durant got the MVP (because he had the best stats on the winning team, and they rarely give it to a guy from the losing squad) but LeBron easily had the best game of any player on the floor.
Sprite Slam Dunk Contest
My prediction: Paul George
Ok, this is a bit out of order, seeing that the dunk competition is before the All-Star Game, but since we're going in depth here, I thought I would save it for last.
First off, let's get this out of the way now: it wasn't a very good contest. There were no big names, and only a few dunks were any good. In fact, some of the dunks that LeBron, Blake, Durant and Iguodala did in the All-Star Game would have been better than 90% of the stuff seen here. And those are dunks done within the confines of a game. A game without any defence being played, but a game, none-the-less. In fact, John Wall's dunk from the Rising Stars game, might have been the best of the entire weekend - including the dunk comp.
But, let's try not to let that get us down. There's still some decent stuff here to talk about. And it's still a dunk contest, so I can't help but analyze it and give way too much of my own opinion on things. But I mean, that's the point of having a blog, right?
The rules were changed a bit this year. Instead of a first round, second round or finals, there was just one round, and each contestant got 3 dunks total. This resulted in less total dunks than ever before, but maybe that turned out to be a good thing. Also, no judges, so instead of giving a score, I instead am including what I would have judged the score to be (out of 50). Another addition this year was the Dunk Intensity Meter, which is a technology developed at MIT to measure the force in which the ball is thrown through the hoop. According to the broadcast, a reading of 10 is 'The energy required to lift a 2L bottle of Sprite™out of a cooler", 33 is the "Energy required to break a human nose" and 100 is the energy or a "150 mph tennis serve".
Dunk 1
I like the self-awareness on this dunk. Because, really, there's no way to say this other than, this is a white dude. Like really white. Something about the blonde hair just makes his complexion all the lighter. In fact, the only way he could look any whiter is if he was an albino. And, as much as we like to think our society has evolved beyond racial stereotypes, you can't help but see this guy and come to a few instant conclusions about him. Particularly about any potential dunking ability that he may or (more likely) may not possess. So rather than be like "I'm just going to come out here and win you over with some nice hops" he does a couple smart things. First, he gets Diddy involved. Think what you will about the guy, but there is a certain amount of 'street cred' that comes with his endorsement that you just aren't going to get if you're jumping over Dirk Nowitzki (although that would be much more impressive, seeing that Dirk is a 7-footer, and Diddy is decidedly not). Second, he references and pays homage (with the t-shirt and backwards ball cap) to one of the great sports movies off all time - White Men Can't Jump - right out of the gate. He's embracing the preconceived notions that eveyrone in the audience has about him right from the get-go. And I think that's smart.
Next up, as much as it pains me, I have to give respect to Diddy (although it's hard to do, when you have to keep calling the guy Diddy). One, for willing to be jumped over in the first place. I mean, it's not that dangerous, but it's not exactly for the faint of heart either. Things can go horribly wrong. And second, he really did throw a good pass. I imagine they must have practiced this a few times, but even with NBA point guards throwing the lobs, I've seen guys need 2 or 3 attempts to get it right, and they got this one down on the first try. So kudos there.
That said, this wasn't exactly a show-stopper. It's a good dunk, don't get me wrong. But it's not a classic. Diddy isn't tall enough to really make this one impressive. But I will give them full points for the slick presentation (theatrical, but concise, not dragging on for too long, or going too overboard) and getting it down on the first attempt.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 16
My score: 41
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans (6'9", Utah Jazz)
Dunk 1
*Yawn*
There's not much here. This would be a pretty basic dunk in a lay up line during warm ups, let alone a dunk competition. The gimmick was supposed to be that he's wearing a camera at eye level so you can see what he sees as he's dunking, but even on a good dunk that still isn't going to make for much of a camera angle. Kind of cool to see once, but again, even on a good dunk it's not going to show you much, unless you're looking right into the rim from the height of your jump. Which he wasn't.
But, even if the camera somehow made for a great point of view shot, that still doesn't change the fact that this was a pedestrian dunk at best. Gotta do better than this.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 37
My score: 35
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George (6'8", Indiana Pacers)
Dunk 1
Jumping over a guy standing straight up is cool. No doubt about it. But it's starting to get played out a bit in dunk contests. I watched both the D-League competition and the amateur Sprite Showdown competition this year, and almost all the dunks in those contests featured jumping-over-guys dunks too. Kind of like, how all we saw for the next few years after Vince went through-the-legs in 2000 was guys doing the same thing. It's impressive, sure. But you can only see it so many times before you start to go "Ok, let's move on to something else…"
But, my own personal bias aside, Roy Hibbert is a legit 7'2". So, clearing him, along with a second guy is no joke. Props should be given. Although, like Charles is quick to point out, he does use a fair bit of that left hand to help him get the height needed. And while it's still impressive, once you factor in a few too many attempts to finally get the dunk, plus the left-hand-vault technique, it does need to be docked a few points.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 44
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Derrick Williams (6'8", Minnesota Timberwolves)
Dunk 1
You know my thoughts on props and theatrics and multiple attempts, so I won't bore you with too much redundancy here. This is just a perfect example of: there's no need to ride in on the motorcycle, it's not impressive enough of a height to clear to really even elevate the impressiveness of the dunk, and a dunk is always better on the first attempt. Always.
But, even with these three things working against it, it was still pretty solid. Good extension on the windmill, decent power. It's not going to win you the competition, but all things considered, not a terrible way to warm up the crowd and get loose on your first dunk.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 19
My score: 39
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Chase Budinger
Dunk 2
Well, we pretty much have the exact same dunk as the last one, only without the motorcycle. And while I don't think the motorcycle added that much to the last one (in fact, Budinger would have cleared it easily had it been on the floor for this dunk too) you still have to dock points for lack of creativity. You just can't go out and do almost the exact same dunk as the guy before you, without adding an element that ups the degree of difficulty, and expect a better score.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 24
My score: 37
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 2
Now we're talking. Finally a dunk of note. Very high degree of difficultly (and he only needed 2 tries… it's still better to get it on the first, but usually a dunk with this much going on needs 4 or 5 tries, which ruins the anticipation completely). Throw in some solid creativity, and all-in-all we have a very good dunk. Perhaps this will get the other guys to start stepping up their game as well and really turn this contest around…
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 15
My score: 50
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 25-30
Paul George
Dunk 2
Interesting. I'm still kind of divided on this dunk. Is it unnecessary theatrics (which I hate) or does it legitimately ramp up the degree of difficulty? It does, although probably not that much. But it serves a purpose so I suppose I can appreciate it. It's also a pretty bold move, seeing that the whole point of a dunk is to be able to see it as clearly as you can and from the best angles possible. So this easily could have worked against him seeing that maybe the cameras wouldn't pick up the dunk well enough, and the whole thing would just end up being one of those ideas that looked good on paper but failed horribly on camera (and especially in person at the arena, where the cheers of fans have more of an effect on the players than most people realize). Also, when an idea goes wrong, Charles, Kenny and Reggie don't hesitate to laugh you out of the building.
In the end, it worked for the most part. You could see that he did a pretty good dunk, it was kind of a cool effect, and you have to give him props for trying something new. That said, you still couldn't fully see the dunk to judge how powerful or acrobatic it really was. Maybe that played to it's advantage. Like not seeing the monster in a movie can sometimes be more scary than just showing it, since your imagination fills in the blanks. In the end, I need to be able to really see a dunk to properly judge it. So, if I don't see the mid-air pose, or how high off the ground his feet are, or how cleanly and powerfully he slammed it through, the pessimist in me just assumes that it couldn't have been that great. Once you get to the replays, that stuff become a little more clear, but there's still always that moment when you see a great dunk for the first time, where you sit up and go "oh, what was that?" Your brain is kind of scrambling to make sense of what it just saw, and even if you're not sure yet exactly why you liked it, you still know that you did. You don't really have that moment with a dunk like this. You're just kind of waiting for the replay so you can get a better look at it, rather than being almost unable to wait for the replay so that you can see it again and figure out exactly what all went on to give you those chills you just had when you saw it live a few seconds earlier.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 17
My score: 46
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 45-50
Derrick Williams
Dunk 2
And the streak continues. Another really good dunk. This time, with Williams managing to put down a dunk which Blake Griffin failed to complete properly last year. Which is pretty impressive when you think about it. Plus, anything with Ricky Rubio involved in it is definitely going to get bonus points from me. I love that kid.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 18
My score: 49
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 30-35
Chase Budinger
Dunk 3
The tribute dunk has become pretty popular in recent years. Ever since Josh Smith introduced it in 2005, there has been at least one per year in every contest since. And I kind of dig it. Sure, like the leap-frog dunk, it is becoming a little played out, but when it's done right, it still manages to win me over. And while there's nothing wrong with this one, I'm still pretty m-eh about it. And I think there's two reasons for this. For one, you'll never convince me that a guy can't see at least a little bit with a blindfold dunk. I don't care how much you practise it, I just don't believe anyone can just count out the steps and then manage to run up and dunk a ball without at least a hint of light sneaking through to let them see enough to guide them. It's still not easy, but it's very different than not being able to see at all (which is what these guys want us to think). And secondly, because of this, the Ceballos dunk (which he's paying homage to here) is often considered one of the lesser dunks to have won a contest in the entire history of the event.
So, while the dunk itself is not bad - better than the original to be sure - I still think if you're going to do a tribute dunk, you should probably pick something a little more revered in the annuls of dunking history.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My score: 40
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Jeremy Evans
Dunk 3
And just like that, I'm off of the tribute dunks again. Twice in one contest will always do that to me. But more importantly, at least Budinger's tribute has some historical merit. Sure, the dunk isn't fondly remembered, but Ceballos had won the contest with it exactly 20 years ago in the exact same city that was again hosting the current All-Star. But Karl Malone? I mean, as great of a player as he was, he wasn't exactly known for his dunking. Ya, he could put them down, but it was always the same thing: a one-handed power tomahawk. Which is fine in a game, but even Malone knew not to take that anywhere near a dunk competition.
So, now Evans is doing a tribute to a guy not known for his dunking, and he's adding in the mail delivery theatrics? Ya, I get it, Karl Malone was 'The Mailman', but still, you know how I feel about superfluous theatrics. Add in that we've already seen the leap-frog dunk twice in this contest already, and the guy that you're jumping over might actually be shorter than the motorcycle… to call this dunk 'played out' just doesn't encompass just how played out it really was. I'll give him kudos for not using his off hand to clear the guy (as was done in both of the previous jump-over-a-guy dunks) and for putting his hand behind his head, just like Malone used to always do. But still, I'm not exactly putting a poster of this dunk up in my bedroom any time soon.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My Score: 40
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Paul George
Dunk 3
For a really good dunk, this ended up being pretty lacklustre. Again, I think there's a couple reasons for this: For one, this is technically another tribute dunk. George plays for Indiana and Larry Bird is the greatest basketball player to come out of Indiana (plus he's the Pacer's current GM, which is the team George plays for). Without two tribute dunks right before it, he might have had a little more traction with the tribute angle. But he didn't. Secondly, he took 5 tries to get it down. That's just too many. No matter how good a dunk is, by the time you get past your second or third try, it's just not exciting anymore. And soon, as a fan, you're just hoping he gets it down, simply so that we can move on to the next one, rather than because you actually want to see the finished product. And third, this dunk looks way better in the replay. As a result, after finally getting it down, the crowd doesn't really react, George walks off the court with his shoulders slumped, and it's hard to get excited by the time we finally see just how good it actually was in the replay.
And it is good. I mean, there's a lot going on here: he slaps the backboard first (his intention was to put a Bird sticker up as he slapped it, but he ran out of stickers due to all the attempts) and then spins around and windmills it on the other side, along with having the highest power meter reading of the night. That's a heck of a dunk. Unfortunately, because of the overall flaws mentioned above, I can't score it on just the merits of the dunk alone, and the score suffers as a result.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: 40
My Score: 45
Estimated Top 50 Rank: 45-50
Derrick Williams
Dunk 3
After 9 attempts at an off-the-backboard-through-the-legs dunk, Williams settled for this as the clock was about to expire. Obviously, not much of a dunk, and not what he was hoping for, but if he wants to look at the bright side, it actually wasn't the worst dunk of the night. Evan's first attempt gets to hold that prestigious honour.
Dunk Intensity Meter Reading: result not shown
My Score: 36
Estimated Top 50 Rank: Missed the cut
Final Result: Jeremy Evans wins (based on fan voting)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
