So I haven't quite discovered my new lifestyle stride, but on the plus side I have become acquainted with the wonderful world of back pain, so that's a big plus.
I keep getting distracted though. Like yesterday a woman (who I have never met except online, so it may not be a woman. It could be a man. It could be a hyperintelligent emu. It could be a pretty smart emu getting coaching from a hyperintelligent penguin. Nobody knows.) suggested a sexual attraction to Bill O'Reilly. Up until that point I didn't realize it was possible to be attracted to Bill O'Reilly. I thought the blotches acted as some sort of repellent, leaving him to seek out sexual gratification by phoning subordinates and making inappropriate comments about his luffa. But there she (he, it) was, claiming that she wanted a ride on the Levittown express. Next stop, orgasmville.
She also said O'Reilly would make a great top, while to me he seems like the CONSUMMATE dominatrix patron. "I was a bad bad boy on my TV show."
The whole exchange confused me and I spent valuable time and energy contemplating the ramifications of Bill O'Reilly: Sex symbol for liberal women. It did not look good.
Then there was the whole Paris Hilton Carl's Jr. commercial (She washes a car), which was said to be too sexy for TV.
Paris Hilton? The woman whose body answers the question "What if Gumby were a Blonde?" What exactly is hot about that? Is it the way the suds drip down her pipe cleaner neck and pools in the vast cavities of her collar bone? Maybe it's the way she pushes her flatter than Kansas ass towards the camera, sexily stretching skin over bone so tightly that you can make out a fracture she got falling out of 10" heels at 7 years old. It couldn't be how she eats the burger. She's never eaten a burger in her life. She's barely eaten in her life. If it can't be easily thrown up or it's not attached to a D-list celebrity it is NOT going to get between those lips, period.
I think the problem may be that the media is skewing more and more gay, and they no longer understand what's hot to heterosexual guys. "Heteros like...blondes right? And they like chicks who enjoy anonymous sex in club bathrooms? Who knows, dude did you see Toby McGuire at that party? More like Tubby McGuire!"
So if you are a media gay I am going to provide you with a handy dandy guide to what guys want to see.
This is a slim and attractive young woman:
This is an abomination
This is Gumby
Note how the young woman has a bust in proportion to the rest of her body, clothing that would not be appropriate for a streetwalker, and a look of ponderance upon her face that implies she might be in the midst of an actual thought, and that she could be capable of opening her mouth for some purpose other than to endorse a product or bring down Western Civilization. How seductive is that?
The abomination has no breasts and is virtually indistinguishable from someone who has died of malnutrition except that her eyes are open. In fact, medically speaking, she has the robust health of a 3-month old corpse. Let's look at an approximation of how she might look without makeup, lighting, or scraps of cloth (to call them clothing would be a great injustice to mankind's storied tradition of covering his body in fabric.)
Look at the two pictures, the similarity is pretty startling, isn't it? (Paris Hilton actually is wheeled around and supported by a rod through her anus. This is because she does not consume enough calcium to have an actual spine. She is technically an invertebrate.)
That is not sexy. That is not even a cry for help. It's a human rights violation. To have this "woman" appear to consume food is something straight out of Famine's plan from Good Omens. It's not sexy. It's sad. Depressing. Painful.
It doesn't matter what Gumby washes, he's STILL fucking Gumby.
Another issue that has been plaguing me is the cost of audiobooks. I have been looking into them as entertainments on my interminable walks in the outside world. The only problem is that they cost more than hiring someone to walk FOR me. $30+ for American Gods? For that price Neil Gaiman should not only read the book to me, but come to my house and stroke my hair as I go to sleep. Seriously, I can buy the paperback for $7.99. What's the excuse for the cost? I'm downloading it off the net, so there's no physical production costs. Neil Gaiman is doing the reading himself, so there's no voice actor to pay. What, is Neil Gaiman the reader refusing to let Neil Gaiman the writer sell the book cheaper? I get why Elmore Leonard's The Hot Kid cost as much via audible.com as it does via Amazon.com but what about the older stuff. One volume in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy costs more via audiobook than the whole series does in hardback.
If they reduced the price presumably they would sell more and make more money, right? That's how supply and demand works. That's why paperbacks exist. What's up with audiobooks? Is there a secret monopoly? WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW!