Is there any Truth to the “Good Guys Always Lose” Mantra?

Posted on by
Reply

With the fourth and final tier (of “celebrity” power points), we have the really bad boy, usually described by the terms “thug,” “criminal,” “prisoner” or “convict.” They prove the truth of the notion “good guys always lose.” In one example, Magdalena Sanchez, a prison ward psychologist, had sex with Demetrius Hill, a “violent, abusive, twice-convicted felon who is a member of the Bloods gang”—in spite of the fact that Ms. Sanchez’s husband was a highly successful Wall Street banker, making millions to support her while in a $70,000-a-year job. Yet, Mr. Hill’s bad boy celebrity status had Ms. Sanchez putting her upper-class lifestyle at risk. Hmmm

Another example of a bad boy celebrity is convicted murderer Scott Peterson, whose female fan mail rolled in years after his incarceration. Now there is a male who was not only regularly cheating on his wife, but also killed her and their unborn child after the fact. And females still wanted him sexually. This type of non-celebrity-female-to-celebrity-male chaos has even me at a loss for words, if you can ­believe that.

Now click here to see the latest “bad boy” celebrity type to get the same treatment: Boston Bomber

The Cheating Chaos

Reply

In today’s America, the majority of non-elderly adults are having sex with multiple people every year. Moreover, little seems to be stopping those who are having sex with one person on a regular basis from proceeding to have sex with others.

Upon inquiry by the New York Daily News, Dr. Lawrence Balter, a professor of applied psychology at New York University, says “men and women who are as blatant about affairs as [Roger] Clemens has an ”oversized sense of entitlement. They believe if it makes them feel good, it’s justified.

Importantly, this mentality is not limited to people of Roger Clemens’ status; it is employed by practically anyone who thinks they can get away with it. Even more troublesome, people are no longer cheating only because they are unhappy, but simply for the challenge and adventure of having sex with someone new.

Today, both genders justify keeping their sexual options open no matter whom they currently have in their life. Said differently, many males and females are entertaining alternative partner prospects even when they are currently having sex with someone on a regular basis.

Opposite-sex companionship is clearly an individual freedom for both genders. But once two people start sharing company time and sex with each other on a regular basis, a bond is formed. Whether spoken or not, it is a bond that can lead to a monogamous-type understanding on both sides. However, justifications for having sex outside of one’s regular partner are running rampant. Welcome to hormonification.

hormonification 1. the hormonal related state or condition, of being blameless for having sex with others 2. a person justifying or being justified to partake in a sexual encounter, including a sex act, even though regularly having sex with others

The growing field of evolutionary psychology offers a theory on how the sex drive is genetically programmed. As reported by Philip Weiss in New York magazine, “One of the leaders in the field, David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire and a professor at the University of Texas, says that men’s genes program them to seek many mates and to attempt to monopolize the reproductive lives of those mates. But women are also programmed for infidelity, Buss says. They have a drive to monopolize the economic resources of their mate, according to the theory, but also to keep a man or two in reserve, because men die earlier than women, and men go off, and women need protection.”

Independent of this evolutionary psychological reasoning, one can split the ways that the monogamy promise is being murdered: Either the monogamy promise is not being made because of all of the sexual fun and temptation out there, or it is being made only to control the other partner. In the latter case, the partner initiating the promise has no intention of avoiding temptation, and likely no intentions of telling anyone once confronted. Welcome to biased dishonesty.

biased dishonesty 1. to cause to have a bias; influence; prejudice regarding a dishonest sex act or pursuit 2. fraud, lie, deception, etc. committed when having sex with others and not telling ongoing sex partners, most often driven by selfishness

With so much to deal with and explain if caught cheating, and with fewer and fewer partnerships being truly monogamous, biased dishonesty practices are ever more prevalent in America. While males and females date each other to share company time and sex, they are leaving their options open when without each other—or are at least testing whether they still have what it takes to sexually attract third party opposite-sex people—all while using biased dishonesty to cover their tracks. This dynamic makes the monogamy promise practically meaningless in modern America. Think about it.

Happy Hours

Posted on by
Reply

By now, most adult Americans who consume alcohol have not only heard the phrase “It’s happy hour somewhere in the world,” they have toasted to it as well. Whether on vacation or not, people are going on drinking shifts for four to even twelve hours straight. Personally, I think it might be time to redefine what constitutes binge drinking. Maybe “bombed drinking” could be a much needed second level. Exactly how many drinks does a person consume during a typical drink shift? Particularly at bar venues where “dancing it off” is not really an option.

Just look at it this way, how many minutes does it take the average drinker to consume one alcoholic beverage? If a person has a drink every fifteen minutes for the first two hours and every twenty minutes for the next two hours, this amounts to three and one-half drinks per hour, assuming not much time is wasted between drinks. Calculating one’s own average drinks per hour and average drink shift in hours could help put things in perspective. It is time to say this together – to hell with those blood alcohol content studies and their theories on how many drinks consumed per hour based on weight make one ­intoxicated. They need to recalibrate their charts with newly minted categories.

As long as no one gets hurt, intoxicated people can be quite comical, knocking over drinks, bumping into other people, falling off chairs, tripping, and losing their phones, wallets and pocketbooks. And there is not a term more apt than “dancing fool” to describe someone who is not a dancer attempting to dance once intoxicated.

Never being one to stop having fun with terminology, here are two new definitions of DWI to sip on: Drinking While Intoxicated and Dancing While Intoxicated. If sexually available, neither DWI situation is currently illegal. However, for those who are technically not sexually available due to a “morality-based” monogamy promise, one can also think in terms of the following DWM definitions: Drinking While Monogamous and Dancing While Monogamous.

Dancing, especially the type of dancing popular today, involves a lot of touching. Aside from a massage or an actual sex act, there is nothing more sexual two people can do with each other. When sexually unavailable, it is questionable why anyone would dance with a third-party, opposite-sex person if touching is unavoidable. The possibility for a sexual connection is extremely high when people dance, especially if there is any attraction between the dance partners.

While discussing how dancing leads to romance for many of the stars on Dancing with the Stars, New York Post reporter Cathy Burke has this to say: “Footloose was right: Dancing is the devil’s work. And you can file the ABC megahit Dancing with the Stars under Satan’s Dept. of Homewrecking.” That comment reflects how many of the show’s stars were not sexually available when they hooked up with each other.

As for consuming alcohol without one’s monogamous partner, one might want to be more selective about the venue. For example, this Midtown Manhattan bar is probably not the safest place:

BAR XYZ BUNNY NIGHT!!!

Call it a precursor to the 2nd annual Lingerie Ladies night. We’re getting warmed up with a happy hour Playboy-esque party! No, Hef won’t be there. But all of your favorite Finn-mates will be, dressed to boot in bunny ears, tails, heels and not much more.

Ladies don’t be shy!! If you come dressed up, you drink free all night long!! All beer, wine, mixed drinks & specialty shots!!

Other Drink Specials:

Ladies: 1/2 price drinks and house shots.

Guys: Open bar 8:00-10:00 for $20!!
All beer, wine & mixed drinks.

Also … $4 domestic beers & $8 jager & car bombs!!

What a dangerously awesome combination! Scantily clad females hanging out drinking cheap alcohol while fully covered males get wasted making the most out of their two-hour open bar. The impact this type of alcohol consumption has on the male’s sex act pursuer role and the female’s genitalia gatekeeper role is simply fascinating. Combine the shot and drink specials with the early start drink shift and the following is not an unreasonable summary of what can transpire as the evening progresses:

Male alcohol perspective of a female: “She was a two at 10 PM but a ten at 2 AM”

Female alcohol perspective of a male: One to two drinks – “he’s funny”; three to four drinks – “he’s funny and cute”; five to six drinks – “time to dance and even touch if he knows how to move”; after six drinks – “I might give him sex tonight…”

Personally, I tend to be a four or five drink guy, one that a female at that same drink level finds cute and funny enough to give the “time of day,” that is, a conversation. Luckily for me, there is plenty of Jagermeister to fuel the female’s interest. At the end of the Bar XYZ ad, please take notice of the Jager special they were offering. By the way, that is not a typo. Eight-­dollar shots are a bargain in Manhattan, where bars, nightclubs and lounges can easily command double digits for one’s right to see double quicker. For any not familiar with Jagermeister, a formal introduction is called for.

Jay Cheshes, a writer for the New York Daily News, has this to say: “For the past 20 years, Jagermeister, the bitter herbal German spirit developed in the 1930s as a digestive aid, has been the go-to shot for nights you’d never want to remember. As Jager sales soared, bitter liquor became synonymous with binge-­drinking.” I say, mix Jager in with bottle service, and who knows how the night might go from there.

The STUD Defense System is the perfect solution for a “not sexually available” woman when out without her boyfriend.

Reply

If a female absolutely has no choice but to play her respective gender role when without her partner, standardized defense statements are here to save the moment. Introducing the hopefully soon to be Council-sanctioned Shun The Un-Deterred defense system. The STUD defense system is designed to be recognizable by any male on every occasion. It will actually prove to be a very effective means for keeping sexually interested people of any gender at bay while out, no matter what one’s friends are up to.

Table 18.8 summarizes each defense round:

Round Style Defense Statement
one amicable no thank you
two angled I am not sexually available
three analytical no means no the first time, the second time, and now this third time
four assertive get away from me
Table 18.8: STUD Defense System;  Source: Last Call © 2013

Those four verbal defense statements are designed to progressively get less cordial and at the same time more focused. First, the female will amicably try “No thank you” to any offers of a drink, dance or lengthy conversation attempt…and now that I think about it, body or hair touching, prolonged caressing and mini massages as well. If not successful, the female will next take the angle that “I am not sexually available.” If the male still persists, going analytical on him with “No means no the first time, the second time, and now this third time” should do the trick. If not, a very assertive “Get away from me” gets straight to the point.

Now I realize it is a worry of some that they do not want to appear bitchy, especially to male friends of their friends. But I say the person being the bitch is the one insisting on the pursuit past “no thank you.” Upon getting drinks paid for despite one’s protest and then getting rejected on buying a round back – whether when part of a group or flying solo – simply walk away at that point. As a common-sense reminder, the ultimate solution is to remove oneself from that human jungle scenario altogether.

Who is it you are hanging out with right now? Just a friend…

Reply

When dating someone for a few months, how many times have you discovered they were out without you, and with an opposite-sex friend (or two) no less? Yet you had never heard of that person up until that point.

The Just-a-Friend tool easily sets not-present partner expectations on how an arranged outing (or “unplanned” encounter) with an opposite-sex third party person can end up being more than just a few cocktails together. Here’s the tool: Just-a-Friend, and here are the directions from Last Call‘s Chapter 20, “Disclosure Decency”:

****************************************

The Just-a-Friend tool can assist in communicating to a partner what type of yet-to-be identified familiar third-party person one will be sharing company time with for any significant period. That is, someone who has yet to be discussed in any type of detail within the partnership as to who they are, and whether there is any sexual history or at least known sexual interest ­between the two of them.

This tool records reasonable information beginning with what that friend’s partnership status is (answering the question “Is your friend sexually available?”), then asking “Is that friend sexually attracted to you, you to the friend, or both?” Next it sets down any shared sexual history with that friend, including how far the sexual encounter went, and finally asks for an answer to the important statement, “We are or are not currently hooking up.”

Quick “best of my knowledge” brutally honest answers will help achieve the goal of the Just-a-Friend tool, enabling a partner to non-intrusively assess the probability of a sexual encounter during the time one will be seeing the third-party person, whether ­opposite- or same-sex. The first Just-a-Friend tool has only four questions and can be completed in one minute or less:

Naturally, if all the answers are choice “a,” there is a low probability of one’s partner having sex during that particular third-party company time outing. Any combination of “b” and “c” answers could put one a little on edge. If all were answered “d,” one should count on some interesting partner communications the following day.

The end result of the Just-a-Friend tool is that it naturally leads all involved to be significantly more brutally honest in their dating matters. It allows both partners who are currently compatible and content to recognize that, regardless, they still might have sex with someone else. A direct derivative of such a tool is that many partners will feel obligated to at least text their partner shortly after parting ways with their “friend.” Some might even do so beforehand, giving some type of heads up that everything is cool, and a “I can’t wait to hold you again” signal, especially if that friend is known to still have “feelings,” or even vice versa. Without such communication, the left-behind partner could end up having quite a sleepless night as he (or she) tries to rationalize why the non-cohabiting partner has not attempted to make contact. (Yes, the “I didn’t want to wake you” excuse is officially dead, unless instructed beforehand not to.)

The tool can also be used in situations where one is getting together with a group of friends. Those that will definitely derive benefit from this use are partnerships in which one or both partners are originally from another city and are likely to go home for the holidays or special friend/family events. Upon making the announcement one is doing so, that partner can answer the four questions for each sexually interested or interesting person he or she is likely to run into, or even already has plans to see.

Future Just-a-Friend tool questions are expected to factor in whether the friend is currently contentedly dating or married; or if they are, say, off work the next morning and therefore can hang out as late as he or she cares to. The Just-a-Friend tool can also be used in “after the fact” situations, especially when one’s partner unexpectedly runs into an old acquaintance. It is expected the Just-a-Friend tool will prove invaluable in such situations, especially once both partners have the smart phone app downloaded.

Welcome to the Moral Monogamy Promise

1

As monetary and sexual temptations grew over time, the words monogamy and morality began to more often come up together in conversation. A person’s morality was supposedly the force to keep them monogamous when without their partner. When a person was caught cheating, that person’s moral standing was compromised. They were then considered shameful, and likely ostracized. Perhaps a look at the definitions of those words can help explain why:

monogamy 1. the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time 2. Rare the practice of marrying only once during life 3. Zool. the practice of having only one mate

morality the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct; right conduct; sometimes, specif., virtue in sexual conduct

Monogamy is “the practice of having only one mate.” We assume for now that Webster’s Dictionary meant “having only one mate” to mean having only one sex partner in a given period of time—say, in a given month. Whether or not a person made an actual promise to be monogamous is not at issue, it boils down to whether a person is actually practicing monogamy. Morality is about the “principles or standards of right conduct.” What exactly does the word conduct encompass when it comes to sexual partnerships? Does it strictly prohibit all non-monogamous behavior, or does it simply prohibit being dishonest about non-monogamous behavior?

In America, the elimination of any real limits on acceptable annual sex partner counts for either gender, and the prevalence of overlapping partnerships, has led to record levels of hormonification and biased dishonesty. Even so, many apparently still place the blame for their infidelities on their own life experience, which may be anything from a harsh breakup to the influence of others, including the media.

Basic common sense says that by the time one reaches age twenty-five, there are no longer any excuses to being immoral about sex. Most people in America by that point, have had almost ten years of sexual activity and experiences to learn from, and all have absorbed a great amount of information on the negative impact of undisclosed cheat events. By age twenty-five, there is no longer any room for doubt or excuses. If one has sex with a third party person, to not disclose this fact while promising monogamy is immoral, no matter how you look at it.

This leads to one of the most important new concepts in Last Call. The combined term moral monogamy will now be used to describe the promise to refrain from having sex outside the partnership, plus to come clean within twenty-four hours if one does. This honesty-stimulating new concept is not implying anyone will have third party sex. It is just a guarantee that if they do, the cheated-on partner will be one of the first to know about it (recognizing that they cannot be the first, for obvious reasons).

Of course anyone can still make the choice to stick with the non-guaranteed monogamy promise. But with the momentum of the heterosexualist movement’s grassroots effort across America, one could quickly find themselves the exception against the rule. And yes, “loving someone so much” and using that as the excuse for cheating and then lying about it is out the door as well.

Last Call will strengthen the moral monogamy promise by identifying clearly marked ­boundaries—not rules, but cascaded boundaries that a male and female can customize to define what constitutes cheating within their particular partnership. While they won’t guarantee someone won’t go out-of-bounds, universally recognized boundaries definitely allow a person to respectfully acknowledge when they have crossed the line. Without clear boundaries, the power of human morality is useless.

Practicing Monogamy Now vs. Then

1

Never in history has there been a time when people have been so connected and sexually viable. While there have been some wild periods in terms of promiscuity, no previous generation was afforded the global sexual reach—crossing all cultures—that is in front of us today. As a result, the value of the monogamy promise has reached an unprecedented height. It is easily worth hundreds, if not thousands, times more than it was at its inception. Think about it.

When the concept of promising monogamy was first introduced, the average person probably met a total of ten people they found sexually attractive through the course of their entire life. Today, one can easily meet ten such people in the same day, either in person or through the Internet. Then one can proceed to create an independent and instantaneous means of communicating with them via smart phone, e-mail, IM or a social-networking website.

Lifetime monogamy, as an economic and sexual ideal, was until only recently a pretty simple promise to keep regardless of how many people one met. On the economic side, money and power were confined to a very small percent of the population. For the average person, there really were not many partner options for earning lifestyle perks, so temptations to stray outside a monogamy promise were often very limited. There were also far fewer big-ticket material possessions to desire.

On the sex side, they generally met their future partner by age eighteen. They married as a virgin at age twenty. They procreated at age twenty-two. They became physically non-attractive in their late twenties. They died when they were in their thirties or forties. In summary, one promised and practiced monogamy for five to ten years while one was still sexually desirable and about ten to twenty years while one was not. Keeping a monogamy promise is not much of a challenge if no one is interested in helping you break it.

Looks like the Execs at CBS have been reading Last Call

Reply

CBS issues stern warning to Grammy-goers: Cover Up

Last Call excerpt from Chapter 15, “Power Parts” (pay attention to the bolded paragraph):

This is a great moment in history for the single American male. It is the point in time immediately preceding the female’s return to being completely naked in public, just like at the beginning. Not necessarily naked 24/7, but certainly in settings that offer alcohol and music. Perhaps this may seem a little bold and totally out of character, but my prediction is that in no more than five years the female in America will be down to wearing just a mesh thong and either flip-flops, flats or open-toe shoes with four-inch or higher heels in public.

Yes, the thong will continue to keep her overall least attractive body part covered for just a little while longer—until the surgeons make “designer vagina” plastic surgery more affordable, guaranteeing the ultimate human body part is always pretty in pink. The thong’s days are numbered, that is for sure. In five years or less, female private parts will all be renamed “public parts.”

It has started taking place on the beaches across America and at the international warm weather vacation spots. Today’s beach cover-ups cover less than bathing suits did in the late seventies. Forget about confirming global warming and whether we are to blame; signs of genitalia warming are by far much easier to establish and assess, such as with this chart found on the Internet.

Positive Proof of Global Warming 2-2013

While it is claimed global warming is “a true threat to the public’s health and welfare,” genitalia warming is a much more immediate threat to human modesty and monogamy, and quite possibly human morality as well. It is hard not to wonder if the trend of “barely there” swimwear could have anything to do with the increase in the number of sexual encounters females now have per year, at least the females going on those quarterly “girls only” vacation getaways. This is just another hunch of course.

Off the beach, invisible coats, tops and bottoms are destined to take over the fashion scene no doubt. They will be the perfect solution for when it is too cold outside, or inside for that matter. “Fully Visible Woman” fashion wear will continue to make the female hormones happy by enabling her private parts to flip to public parts 24/7, 365 days a year. Sheer clothing will be remembered as a short stop on the way.

As modern-day sheer materials move ever closer to total transparency, showing silhouettes of intimate apparel in public is now just taken for granted. No wonder panties, and especially bras, are being sold in so many colors and patterns these days. Ever wonder why nipple pasties now come in such a decorative ­variety? Just Google “Rihanna and pasties” and the Barbadian singer’s “peek-a-boob” fashion style will give you a quick update on just how close the female is to being naked, again.

All across America already, females matching the ever-shrinking shirt dress with the increasingly sheer leggings-as-pants, have taken us back to the days before Eve’s fig leaf. Even that fig leaf was far from skin-tight, thus not capable of providing any “camel toe” details. One male friend sums up the latest skin tight and ever sheerer leggings with an ever shorter top look many females are now sporting as simply, “She is letting everyone around her know what she looks like body painted.”

For more examples, take a look at the celebrities walking down any red carpet. In each year’s media photos the outfits not only become more sheer in more places, the designers cut out larger, and more, swaths of cloth from the outfit, very often just barely missing the twenty-two square inches of remaining female private part flesh. Low-cut blouses, barely-there minis, and going backless with daring cut-down-to-there dresses that show off all the right curves. Even when off the red carpet, female celebrities are regularly captured in outfits where colorful and even neon bras are fully displayed, or they are wearing no bra at all with a neckline plunging well below their breasts.

The New York Daily News, under the headline “Stay abreast of Rihanna,” shared how even the nipple pasties’ days are numbered: “Rihanna strolled through NYC Wednesday sans one vital accessory: a bra. The pop princess gave those lunching at Da Silvano quite a show, thanks to a see-through tank which showed just about everything – including a super-scandalous piercing.” On their website, the paper points out, “Then again, Rihanna isn’t exactly the only one showing more than one would expect. . .” For more, Katie Perry and Lady Gaga are also fun to keep track of if one happens to be a breast buff.

Technology Turnaround – Cheaters Beware

1

Technological advances, especially those over the last ten years, have clearly enabled the cheating chaos in America. But as technology has given people greater ability to have multiple partners dishonestly, it will no doubt turn the corner to begin nailing people who cheat and lie about it. The cell phone and equivalent devices have until now allowed people to secretly manage separate partner accounts by providing for a twenty-four-hour secure communication and messaging center. But that will change.

The good news is that future features will make it nearly impossible to get away with anything but total honesty about one’s sexuality exploits. Yes, smart phones will next offer interactive features such as a Breathalyzer, lie detector and room monitor—with both audio and video. Those features will allow one’s partner to check in on how drunk, false or shady one is being at the moment. These new if not already emerging technologies will most certainly have major effects on sexual politics.

Even better, the caller ID feature is taken for granted across America. Now get ready for synced partnership caller ID. This feature will display all incoming and outgoing calls, text messages and even e-mail or social website exchanges taking place via a partner’s smart phone. If not the content of the exchange, then it will at least display the number or address, and the person’s name as stored in that phone.

In other words, all ingoing and outgoing third-party traffic through smart phones will be common knowledge to both partners. The formal name for this new feature will be committer ID, but it is destined to be informally referred to as cheater ID as it puts to rest all call waiting-associated questions like, “Who’s that calling/speaking to you right now?” No doubt, the associated technology will also identify exactly where they are at that very moment, so the “Where are you right now?” question will also turn obsolete.

Of course, with any technology advances, there will always be counter-technology to block their reliability and use. More than one dog male type got right to the point in some of my “without current partner present” interviews. However, their main solution was technology free – to carry two phones or to just stop carrying a phone altogether. In fact, many ­business-oriented people already do carry two phones, supposedly for the sole purpose of separating work from play. Some just have that second phone through pay-as-you-go arrangements, where no name, ID, or credit card requirements make the entire transaction anonymous and thus untraceable.

But have no fear. Last Call’s overhaul will shut down such strategic moves and clearly establish their practitioners as “monogamy promise” unfriendly. Prospective partners, especially the females who are still seeking out one of the rare good guy males, will recognize those defensive measures. Secret devices, left-back-home devices and even old-fashioned blocked numbers need not apply.

During my research, many expressed concern that if a partnership needed any of those features, how could they say there was real trust between them. I say get over it already. Part of trust is not having anything to hide, especially when one is without their partner consuming alcohol and listening to music amongst other opposite-sex people.

Yes, it is time to reintroduce the most powerful form of trust, that is, absolute trust. With it, a second concern tied to all of the future technology advances is that it might just turn out to be too much information: “seeing” those who are calling one’s partner or who they are calling might be misinterpreted more often than not. Yet, absolute trust has less to do with a partner’s interpretation abilities, and way more to do with that partner knowing ahead of time who and what any particular person means to their partner – especially if they make contact multiple times in a day. That partner needs to know if they are a brand new acquaintance, just an old friend, just a co-worker, a current suitor, an ex-partner—or a current one.