Suzette Advises on the Use of Condoms

Suzette, the Existential Stripper, gives some points on why you should wear your rubbers, guys:

"Let's review: the two most often cited reasons for guys to wear their rubbers is:
a)  For prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases;
b)  For birth control.  So that you won't have any unplanned bambinos that you have to pay child support on for the next 18+ years.

But lemme tell ya one more reason that no one cites, but which you will instantly understand:

c)  No one has to sleep in the wet spot afterwards.  This will make your lady friend much happier.  Or you, if you're a nice guy and man up to take your turn.

Actually, she should have a few available in her bedroom if any opportunities for coupling happen to occur.  You guys are undependable or you don't expect to get lucky occasionally.  Guys in their 20's are not into long-range planning, and probably won't have a condom or two against the eventuality of a hook-up.

I know some of you had been Boy Scouts; but it seems that this form of preparedness was not covered in their conception of the motto: "Be Prepared."  Or is that a U.S. Marine Corps motto?

Anyway, some condoms are deliberately made for 'pleasing her,' ribbed ones, French ticklers, German ticklers.   For goodness' sake, look into these.  Some actually deliver. 

And, ladies, I have some advice for you.  Buy some rubbers beforehand if you're into clubbing and recreation afterwards -- latex works fine -- and have a few in assorted colors.  Guys like wearing colors on their thingies.   Even better: try to get rubbers in school spirit colors that they will get a rise out of wearing.  There are some purple and gold ones for the LSU fans, and those UT fans won't do with less than orange-and-white ones on their little soldiers!

Who knows, to be the last word in preparedness, consider this condom dress.  This may actually come in handy, provided to remove one from a unnoticeable place.  And, over time, you can gradually shorten the skirt and render the top into a separate garment."

Friends With Benefits

The term "Friends With Benefits (FWB)" refers to a friendship between two individuals, usually a male and a female, who occasionally engage in sexual behavior as well as maintain a friendship.  If the pair limit themselves to noncoital forms of sex, then it is sometimes referred to as "Friends With Minor Benefits" or "Friends With Some Benefits" (some form of noncoital sex*).  This FWB relationship can be remarkably stable without the pair being lovers or having any long-term commitment. Usually this is done on an infrequent basis if one or the other is in need. Think of this as one possible and occasional outcome of a strong friendship between a man and a woman.

There is a number of suppositions regarding the FWB arrangement.  One is that the friendship between the man and the woman does not persist beyond the active time of the arrangement.  The other is that the arrangement is mostly an unstable equilibrium since one member of the pair might want to make it into a romantic relationship while the other does not.

I wondered, based on what psychological research indicated regarding extrinsic rewards versus intrinsic rewards, whether the Friends With Benefits arrangement could aversely impact of the duration of the friendship.  Research by Deci suggested that if an extrinsic reward is added to an activity that previously been performed for its own sake, the activity (presumably intrinsically rewarded) would lose its incentive value.

However, findings reported in Psychology_Today indicate otherwise.  research by Owen, Fincham, and Manthos (2013) indicated that about 60% of university students had a FWB relationship; and less than one in five experienced a breakup of the friendship when the "benefits" ceased to be a part of the relationship.  As a matter of fact, 14% actually experienced greater closeness even after sex was no longer on the table (or the bed or carpet, for that matter!) while an additional 35% remained as close.

Obviously, a FWB benefit can have some hazards: one wanting a romantic relationship, while the other does not (or not yet).  And, obviously, it would be wise to discontinue the "benefits" part when one of them goes into a romantic relationship.  In general, it is perhaps wise to never allude to the former FWB relationship having transpired to family members or to subsequent romantic partners.

Finally, the Friends With Benefits relationship should be kept private; the particulars or even its existence should never be fodder for social media!


*Pardon my possible indelicacy.

Country Girl

For some not-too-clear reason there's a cable television fad for backwoods types, whether it be in the "reality" programs, dramas, or other productions.  This seems similar to the New Jersey fad of a few years ago, quite easily explainable as due to the success of Jersey Shore.

Probably it's in part due to Duck Dynasty or Justified; but other programs contributed to the fad, like Redneck Scientists.  Anyway, these programs provide very tangible examples of people like them for the cable fans, much like Larry the Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy contributed to humor.  Like the blatantly Jersey types, these country types make it easy for flatland city-dwellers to feel superior.

However, these televised rustics sometimes say things that Hollywood- or New York-based programmers would rather they didn't, and that can be a problem.  Part of it is that the person being feted does not know the rules, and there's the second part of him not necessarily giving a . . . . well, you know.  I won't say it, but he would! 

How to capitalize on this fad for hillbillies or rednecks or peckerwoods or crackers without going on the P.C. shoals, like many seem to manage?  Well, re-tool the idea somewhat.  Feature an outspoken country girl, especially one that is young, cute, and has a charming accent.  This is a far cry from large, ungainly wild-eyed males with scruffy beards dressed in costumes not found on the streets of Santa Monica!

You don't have to overtly sexualize her.  Just allow her to act naturally, and speak her mind.  Somehow, it will come out as charming, natural, and authentic.

I think that might be it.  She could manage to say certain things, but simultaneously appear to be nonthreatening in the process.  Part of it is that she would not unconsciously trigger certain atavistic images of dangerous rustics that is also in the American consciousness.  (To cite one, the horrific scene in the old timey movie based on James Dickey's Deliverance.)  I'll bet lots of people decided that canoeing in the hills might not be the safest thing to do.

Or maybe a swamp girl might lessen the irrational fear that people have of swamps.  In fact, I think that most Louisiana swamps are overwhelmingly more safe than being in an urban or even suburban area!

Misattribution of Arousal and Emotional States

It's a common enough plot line in movies and television:  woman meets man; but for some reason they form an instant aversion to each other, or it may be a one-way aversion.  (Think of the early running plot of Castle, for example.)  Now the question is, does this kind of thing happen very often, or might an initial aversion actually serve as a relish to heighten the subsequent feeling of love that eventually transpires?

I'm really asking, is it for real, or is it a misattribution of emotions that is going on?

The old saw, the opposites attract, is it true?  Consider the pairing of a conservative woman with a liberal guy.  Or a hyperneat obsessive guy meeting a feckless slob of a gal.  Would they be more likely to happen upon common ground because of their differences?

There is a phenomenon of physiological arousal in emotional states that calls for some pigeonholing to take place.  Why is the person experiencing this arousal?

Being annoying, or being unacceptably different, is one way of eliciting this arousal in the other person; but it's a risky strategy by far.  A less plot-worthy approach, but one likely to be effective, is to strategically position yourself where the person you would like to attract is experiencing arousal from some external stimulus.  Here's two bits of research that can bear on this:


Several years ago, Donald G. Dutton and Arthur P. Aron (1974) used a natural daunting setting that would induce physiological arousal. In this instance, an attractive female interviewer encountered young male participants after they walked across either of two different styles of bridges. One bridge was a very scary (arousing) suspension bridge, which was very narrow and suspended above a deep ravine. The second bridge was much safer and more stable than the first.

At the end of each bridge, an attractive young woman met the participants. She gave the participants a survey to fill out and a number to call if they had any other further questions. The purpose of doing this was to find which group of males were more likely to call the female experimenter later on.

In general, the guys who walked across the scary bridge were far more likely to call the woman, some even asking her for a date!  (Confident extraverts, apparently!)  The authors interpreted this as due to their having experienced more arousal as a result of walking across the precarious suspension bridge. They had misattributed their greater arousal from the bridge as due to being more attracted towards the woman. In general, when asking the males why they had cited reasons having to do with her attractive face, body, and eyes. Or, frankly, because they found her to be sexy!  Yet, none of the participants attributed their feelings as due to having crossed the bridge!  Lucky girl: sometimes it pays to be in the right situation!

In another experiment by Meston and Frohlich (2003), they studied the effects of residual nervous system arousal on perceptions of sexual attraction.   was studied.  Using 165 subjects (135 females), they approached individuals at amusement parks as they were either waiting to begin or as they had just gotten off a roller-coaster ride.  Participants were shown a photograph of an average attractive, opposite-gendered individual and asked to rate the individual on attractiveness and dating desirability.  These persons being questioned were also asked to rate their seatmates' levels of attractiveness. 

The results partially supported the predictions that excitation of arousal would be transferred.  If the males or females were riding with a nonromantic partner, ratings of attractiveness and dating desirability toward the photographed individual were higher among persons exiting than entering the ride. Among persons riding with a romantic partner, there were no significant differences in attractiveness or dating desirability ratings between persons entering and exiting the ride.

So what may we conclude from this?  If you wish to have another person become attracted to you, position yourself in some potentially arousing situation with someone whom you would like to attract.  For example, Halloween Horror Houses (act suitably scared so that he might put his arms around you), roller coasters (scream fetchingly and perhaps hold him close), or engaging in minor mischief.  For example, when I was back in school, I enlisted a boy to help me with gnome-kidnapping!   (Note to N.O.P.D: the wooden hostage was returned unharmed the very next evening.)*

*Can I patent this approach?

Music for Seduction

As part of light midday fare in the Crescent City, enterprising newswoman Missy Chauvin did a program on "Music to Play When she Visits Your Apartment."  This was in pursuit of that difficult to appeal to demographic: the twentyish single male.  Following her usual format, she rounded up a motely crew of participants: Al Gautreaux, her fellow newscaster, Crazy Chester, the Lewd Dude, and Suzette, the Existential Stripper.  These served as her panel of experts on music for . . . . well, you know.  She gave the program a relatively innocuous title to serve as a thinly-veiled cloak over what the subject matter really was: Music for Seduction.

Missy:  "Well, panel . . . . She's finally consented to visit you in your digs . . . . What do you play on your CD player for the occasion?"

Crazy Chester:  "Marvin Gaye is the man, my lady.  Some "Sexual Healing" or "Let's Get it On" or other songs from the heart."

Al:  "I favor instrumentals, such as "Lara's Theme: from Doctor Zhivago, "Je T'aime, Non Mon Plus," by Serge Gainsborough and Jane Birkin, or the like.  The important thing is to make your place inviting without being obvious.

The Lewd Dude:  "I say that you should get down to basics:  "Nookie," by Limp Bizkit, "Bolero," by Ravel, or "I Need Some Sugar in My Bowl," by Nina Simone.  "Bolero" sets a nice tempo if you're doing it with her.  After all, if you got her to come to your pad, then it's as good as you closing the deed!  If she's sophisticated, pour a little Pinot Noir; if she's hot to trot, Jagermeister shots are the way to go."

Missy started a frown.  Clearly, this last one was not what she expected.  She started to worry that the discussion would get out of hand and the station would receive a complaint or fine from the FCC.

Suzette:  "Voulez-vous Coucher Avec Moi Ce Soir."  Even though it's in French, it gets the message across.  And I like the Gainsborough-Birkin one too.  R Cool's "Bump N' Grind" for being in bed together,  But, in a way, I agree with the Dude.  Choose your drink selection carefully.  Her losing her cookies isn't sexy."

Al:  Really, choose relaxing music that fits her tastes.  Even some of those early 2000s pop hits such as Britney and Christina did.  Even, God forbid, big band music.  Just don't play Barry White, you know.  You don't want to appear to be trying too hard."

Missy blushed, having remembered what was on the playlist for last Saturday's visit with her boyfriend.

The Need for Social Feces Reassembly

Back in 1897, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim coined the term anomie to refer to normlessness.  This would be a condition in which a person is separated from the general norms that link the individual to his community.  This anomie is supposed to underlie such deviance as suicide, recreational drug use, the general Not Give a Damn attitude that some people have, and Looking Out for Number One.

The sordid, sick, and sorry story of the rape in Steubenville, Ohio last year with the lack of intervention to the young girl's plight and apparent tolerance of this sort of behavior showed this clearly.  Did not anyone present feel any need to intervene, or even indicate that it was wrong in any way?  How can anyone feel a desire to live in a community that would allow this?

In short, there seems to be a handicap or a glitch in the ordinary processes that are required for social living: a sense of  communality, trust, and the expectation of honesty and truthfulness in others.  Basically, the Res Publica (the old Roman expression for Public Thing) is out of kilter.  And, in the context of American society, circa 2014, other things are out of kilter too.  I think that this is something that both the left and the right can agree on.

Part of the problem is that we're a mass society that is heterogeneous: we have no single political party that everyone believes in (like the old PRI in Mexico or the Communist party in an old Warsaw Pact country, no state religion, no governing rules that affect crafts or guilds, not that any of those worked very well.  And we have the enduring problems of race and sectionalism that still haunt us.  We're historically and presently not done well with our pluralism; we need to suck it up, accept that people are different and states are different, and learn to work together as best as we can.

And part of this is due to our mutual isolation: there a few bridges being built among people.  Some churches have even developed parallel communities to minimize their flocks from coming into contact with outsiders, and thus contaminated.  No, not just backwoodsy sects or cults: big megachurches.  This needs to stop.

And there are the commentators who increase the problem: demonizing the opposition, ridiculing people, engaging in ad hominem attacks, and so forth.  A to-be-wished for solution is for there be to bilateral dialing down of the rhetoric.  Or, if you can't, then shut up!  I don't mean just Rush, too; though he is symptomatic of the problem. Here is another dumbass opinion, this one from the left.

Unfortunately, too much of what passes for humor nowadays has a nastiness or hostility to it.  Humanistic Psychologist Abraham Maslow characterized self-actualized persons as having a non-hostile sense  of humor.  Humorwise, a lot of what we're collectively doing is wrong. 

And we pay for it with loss of community, cynicism, and pessimism.

And much of celebrity "news" involves the reporting of mishaps or errors.  When magazines have "Best Dressed" and "Worst Dressed" issues, it is the fashion faux pases that get the attention.* 

But, regarding opinions, you have a right to yours, as everyone else does.  But you also have a responsibility to think yours through, having gathered the facts, rather than supinely following someone else.  Otherwise, it's true: opinions are like anuses, everyone has one.  Alternatively, you can baaa! like the other lambs waiting to be shorn!

Here's a test:  You are directly aware because of the bumper sticker on your neighbor's car that your politics do not coincide.  Also, you happen to see that someone or something is attempting to do harm or did harm to her or him.  (e.g. -- a burglar is trying to pry open his back door, some goon is beating on your neighbor, some ruffians are trying to molest her, some person is hungry or rendered without shelter due to a tornado.)  Do you help? 

If your answer was affected by your neighbor's bumper sticker, then you have your values all screwed up!!!!  You have no claim to compassion or being a Christian or any other moral claim.  Yeah, verily, you sucketh!

All values and all dimensions of valuing are not equal.  Some things are more important than others.  If there's a conflict between your principles and the safety or survival of another, I hope you're principled  enoughto throw your principles aside!

Our Res Publica is still in danger; but the danger is, to a great degree, of our own making.  We need to pull it out.  Reassemble our feces**, and come together.

*Gratuitous opinion:  I liked Bjork's swan dress!

**Or, get our **** together.

I wrote this last year; but thought it was too controversial and a downer to post.

What About Languages in Addition to English?

The United States on the national level has no single official language.  However, 28 of the states explicitly name English their official language.  One state, Hawaii, names Hawaiian as its other official language, New Mexico gives special status to Spanish; and Louisiana the same to French.  Every one of the states has linguistic minorities residing.  Five states are de facto bilingual.

For 43 of the 50 states, the seond prevalent language is Spanish.  See this Wikipedia article.

However, in seven states the second most prevalent language is not.  It's French in Louisiana, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire.  It is German in North and South Dakota.  And it is Tagalog in Hawaii.  And there's a lot of languages spoken by small numbers of people.

We have a few minority languages in the United States that are steadily decreasing in the number of speakers, so that they are in danger of becoming extinct.  When this takes place, is some of our national patrimony lost?  Some would argue that it is; that these languages should smehow be preserved.  We don't have that problem with Acadian French in Louisiana, but Louisiana Creole does seem to be declining in number of speakers, especially in New Orleans.

We have something of a schizophrenic attitude collectively when it comes to languages other than English.  On one level, most prep high schools encourage at least two years of foreign language study, primarily one of the Western European languages (Spanish, German, French, and sometimes Italian).  Very few schools offer Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or Arabic, despite their increasing importance in foreign relations.  And there's the classical languages: Latin and Greek.  Yet most graduate programs have dropped reading knowledge in a foreign language as part of their degree requirements.  (A little degree requirement slippage.)

As for everyday speaking, there are some militants that go with the stance, "Dammit, they're in the U.S. of A.  By God, they ought to speak English!"  As if it is any business if I address someone who is knowledgeable of French or Louisiana Creole in the tongue that they understand.  We must remember that the United States when being formed was not an empty space: it already had people residing in some states that were speaking French, Spanish, Native American languages, Aleut, Tinglit, Hawaiian, and even Dutch.  This is a carryover of the historical perspective that American history happened with the 13 colonies, and the other states served as bit players, except during the Great Unpleasantness (1861-1865). 


[Just as a prank, I would like to hack some telephone automated answering sequence and change it to: "Press one if you want it in Louisiana Creole, two if you want it in French, three if you want it in English, and Four if you want it in Spanish."  That would twist the FOXsters panties into a knot!]

Whatever, there are a lot of people that speak a language in addition to English.  And whatever you do, don't treat them like they are cute dogs that have an interesting trick. 

"......You speak Aleut?  How cool.  Say something clever in Aleut."
Sometimes language can be entertaining, though.  California, with English as its official language, has a locally-derived language, Boontling.  It's spoken around Boonville by some, primarily as a novelty.

Having squawked enough, I'll end with a prayer in Louisiana French Creole:

Nouzòt Popá, ki dan syèl-la
Tokin nom, li sinkifyè,
N'ap spéré pou to
rwayomm arivé, é n'a fé ça
t'olé dan syèl ; paréy si la tèr
Donné-nou jordi dipin tou yé jou,
é pardon nouzòt péshé paréy nou pardon
lê moun ki fé nouzòt sikombé tentasyon-la,
Mé délivré nou depi mal.
Amen.