Hide Your Chickens

A quick note:

I just read over at the LA Times that "Black Sabbath took to the stage Friday at the Whisky A Go Go to announce another reunion tour in 2012". Wow. Well, OK. But if you're expecting me to start bashing Black Sabbath for going on tour when they're all senior citizens (and when Ozzy seems barely coherent on his good days), you'd be wrong. Tour! Tour all you want. I wouldn't mind seeing me some old and withered Black Sabbath. You know why? Because it's Black Sabbath, for cryin' out loud! They tour, you GO! That's how it works with these awesome ancient bands whose members aren't dead (by multiple miracles) from either drug overdoses or multiple organ failures.

But here's the part that annoyed me: "The British heavy metal originators have begun working on an album of new material, their first since 1978." Uh huh. And..."Iommi said the set list will be much more than the usual hour of hits the band has performed since its first reunion in 1997." Yeah...um...no.

See, I don't think that I'm alone when I say that when these old guys go on tour, we want to hear the stuff that made us like them. We don't care about your new stuff. We want to hear everything you did before 1980. We're OK with hearing the individual band members hits (ie, if you leave out Crazy Train, I'm going to be pissed), but we don't care about your new stuff. We're here to hear the old stuff. I don't care about some ballad that one of them wrote after the birth of their child on a stormy night in 2002.

There are a few bands who are the exception to this rule. Not many, but a few. And Black Sabbath isn't one of them. If a band that old wants to play new stuff for folks, they need to have a "New Stuff Only" tour. I have no problem with that. But if I'm going to see a band whose greatest album came out in 1971, don't play me your new stuff because I'm not there to listen to that.

moreless

Not So Happy Halloween Treats

And Happy Halloween. Halloween is a weird-ass holiday if you're asking me. It's like the ultimate in contradictions when raising a child. You drill things into your child's head (Not literally! Yes, I know it's Halloween, but cranial drilling of one's offspring is never acceptable.) to keep them safe. Things like the old "Don't take candy from strangers." Then, after the kids think that they're clear on the concept, along rolls Halloween and BAM! Confusion runs amok. Not only are they going to be taking candy from strangers on Halloween, they're going to be encouraged to do so. AND they don't even have to wait for the strangers to come to them! No, they can randomly go to people's homes, knock on their door and ASK them to give them candy! And the strangers comply!! OH, but wait! There's a catch! You must ask strangers for candy only if you are dressed up in some sort of scary-ish garb. That's it? That's the catch? Deal! And the merriment begins!

Now if you're a grown-up, or you play one on TV, or even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, it is your job to get candy for these small people that you do not know. My advice is simple: Don't screw it up. You must remember what it was like when you were a child and you went Trick-or-Treating and ended up with horrible candy at the end of the night. It's not pleasant. And as a child, you really feel like you were ripped off somehow by coming home with a bag full of crap. You need to remember that feeling and make sure that you don't continue to pass it around to the hopeful and unsuspecting youngsters who will trample your flowers instead of using the perfectly good walkway as they traipse to your door in search of sugary handouts.

Thus, here are several items that you need to avoid distributing to jovial children who have donned bedsheets for the evening.

• First up are the inexplicable Boston Baked Beans. These are not good. Why someone thought that they could make a candy that looks like and is named after a picnic side dish is beyond me. No one wants candy that is pretending to be a bean. Beans aren't all that fun.
  


• Next up are the Dum Dums. First of all, Dum Dums are way too small for any good use. Second, they never taste like the flavor that the wrapper says. And third, you almost always, for some reason, end up with the cream soda flavored Dum Dums or the pineapple flavored Dum Dums. Probably because the folks handing them out took out all of the good ones. If you're going to hand out lollipops, go with a Tootsie Roll Pop. You can't go wrong with those

• Necco Wafers. From what I can tell, Necco Wafers are Tums antacid tablets that have been flattened out and dusted with sugar. They do not taste good. Contrary to what the waxy wrapper says down there, they are not "an American Classic" and the "flavors" are not "great." And of course they're "fat free". They're made out of chalk, what do you expect? Avoid these at all costs.

• The general assortment of hard candies. As a rule, if it is a candy that is typically found in a grandmother's purse, you really want to avoid handing those out on Halloween. Especially the butterscotch ones. Children do not like butterscotch. Adults do not like butterscotch. Those elderly women with the candies in their purses? Right, even they don't like butterscotch, that's why they're always giving them away.

• One of the more perplexing candies out there, the Idaho Spud. This is a candy that I guess is supposed to look like an Idaho potato. The thing is, it doesn't really look like that. It looks more like....well, um....OK, fine I'll say it, the thing looks like poo! And no one wants poo on Halloween. Ever. Hand out Necco Wafers before you hand out poo-like treats.

• Now we arrive at the Tootsie Roll. If you must give out Tootsie Rolls, give out a bunch of them to each kid. Those of you who give A Tootsie Roll to A kid are just angry, angry individuals who should probably seek counseling. You'll feel much better about things if you toss a handful of Tootsie Rolls into a kid's bag and watch them shriek with joy (until they realize they were just Tootsie Rolls). It's a lot better than watching them stare at you as you drop A Tootsie roll into their bag. Much better.
  

• Another candy that is not for children and is barely for adults is the Big Hunk. Big Hunk of what has always been my question. This thing is disgusting. It's like some sort of conglomeration of leftovers from another candy making process. Look at it! No one wants that.

• You want to see how close you can get a kid to crying on Halloween? Hand out raisins. What a waste of a walk from the sidewalk to the front door only to be given a very tiny box of raisins which you will not eat. You will use them as ammunition for torturing siblings. You will also use them as a counting aid when trying to figure out how many of them will fit up the dog's nose. You will not eat them.

• Finally, we arrive at the "feel good" treats. Oh, but they're not making the kids "feel good". No, they're making the smug, sanctimonious treat giver "feel good". Those kind of people like to be "practical" on Halloween. (Liking to be "practical" also seems to equate to "liking removing rolls and rolls of toilet paper from the front yard foliage the next morning." Go figure.) There is no place for anything "practical" when a bunch of people under four feet tall and running around the neighborhood, anticipating free candy AND getting it. Nothing practical about that and that's how it should be. Thus, no pencils, erasers, or any other type of school supply. If that was what the kids were after, they just would have gone over to Office Max and knocked on their door.

• The only folks who are allowed to hand out dental floss, toothbrushes or toothpaste are dentists and other professional individuals who do business inside of the mouth (preferably those with degrees and licenses, not hanging out on street corners under neon blinking lights that say "Massage"). But even then, they can only hand out those things at their office! At their home, they're not a dentist, they're a candy guy. So keep your floss to yourself and fork over the Snickers.

See? It's very simple. Avoid the stuff on this list, hand out stuff that kids want, and you'll be fine. Most importantly, whatever you do, just have a good time and just have good candy.

moreless

Let Him Play

Are we still in the Everybody-Gets-A-Trophy era? Or are people gradually weaning themselves from the idea that everyone needs to win every time they are in some sort of competition? I thought that we were in the weaning process. But after reading about a sixth grader who plays football so well that he is now formally limited from scoring more than three touchdowns per game, I'm thinking that we're not quite as weaned as I would have hoped.

See, Fox16 learned of a one Demias Jimerson. He's eleven. Apparently, Demias (pronounce that any way you'd like) is an awesome football player who can score just about any time he touches the ball (so they claim). Thus, the Wilson Intermediate School Football League instituted something called the Madre Hill rule. (They make a point in the article of telling us that Madre Hill was a Razorback at the University of Arkansas. Like we care or know who he is anyway.) Apparently, Madre Hill could kick ass on the football field as well. So they made a rule that after a person has scored three touchdowns in a game, if their team is ahead by more than 14 points that person can't score any more for the rest of the game. Wait. What?


Yes! That's the rule. The Principal of Wilson Intermediate School is a one Terri Bryant. She claims that "...the rule isn't meant to punish Jimerson. It's there to help the other fifth and sixth graders on the field develop as football players too." Hmmm. And it's going to do that by having them play against sub-standard players and teams? I'm not seeing how that is helping. I'm also not seeing why the game can't just be played without having to make stuff up!


Why is this happening? I understand that the kid is good. The other teams can't compensate? I don't know what to tell you. I don't think that the rules need to be changed because one guy is really good. Let's just dumb everything down for kids so that they won't have to try quite as hard. Let's just give everyone a chance...to think that they can do something that they can't. Are we supposed to make these sorts of exceptions for everything when one kid really excels? The answer, in case you're struggling, is NO! These things happen. Get used to it! Don't change the rules so that everyone doesn't feel bad! What is wrong with people?!

moreless

Well, That's Not Good

I need to figure out why this story hasn't gotten more attention in the news. I know that it's partly (largely) because the media sucks. That's a given. But I guess it could also be that it's a bad thing masquerading as a good thing. Well, masquerading to soft-headed individuals. Then again, since no one has seemed to catch on yet, maybe the masquerade is really good. Or maybe people just don't get it. Either way, a federal mandate that health insurers MUST cover birth control for women is NOT a good thing.

According to the Huffington Post, reported that the Obama administration has mandated that "Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays". Umm....OK. Wait. Why is this? Well, one of the reasons is because the administration wants to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for some reason, they think that the key to unwanted pregnancies lies with making sure that women can afford birth control. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that condoms are not exactly exorbitantly priced. Whatever. But that's not really my point here.

My point here is what is being overlooked. Woo-hoo! Everyone is just thrilled that women can have birth control for free! What a glorious day! Right?! NO! No? NO. What we have here is the federal government telling a private business what they are going to do. Shouldn't that concern people? A lot?! I think it should. But people are so freaking ga-ga over getting anything at all for "free" that they miss the overall point. (And I have "free" in quotes because someone is going to pay for this. The article says that "The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums." Oh, good. I can't wait.)

The government shouldn't be telling a private business how to run their business! EVER. If the federal government wants to offer incentives for companies that offer free health care, that's one thing. (And I don't want to pay for those either. But I'd rather have it be an option rather than a requirement.) But to mandate that they provide birth control for women for free is out of line if you're asking me. Where does it stop? Or perhaps a better question is when are people going to realize that the government doesn't know better than they do? Anytime soon? Do you think? What's that? No? That's what I thought. We're doomed. Dooommed!

moreless

Infodots Versus Reality

I'm a big fan of the website Reddit. It's basically just a website for link sharing. The website calls itself "The voice of the Internet". I'm good with that. I realize that it doesn't help in describing it any sort of concrete terms, but since I included the link above, you'll be able to figure it out. I like it because they seem to be able to have interesting and on-topic discussions about a variety of subjects in a rather civilized manner. And oh, the things I have learned. Naturally, first and foremost, I've learned that we really are scroomed.

For example, one Redditor started this topic: "My teacher didn't allow us to say the term "bullet points" because it "promotes violence". Reddit, what are the stupidest rules that your teachers/instructors have made?" (The teacher made them use the made-up moniker "infodots" instead. And you thought the story couldn't get any more ridiculous this early on! That's not a word!) Naturally, I was hoping that it would turn out to be a very short conversation, as I was already in enough pain from smacking my head against the wall after reading about the forbidden bullet points terminology. (For reals? Who are those sort of people? Does the teacher who made that rule realize that the bullet points aren't made out of real bullets? Apparently not. I'm also guessing that the teacher in question didn't realize that the sort of things like the banning of the term "bullet points" is what really "promotes violence". Moron.) There ended up being at least 3,401 comments on this topic. And on the good side, I'm always looking for a reason to drink. Trust me, this gave me more than enough reasons. Let's begin.

Here we have a memory from someone with a clearly psychotic Spanish teacher who may or may not have had some sort of Hispanic 'Easy Rider' complex going on. "My spanish teacher deducted marks if we didn't get on our imaginary spanish motorcycles (hand gestures and everything) when we had to say a word with two r's next to each other (like perro)...Everytime we reved the engine (not quite sure what the correct term is when you put your hand on the handlebars and move your arm in a circular motion), we had to intensify the "rrrr" sound". I understand wanting kids to get the hang of the rolling r, but deducting points if you don't make yourself look like a jackass in class? I'd like to think that I would have failed that class out of sheer refusal to participate in such nonsense.

Reckoning back to a topic I touched on recently, "Children at my kid's school are not allowed to play tag because it would require someone to be "it". Why, yes! Yes, it would require that! It's not like you're going to be "it" forever! And it's not like you would have to do things like that scary-ass clown in that movie of the same name. The people who made up that rule must not understand the game very well. And that really explains a lot.

Even though there isn't any reasoning to any of this, here's one where there really wasn't a reason: "We weren't allowed to say 'brain storm' and had to say 'thought shower' instead. I don't think there was even a reason why." Maybe they were afraid it would offend epileptics? I don't know. Again, I'd like to think that I would have refused to follow that rule out of the sheer principle of the matter. That being I don't like to be told to do things that are patently ridiculous, not to mention completely inane.

Going from ridiculous to absolutely asinine..."A school I went to didn't allow running, you could only skip because some how that was safer. I kid you f***ing not". And as a result, the kids all played a FABULOUS game of flag football.

In the category of "Worst Advice Ever", we have this lovely nugget: "My sophomore High School English teacher instructed us that every essay should begin with "This essay is about..." He insisted that this is the format that college professors would expect." My response is about how completely moronic that is. That is moronic. In conclusion, I responded that it was moronic.

From the "You're Trying Too Hard" file: "We weren't allowed to use "dice" in math class. They were to be called "number cubes". Reason? "Dice" promoted gambling." I can't imagine how someone with such shallow thinking skills is actually a math teacher. Call them what you want, they are what they are. What part of that is confusing to that person?!

"At my school, they allowed us to play dodgeball, but instead of calling it dodgeball, we had to call it "happy fun ball". After a year, we weren't allowed to have the word ball in it. We had to refer to it as "happy fun time". This was high school." This makes me want to cry. Oh, wait a minute. There appears to be a slight salty discharge emanating from my tear ducts. I appear to be weeping for humanity. (I'm going to try to resist asking the question of why they were playing dodgeball in high school. It's really hard. That's what she said.)

And finally, mainly because all of this has driven me to drink (not that I was objecting): "My teacher told us not to use the term "white-out" because it could be deemed racist. We were instead told to use the term "correction paste". You have got to be dry shaving me! It's not even spelled the same! Idiocy has seeped over into phonetics?! Is that what you're telling me? Just because something is white doesn't mean that it is racist! There are lots of white things that are not racist!

In conclusion, I'd just like to reiterate that the inmates are running the asylum and we are all scroomed. Thank you and where's my drink?

moreless

What Not To Wear During Summer

As yesterday was the 4th of July (America's Independence Day for those of you not reading this in the states), I had the opportunity to observe many people out in the summer weather. In many cases, I was able to observe just a little bit too much of some folks. That's when it struck me that there are many summer apparel/fashion trends that I simply do not like. And as I always do when writing about clothing (or the lack there of in some cases) I will mention that I, myself, am far from a fashion monger. Fashion mongrel might be more like it on some days. (Although, I've been getting better lately due to my currently being enamored with a certain extremely well-dressed flight attendant.) So, am I one to talk? Absolutely! I mean, even I have my limits. I wouldn't wear any of the stuff I am about to share with you. Ever.

I'm going to start with those damned fly-eye sunglasses that cover up half of your face AND the face of the person that you're standing next to. They're THAT big! Seriously, why do you need sunglasses that big? I'm fine with slightly oversized. I'm talking about the ones that extend down to the corners of your mouth on the bottom and touch your hairline on the top. I told you' they're THAT big! You look like a mutant insect from another planet. What's wrong with a pair of Ray-Bans? Say, aviator style? Maybe in a blue? (Yeah, I bought a pair of those last week and man, are they sweet!)

Guys, if you are wearing shorts, do not wear your work boots. Please. You're not fooling us into thinking that you have some manly job that requires protective footwear, but not protective trousers. If your feet are in danger, so are your legs. And that's my point. If you're wearing shorts, you shouldn't BE wearing work boots. It's not cool and you look like a dork. Actually, any kind of boots with shorts is not a good look. So, put those Uggs back in the closet!

Ladies, knock it off with the fringe. I suppose that a fringe purse (yes, I saw two of those yesterday) would be OK, but the fringe clothing is definitely out. Why do you want to look like you just got into a fight with a bear? Or a homeless person? If you must do the fringe shirt (and I'm begging you not to) please don't do the kind where you attach little beads to the ends of the strands of...strings? Fringe? Shirt? I don't know what those are. And if you don't wear it, then I don't have to figure out what to call it, capeesh?

Back to the guys, if you're going to wear a T-shirt without any sleeves, then you run right on down to your local gay man's workout apparel establishment and pick yourself up a T-shirt that doesn't have any sleeves on purpose. Do NOT rip the sleeves off of it yourself. And while I'm on the subject, please do not also then rip the arm hole all the way down to the bottom so that there is like an inch of fabric holding the thing together. We (the women) are not going to be tricked into thinking that you are the Incredible Hulk who is at the barbeque straight from coming in off of an anger bender. It looks ridiculous. But if any of you out there can tell me why men think that this is a good idea, by all means, please let me know. I'm perplexed by the whole thing.

Ladies, what's with the military apparel? Well, the apparel isn't precisely the problem as much as the pattern. Just because you're on a beach, does that mean you have to look like you're on Omaha Beach? I don't think that it does. No one is expecting you to jump on top of a Howitzer or anything. (Yes, yes, I realize that they might enjoy that. All I'm saying is that it's not expected.) Looking like you just stepped out of Afghanistan isn't appealing to anyone. Even (and especially) the Afghanis. Trust me. Ditch the camo look.

Guys, about your shorts. There are a couple of rules that you're going to need to follow. Rule One: Shorts must be shorts. Shorts going down to just above your ankle or mid-calf aren't shorts. They're just you being sloppy. Same goes for cargo shorts. No one needs that many pockets. If you need that many pockets, you need seriously check yourself and see about getting a purse. And Rule Two: No jean shorts for men. I've just been made aware that another name for jean shorts is jorts or jhorts. Apparently, either one is acceptable. Yet, at the same time, neither term is really acceptable. If you're a dude and you're wearing jean shorts and calling them jhorts, you're probably already out shopping for that purse.

Women, ditch the headbands and ditch the leggings. We're long past the 1980s. You're not Jane Fonda. You likely never were Jane Fonda. (More likely, you don't even know who Jane Fonda is.) Is there some sort of secret desire to broadcast a Cyndi Lauper-like appearance so that everyone will know that girls just wanna have fun? (I'm guessing they probably don't know who Cyndi Lauper is either. While the Jane Fonda ignorance is fine, not knowing about Cyndi Lauper is just sad.)

I find these rules of apparel fairly simple to understand and even easier to follow. Trust me. We'll all be better off this way.

moreless

The Rules And Etiquette Of Swinging

This post was totally going to be about one thing, but the more that I got sidetracked, the more that it totally became about something else. See, it was going to be about this story that I read over yonder in the Sacramento Bee about a correction officer who claimed that he..."was at a San Francisco restaurant with his wife when a parolee recognized him, then gunned him down with a shot that left him paralyzed from the waist down." He ended up filing a workers' compensation claim "...that could have paid him and his wife nearly $2.5 million." That's an awful lot of cheese. Too bad that his cheese plan fell apart when it turned out that he wasn't really shot after he had left a restaurant...unless "restaurant" is slang for "swingers club". But if that were the case, then "parolee" would have to be slang for "guy whose wife the officer was banging". I checked the Urban Dictionary and it didn't say anything about that, so I'm really doubting that's the correct vernacular to use there.

That's right. The guy was at a swingers club and got shot afterwards and tried to claim it was work related. Yeah, not so much. But here's the thing: While I was reading this article, it said that this club, known by the name of Twist, is located "...at Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street in San Francisco". Huh. I don't recall any sort of swingers club being down there. Oh, that's because "there is no sign out front to advertise its existence" (which seems reasonable) and "...admittance is allowed only after the owner approves an e-mail request". OK, so this is an establishment with some rules. That's where I started to become more interested in how a swingers club operated than I did about the dipwad that got himself shot after a "session".

I figured that I'd look for this place online since it said that you needed to have your email request approved by the owner. (The owner who, I learned from the article in the Bee, is a gentleman who expects us to believe that his real name is Ivan Stroganov. Seriously, dude? You're the owner of a swingers club and you're claiming your name is Stroganov? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that's really your name. Call it a hunch.) And I found it. And lucky me! There are sets of rules and etiquette for anyone who wants to visit Twist and participate with other folks in some sort of untoward sexual practices that likely involve many naked bodies and lots of writhing and sweating. Ick.

Maybe it's because I'm a chick and I don't possess a penile unit, but the thought of the whole "swinging" scene just does nothing for me. I'm sure it's different if you're the one doing all of the checking of all of the oil (so to speak) and not the one supplying the orifices (orifii??), but I just don't get the appeal of it all. But what does appeal to me are rules. I enjoy order in things. And I find it fascinating that in a place where the whole swapping of mates goes on, they have guidelines. (Me, personally? My first guideline is "No mate swapping". But then again, that's just me.)

And this is where I got distracted...with the rules of Twist. Let's look at the first couple of rules for this particular swingers club, shall we? Rule One: Twist is an invitation only private party! No one may attend any function or come in the property without being invited to Twist. Twist is not open to the general public. Now that seems perfectly reasonable. That whole invitation thing almost makes it sounds like a dinner party. Almost. Well, come on! You don't just want weirdos wandering in off of the street and disrupting all of the freelance fornication! Please.

Rule Number Two: STD (sexually transmitted diseases) -- As it is a very private matter, we do not inquire about your status nor request any medical proof. (Oooh! You know, I...I kinda wish you WOULD!) It is your responsibility to notify the couple you are about to play with if you have any STD. First of all, can I just call attention to the term "play with"? What is up with that? But really, how do you suppose that this whole rule is implemented? I'm having a hard time imagining something like "Um, I have chlamydia! And I would like to join you now!" I don't know that something like that is going to go over all that well. Rule Number Two goes on to state "We strongly suggest addressing the issue before moving on to the lounge, where the heat of the moment can cause you to forget about it." (I guess the lounge is where everything really gets going, but that's pure speculation on my part.)

Forget about it? Are you kidding me? "Oh, that's right! I forgot I had AIDS!" I'm not liking this policy very much. You can't have a blood test required with all of those applications that are submitted? Something? Other than their word, provided they haven't "forgot" about their "condition"? That seems silly. ("You know, the whole time I was banging your wife, there was something nagging me in the back of my mind. It just wouldn't come to me. But then I remembered and you know what it is? Gonorrhea!! And full blown AIDS! But anyway, that was great. See ya around!")

Now, given the lackadaisical nature of Rule Two, I was a bit surprised by Rule Number Four: "BYOB only for wine and beer. No hard liquor is allowed." What now? Let me get this straight. You're on the honor system for AIDS and syphilis, but you have very strict rules about hard liquor? None of that. AIDS, perhaps. Gin? Out of the question!!

Rule Number Six: Cell phones, cameras or video equipment is not permitted on the property. So, leave your tripod at home, folks!

Rule Number Seven: Any conduct requiring an apology is grounds for expulsion. Well, that's interesting. You know, there are some guys who just should automatically apologize after every time they have sex. But that aside, that's a rather broad requirement. Let me get this straight. The guy with AIDS can stay, but someone breaks wind and they're booted out? That guy has visible crabs, but because that guy brought whiskey, he has to go?! Seems like an odd way to do things, but what do I know about it? I'm not a swinger (nor will I ever be).

Rule Number Twelve (yes, there were twelve!): Last but certainly not least, have fun! Ohhh! I see! That's one of the rules! Have fun! How can you possibly go wrong when that's one of the rules! I get it now! They should have put that one first to avoid any confusion! Have fun!

Now, while you probably already know more than you wanted to, let's look at some of the etiquette guidelines as long as we're here. Number One: The most important thing to remember is consideration for the next person. That includes NO pressuring anyone, NO hassling, NO rude behavior and accepting "NO" politely. That's not a problem. I learned that growing up. That's just common decency (which makes it a little odd that it's the number one rule at a swingers club).

Number Two: Arrive and leave a party as a couple. Do not initiate activity with other couples unless both you and your partner are willing to join. It is expected that if one person swings, his or her partner is free and willing to do so as well. Clearly, that is in place to avoid what would seem like the most obvious scam that could be perpetrated on such an establishment. ("If you don't mind, I'll just start banging your wife here and, uh, my wife? Oh, yeah. Um, she should be along in about ten minutes or so. She had, uh, she had a thing. Oh, she's smoking hot. Here's her picture. No, that's really her! She should be here in about fifteen minutes. Did I say ten before? Yeah, I meant fifteen. Fifteen minutes or so. Sure.")

Number Three: Good health and hygiene is essential. Don't forget lingering alcohol or tobacco on your breath may be offensive to some. Again, I just want to remind you that technically, you can have AIDS and they're not going to say anything about that because that's private. But they're going to tell you not to have tobacco on your breath. AND they're going to include on their website, the very photo below of two girls squatting down and having a cigarette. It's the ol' Smoke N' Squat! Odd. Very odd indeed.

Number Four: A positive mental attitude and good emotional health will make for more successful encounters. Oh! So it's like a self-help thing. Having a positive mental attitude will make it a lot better for you whilst your wife is taking it from all angles by some other guy. Sure. That makes sense. I'm glad they included that one.

Number Six: Don't disturb the swinging enjoyment of others in a bedroom or other swing areas with loud or prolonged talk. What, exactly, would there be to talk about? Your day at work? Yeah, it's really hard for one dude to screw some other dude's wife when you're in the little sex cubicle next to them yammering on about your day at the office? It's an odd issue to have to address, that's for sure. It's not exactly a library.

Now, there are others, but I think I'm going to stop here. I found the whole thing a bit unsavory. I guess the whole part that I don't quite understand is why would you get married if you're just going to be boinking other people? I'm sure not all couples are married, but that is my question for those who are. I guess the reason that I don't get it is that I'm not the kind of person that would be comfortable in an environment like that. Maybe it would be the same for someplace that I'm comfortable with that they wouldn't be. I can't really think of what that would be, however. If you're comfortable being with your spouse in a room full of people whilst fornicating madly with other individuals, I'm guessing that you're going to be pretty comfortable in just about any environment that I put in front of you. Just a guess.

moreless