A Black Hole of Happiness

[handsome boy model]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I didn't have much luck with my first TCOTU question, here's another. Suppose that you were going to be in Manhattan for an afternoon -- say, tomorrow -- and you wanted to entertain yourself (and another), without spending much $$$ and without doing too much walking. What do you do? What DO you do?

Pony,

Are there still 25 cent peep shows in or around Times Square?


sincerely,

hbm

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Bullshit. Gift giving is because you want to give a gift. There are no obligations, conditions, or other restrictions on gift giving. There are traditions where gifts are given, but they shouldn't be constraints.

No one should invite someone to an event with the expectation that they'll receive a gift in return for the invitation, and no one should give a gift with the expectation that they'll get something in return.

Gifts are gifts. No more, no less. Attaching strings to gifts is tacky.

I give gifts all the time. Sometimes as thank yous, sometimes to mark an occassion, sometimes for a holiday, and sometimes, a lot of the times, actually, just because.

People should never give gifts - always give cash.

[SlaveNoMore]

barely_legal
Thanks!

We already moved in together and we really don't need anything (except towels). But I'm sure we're going to end up having a post-elopement party and even if I tell everybody not to bring gifts, nobody is going to listen. Can we register for wine? We would use wine.

Repeat.

No gifts. Cash accepted.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by barely_legal
How about a bachelorette party? Is it tacky to elope but also have a bachelorette party? In Vegas? With strippers and blow?

Strippers and blow are always appropriate.

Trust me.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
http://adage.com/print?article_id=118624 A discussion with links to other discussions of the ads. I think the first one, that style of shirt is really not made for chunky people, esp with big breasts -- it's like the least flattering ever. The other two are kinda hot, for men who do like women who are festive.


ETA and I think it may not at all offend the Slave/TM/Mr. Phoenix demographic.

It's a pretty offensive ad, but I don't think it's any more offensive than constantly telling everyone in the world in your ads that only one very specific body type is acceptable.

TM

[handsome boy model]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Strippers and blow are always appropriate.

Trust me.

Concur.

yt,

hbm

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Since I didn't have much luck with my first TCOTU question, here's another. Suppose that you were going to be in Manhattan for an afternoon -- say, tomorrow -- and you wanted to entertain yourself (and another), without spending much $$$ and without doing too much walking. What do you do? What DO you do?

MOMA

Or if you want to be a bit more out there, go Frick or Whitney.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
It's a pretty offensive ad, but I don't think it's anymore offensive than constantly telling everyone in the world in your ads that only one very specific body type is acceptable.

TM

It's saying that the pictured body types are not acceptable -- and thus backs up that the one specific body type that is nearly always shown is the only acceptable body type.

Having, via links, viewed the fat woman in rose petals and then the original from American Beauty, I think the fat woman looks sexier than the pubescent AB chick whose name is probably escaping me because I haven't had lunch.


ETA so what I was saying re: offending (or not offending) was that I don't think the ad offends men who view those 3 women as unattractively fat.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I didn't have much luck with my first TCOTU question, here's another. Suppose that you were going to be in Manhattan for an afternoon -- say, tomorrow -- and you wanted to entertain yourself (and another), without spending much $$$ and without doing too much walking. What do you do? What DO you do?

Grab a table at Luna Park in Union Square Park and watch the people walk by while you drink or eat or both. Try not to get smacked by your wife, if that's who you're with, when you stare at any one of the 300 insanely hot women.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by dtb
Red line bus tour!!

You should be shot.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's saying that the pictured body types are not acceptable -- and thus backs up that the one specific body type that is nearly always shown is the only acceptable body type.

1. Are you trying to say what I was saying in a different way? If so, well done.

2. So, we agree. But if you want to get technical about it, it's saying that body types other than the ones pictured are acceptable, which is somewhat different than saying only skinny bodies are acceptable.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Having, via links, viewed the fat woman in rose petals and then the original from American Beauty, I think the fat woman looks sexier than the pubescent AB chick whose name is probably escaping me because I haven't had lunch.

Mena Suvari. She is disgusting in every way.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA so what I was saying re: offending (or not offending) was that I don't think the ad offends men who view those 3 women as unattractively fat.

If you're going to say that, say that it doesn't offend anyone that thinks those women are unattractively fat.

That said, I wasn't personally offended by it, but I can sure see why it's offensive. The main reason being, the idea behind the ad is that women shouldn't be fat, not because they wouldn't be pleased or happy with themselves, but because men don't like their women that way. Ads usually hide that kind of idea with an implication. This one comes right out and says it. (Of course there are also problems with the ad saying that those women can't be attractive because their fat or even that there are no men that find fat women attractive, but I think the main problem with it is what I stated above.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by barely_legal
So, i've pretty much totally outed myself with many of the stories I've told here so here's another piece of outable info: I just got engaged!

So, anybody want to pony up some advice? Preferably amusing advice instead of depressing advice? This will be a first marriage for both of us.

I actually have some etiquette questions that I think I know the answer to but would like some reinforcement. For example, we are going to elope. But I know that people in his family and my family are going to want to buy us wedding gifts even though we're not having a wedding. Would it be tacky to register even if we're not having a wedding? I wouldn't announce to people that we had registered but if people asked me (or my mother), I would let them know. How tacky is this? Where is Debtslave?

Congratulations. Sucker.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Calphalon? Calphalon?? Some time in the next 72 hours, Taxwonk is going to let you know that if you ever dare to bring a piece of Calphalon cookware into his kitchen, he will smack you silly with an All-Clad saucepan.

Actually, these days, Taxwonk is very happy with the $15 skillets and saucepans he's finding at restaurant supply stores.

Does anyone know why Flower is posting like Oprah or a member of her audience today?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
In a completely gratuitous attempt to make everything all about me, I will mention that I recently got some Le Creuset cookware that I adore. AND it's pretty.

Now that's some good cookware that can't be reproduced cheaply at the restaurant supply house. but all you really need is one of their dutch ovens and a casserole or braiser.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Cue Coltrane with a sophomoric joke about wrist strength and masturbation.

Coltrane actually has unnaturally weak wrists. That's why he got married.