InStyle released its list of hot 2010 bikinis. On the list were the usual culprits: Kim Kardashian, Halle Berry, Anna Lynn McCord, Megan Fox. Absent from the list, even though she's worn approximately 100 different bikinis this summer was Britney Spears. The only thing worse than Britney not being on that list was the fact that it wasn't shocking.
In 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, Britney would make any list with the word hot or sexy in the title. Not just make the list, but usually be on top. Nowadays, IF she makes the list it tends to be at the bottom (a pity add, if you will). As a Britney fan, it should bother me. It doesn't.
I know Britney is still as sexy as she ever was. I know her body is fantastic. The fact that these magazines don't see that is, to me, a good thing. It makes Britney underrated, almost like a secret that no one knows about.
Britney's biggest problem is that she's at that evil Hollywood age where she's too old to be young and too young to be old. People like Halle and Jennifer Aniston get praised for having amazing bodies "for their age" (even though their bodies are amazing for anyone's age). Britney has an amazing body, too, but, sadly, she's not old enough to be recognized for it. It's a weird thing that also affects other beautiful women like Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Love Hewitt. They're not hot, young stars; nor are they mature, older women.
Someday Britney will hit 40, and assuming she looks as good as she does today (which she will), she should get the attention she deserves. But why can't she (and other stars in her age range) get praised right now? Why must women be celebrated for looking good "for their age" instead of just looking good? There are millions of women in their 20s suffering from weight issues who would die to look like a Jennifer Aniston or a Cindy Crawford right this minute. It's somewhat of a slap in the face to say "she looks good for her age."
Someday they'll say that about Britney; that she looks good "for her age." It'll be annoying then like it is now. What they say about Britney today (to be polite) is that she looks good for having two kids. No, Britney doesn't look god for having two kids. Britney just looks good, period.
We need to stop quantifying everything. A beautiful woman is beautiful regardless of age. She's beautiful regardless of how many kids she's birthed. Britney Spears is a beautiful woman. If these list makers don't want to include her in their sexy/hot lists, then good. I don't want to share her with the world, anyway.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
What Are Women (And Why Do We Need Them)?
Every guy at one time in his life has asked the question, "What good are women?" It's not a misogynistic question, not a sexist question, and surely not a mean-spirited question. It's usually said (more specifically thought) out of confusion. What good are women?
The easy answer is very. Women are very good. That's the easy answer. The real answer is more difficult; women are not that good sometimes. Women are impossible, a conundrum, evil, insane, pick your adjective. Let's look at some examples:
* A woman will buy 25 pairs of shoes, but question why you had to buy a blu-ray DVD player. She'll point out how she got those 25 pairs for less than you spent on the DVD player. You might feel bad. But when you look on the sole of one of those pairs and see red, just know that she did not, in fact, spend less than you did.
* A women will allow you to control the TV remote enough times to let you think you have some control in the relationship. But when you look closer, you'll realize every show you pick is one she would have picked. But when she gets to choose, you end up leaving the room. Coincidence? Not exactly.
* If you try to choose a restaurant, a women will allow you to pick. Then she'll reject every choice you make, while at the same time telling you she doesn't care where you two eat.
* Your woman does the bills. You think you have it good. Look at the credit card bill one time and you'll see why she does the bills.
* Your woman fell for you because you're big and strong and she was attracted to your muscles and strong hands. When you have sex, she tells you you're too rough. How do you win?
* You left your wife for another girl. You married the new girl. Soon into the marriage she gets paranoid you might be cheating on her. She's not happy.
* Women will gain weight, complain about it, yet never make the effort to lose the weight. You tell her you love her the way she is. She gives you the "go fuck yourself" eye roll.
* Women are never satisfied with how they look. They are in constant competition with one another. The boob job was not created because of man, it was created because one day a woman saw another woman with bigger boobs than hers and said, "Shit, I have to fix this."
* Women will bitch all day and night about that one other woman in the office. One day you surprise her for lunch and she's chatting it up with "that bitch" like they're old friends.
* If you come home early from work and catch your woman with another man, it'll be your fault for coming home early.
* You may make most of the money, but she gets to decide how it's spent (don't worry, that closet full of dresses, shoes and jewelry is for you).
* If a woman offers to pay her half for a date, she's testing you, obviously. You better tell her to put her money away. However, if she demands to pay, you better let her.
Somehow, with that all being said, men would be nothing without women. And some of us are smart enough to let the ladies know this.
The easy answer is very. Women are very good. That's the easy answer. The real answer is more difficult; women are not that good sometimes. Women are impossible, a conundrum, evil, insane, pick your adjective. Let's look at some examples:
* A woman will buy 25 pairs of shoes, but question why you had to buy a blu-ray DVD player. She'll point out how she got those 25 pairs for less than you spent on the DVD player. You might feel bad. But when you look on the sole of one of those pairs and see red, just know that she did not, in fact, spend less than you did.
* A women will allow you to control the TV remote enough times to let you think you have some control in the relationship. But when you look closer, you'll realize every show you pick is one she would have picked. But when she gets to choose, you end up leaving the room. Coincidence? Not exactly.
* If you try to choose a restaurant, a women will allow you to pick. Then she'll reject every choice you make, while at the same time telling you she doesn't care where you two eat.
* Your woman does the bills. You think you have it good. Look at the credit card bill one time and you'll see why she does the bills.
* Your woman fell for you because you're big and strong and she was attracted to your muscles and strong hands. When you have sex, she tells you you're too rough. How do you win?
* You left your wife for another girl. You married the new girl. Soon into the marriage she gets paranoid you might be cheating on her. She's not happy.
* Women will gain weight, complain about it, yet never make the effort to lose the weight. You tell her you love her the way she is. She gives you the "go fuck yourself" eye roll.
* Women are never satisfied with how they look. They are in constant competition with one another. The boob job was not created because of man, it was created because one day a woman saw another woman with bigger boobs than hers and said, "Shit, I have to fix this."
* Women will bitch all day and night about that one other woman in the office. One day you surprise her for lunch and she's chatting it up with "that bitch" like they're old friends.
* If you come home early from work and catch your woman with another man, it'll be your fault for coming home early.
* You may make most of the money, but she gets to decide how it's spent (don't worry, that closet full of dresses, shoes and jewelry is for you).
* If a woman offers to pay her half for a date, she's testing you, obviously. You better tell her to put her money away. However, if she demands to pay, you better let her.
Somehow, with that all being said, men would be nothing without women. And some of us are smart enough to let the ladies know this.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
From Flab to Fab
If there's one thing men know, it's that some women are out of our league. We're just not that good looking for some of you. Sure, women may say that don't care about looks. Of course, women also have giant, massive orgasms when all you did was just touch their little button once. We know how honest women can be.
The truth is, if you're 50-60lbs overweight, there are just a lot of women you have no chance with. If you're 20-30lbs overweight, there are still going to be women you can't get. Men don't want to believe that's true (especially the fat ones), but it is. Sure, intelligence and a great sense of humor is a plus, but if you're packing on the pounds, you ain't getting your foot in the door with a lot of women.
But let's suppose for a second that somehow a heavier guy does end up with someone usually out of his league. Maybe not a fat guy, but one who looks out of shape. And one who is definitely not as sexually appealing as the woman he's currently with. What happens then?
Two things can happen: a) the guy doesn't change and decides if she accepted me at this weight, then I'll stay at this weight; b) people start whispering, "Why is she with him," guys gets paranoid and either loses the weight or the relationship ends. For a perfect example of option b look at the relationship between Britney Spears and Jason Trawick.
These two have known each other for a long time, but when they started getting serious, Jason wasn't exactly the sexiest man in the world. He had a little belly on him. Britney, of course, basically redefined sexy for a whole generation. She was to the 2000s what Marilyn Monroes and the Betty Paiges were to the 50s and 60s. It stands to reason, then, that the coupling of Britney and Jason would draw some curious glances.
In a normal situation (i.e. one not under the public spotlight) Jason would have had the two options described above. Unfortunately, he only had one choice. For the record, I am in no way suggesting Britney only dates guys based on their looks. Just look at the men she's been with for proof. However, there's no doubt that the rumors and whispering (and that's just from her own fans) would have caused tension. A man can only hear about how much hotter his girlfriend is than him before he snaps.
Clearly, Jason valued the relationship and Britney enough to sex it up, so to speak. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, as it were, but to the naked eye, they look more like a traditional couple.
See, in today's society the whole May-December romance isn't as taboo as it used to be (not that Britney and Jason are necessarily May-December, as there's only a 10 year age difference). It's more acceptable to see a younger man with an older woman or vice-versa than it is to see "sexy" man with an "ugly" woman or vice-versa. We (humans) still haven't learned to accept that there are MANY reasons to love someone (and looks can be at the bottom of that list).
Therefore, the 10 year age difference wouldn't have bothered people more than their difference in appearance (her being super hot and him being average).
So, congrats to Jason for getting ripped. Unfortunately, it was probably done more for vanity (so fans, media, society would accept him as Britney's boyfriend) than for health or well-being.
Society is a cruel mistress. She takes and takes and hardly ever gives back.
The truth is, if you're 50-60lbs overweight, there are just a lot of women you have no chance with. If you're 20-30lbs overweight, there are still going to be women you can't get. Men don't want to believe that's true (especially the fat ones), but it is. Sure, intelligence and a great sense of humor is a plus, but if you're packing on the pounds, you ain't getting your foot in the door with a lot of women.
But let's suppose for a second that somehow a heavier guy does end up with someone usually out of his league. Maybe not a fat guy, but one who looks out of shape. And one who is definitely not as sexually appealing as the woman he's currently with. What happens then?
Two things can happen: a) the guy doesn't change and decides if she accepted me at this weight, then I'll stay at this weight; b) people start whispering, "Why is she with him," guys gets paranoid and either loses the weight or the relationship ends. For a perfect example of option b look at the relationship between Britney Spears and Jason Trawick.
These two have known each other for a long time, but when they started getting serious, Jason wasn't exactly the sexiest man in the world. He had a little belly on him. Britney, of course, basically redefined sexy for a whole generation. She was to the 2000s what Marilyn Monroes and the Betty Paiges were to the 50s and 60s. It stands to reason, then, that the coupling of Britney and Jason would draw some curious glances.
In a normal situation (i.e. one not under the public spotlight) Jason would have had the two options described above. Unfortunately, he only had one choice. For the record, I am in no way suggesting Britney only dates guys based on their looks. Just look at the men she's been with for proof. However, there's no doubt that the rumors and whispering (and that's just from her own fans) would have caused tension. A man can only hear about how much hotter his girlfriend is than him before he snaps.
Clearly, Jason valued the relationship and Britney enough to sex it up, so to speak. He may not be everyone's cup of tea, as it were, but to the naked eye, they look more like a traditional couple.
See, in today's society the whole May-December romance isn't as taboo as it used to be (not that Britney and Jason are necessarily May-December, as there's only a 10 year age difference). It's more acceptable to see a younger man with an older woman or vice-versa than it is to see "sexy" man with an "ugly" woman or vice-versa. We (humans) still haven't learned to accept that there are MANY reasons to love someone (and looks can be at the bottom of that list).
Therefore, the 10 year age difference wouldn't have bothered people more than their difference in appearance (her being super hot and him being average).
So, congrats to Jason for getting ripped. Unfortunately, it was probably done more for vanity (so fans, media, society would accept him as Britney's boyfriend) than for health or well-being.
Society is a cruel mistress. She takes and takes and hardly ever gives back.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Lindsay Lohan's Sobriety is Bad for Business
Over the last several years, the tabloid magazines and websites have built up a select few people as worth caring about. Sure, they mention most anyone they can get a snapshot of, but they've only highlighted a few "chosen" people. Those people's bad, odd and disturbing behavior has produced major hits and sales for these tabloid drug dealers. Unfortunately, some of the "chosen" few have cleaned up their act. One of those people is Lindsay Lohan.
The actress/singer spent time in both jail and rehab. She's now back and seemingly better than ever. I'm not going to claim she's fixed/cured/healthier/sane, but so far so good. And that's bad for tabloid business.
No one wants to read a story about Lindsay driving her own car around town. They want to read about her stealing some other person's car and chasing other people in a cocaine induced rage. But she can't do that any more. Lindsay has to stay on the straight and narrow.
The once in-demand actress' new sober image hasn't stopped the so-called entertainment journalists/bloggers from either a) making it seem as though Lindsay isn't clean or b) inferring that she won't be able to stay clean. They claim to have spoken to friends and insiders (who, of course, are anonymous) that say Lindsay will go right back to her old ways or that old users and enablers will weasel their way back into her life (not THESE friends, mind you, but the other, bad ones who don't talk to the media).
See, these journalistic drug dealers NEED Lindsay to fuck up. They built her up as one major screwball, and if she doesn't screw up they have nothing. It could get so bad they may start paying paparazzi to throw cocaine at Lindsay (or sugar or any white powdery substance).
Somehow, through all this, Lindsay has managed to keep one thing intact: her looks. Her sanity may come and go (God knows her freedom has), but other than the period where she lost a bunch of weight, she's kept her beautiful shape, beautiful face and beautiful head of hair (so long as its not blond). But it may not last.
We can only image the rumors that will be spread, the lies that will be told, anything to cause Lindsay to go off the deep end. These purveyors of smut and filth need it. They live off it. Lindsay's sobriety is bad for their business. No one is going to read about a happy, well-to-do starlet. Happy doesn't sell magazines or generate web hits. Getting caught snorting cocaine, now that'll get people's attention.
For Lindsay's sake, I hope that never happens.
Her sobriety may be bad for their business, but it's sure good for her own well-being.
The actress/singer spent time in both jail and rehab. She's now back and seemingly better than ever. I'm not going to claim she's fixed/cured/healthier/sane, but so far so good. And that's bad for tabloid business.
No one wants to read a story about Lindsay driving her own car around town. They want to read about her stealing some other person's car and chasing other people in a cocaine induced rage. But she can't do that any more. Lindsay has to stay on the straight and narrow.
The once in-demand actress' new sober image hasn't stopped the so-called entertainment journalists/bloggers from either a) making it seem as though Lindsay isn't clean or b) inferring that she won't be able to stay clean. They claim to have spoken to friends and insiders (who, of course, are anonymous) that say Lindsay will go right back to her old ways or that old users and enablers will weasel their way back into her life (not THESE friends, mind you, but the other, bad ones who don't talk to the media).
See, these journalistic drug dealers NEED Lindsay to fuck up. They built her up as one major screwball, and if she doesn't screw up they have nothing. It could get so bad they may start paying paparazzi to throw cocaine at Lindsay (or sugar or any white powdery substance).
Somehow, through all this, Lindsay has managed to keep one thing intact: her looks. Her sanity may come and go (God knows her freedom has), but other than the period where she lost a bunch of weight, she's kept her beautiful shape, beautiful face and beautiful head of hair (so long as its not blond). But it may not last.
We can only image the rumors that will be spread, the lies that will be told, anything to cause Lindsay to go off the deep end. These purveyors of smut and filth need it. They live off it. Lindsay's sobriety is bad for their business. No one is going to read about a happy, well-to-do starlet. Happy doesn't sell magazines or generate web hits. Getting caught snorting cocaine, now that'll get people's attention.
For Lindsay's sake, I hope that never happens.
Her sobriety may be bad for their business, but it's sure good for her own well-being.
I Love Britney Spears
Yes, I said it. The title gives it all away. I'm in love with a woman who may or may not be psychotic.
Britney is a blend of high society LA flair and southern redneck charm. Seriously, how many people can you say that about? Here's a girl who can be at home at a swanky A-list celebrity event in an expensive dress and designer shoes or smoking a cigarette in her backyard wearing cutoff shorts and a bikini top. She's got a little of everything in her.
Britney is a woman who's had an interesting list of people come in and out of her life. In between dating Justin Timberlake and her current beau, Jason Trawick, she's found time to kiss Madonna, marry and have two kids, marry and get an annulment, date a paparazzi, go to rehab, shave her head, make music, tour, lose custody of her kids, try to kill someone with an umbrella, donate to charity, shoot a documentary, lose part of her freedom, etc., etc., etc.
Let me tell you that is a lot of stuff to pack into a life, and Britney's only 28. Imagine the kind of stuff she can get into over the next 20 years. She'll make Madonna look like a nun.
She has, at times, been a complete train wreck. A disaster of epic proportions. I say that not to be mean, but because it's true.
Other times, she's been an inspiration. Someone to look up to and admire. Britney gives you a lot to love, while also giving you a lot to hate. With most celebrities, it's one or the other. Not with Britney.
She has produced the craziest, most rabid, psychotic fan base of anyone. There may well be more sites and forums dedicated to Britney than anyone ever in the history of the Internet. Only porn might outnumber her (even then, some pictures of Britney are a bit pornographic).
I love her, even though some people would say she's an idiot, white trash, a skank, ugly, fat, untalented, etc. But that's OK. If that means she's flawed, so be it. If you're only dating flawless people, then you ain't dating. In fact, you'll be waiting a long time to date. We're all flawed. I think God created us that way on purpose. It gives us a common denominator.
I don't know how to end this blog properly, so I'll just list a bunch of things I love about Britney:
• Her smile
• Her lips
• Her determination
• Her ass (duh!)
• Her legs (double duh!)
• Her terrible fashion sense
• Her tremendous fashion sense
• Her hideous weave
• Her ability to make people stop dead in their tracks
• Her insanity
• Her sanity
• Everything, etc., etc.
Truthfully, there's really nothing to dislike about Britney. But people do dislike her. And that makes me like her even more.
Britney is a blend of high society LA flair and southern redneck charm. Seriously, how many people can you say that about? Here's a girl who can be at home at a swanky A-list celebrity event in an expensive dress and designer shoes or smoking a cigarette in her backyard wearing cutoff shorts and a bikini top. She's got a little of everything in her.
Britney is a woman who's had an interesting list of people come in and out of her life. In between dating Justin Timberlake and her current beau, Jason Trawick, she's found time to kiss Madonna, marry and have two kids, marry and get an annulment, date a paparazzi, go to rehab, shave her head, make music, tour, lose custody of her kids, try to kill someone with an umbrella, donate to charity, shoot a documentary, lose part of her freedom, etc., etc., etc.
Let me tell you that is a lot of stuff to pack into a life, and Britney's only 28. Imagine the kind of stuff she can get into over the next 20 years. She'll make Madonna look like a nun.
She has, at times, been a complete train wreck. A disaster of epic proportions. I say that not to be mean, but because it's true.
Other times, she's been an inspiration. Someone to look up to and admire. Britney gives you a lot to love, while also giving you a lot to hate. With most celebrities, it's one or the other. Not with Britney.
She has produced the craziest, most rabid, psychotic fan base of anyone. There may well be more sites and forums dedicated to Britney than anyone ever in the history of the Internet. Only porn might outnumber her (even then, some pictures of Britney are a bit pornographic).
I love her, even though some people would say she's an idiot, white trash, a skank, ugly, fat, untalented, etc. But that's OK. If that means she's flawed, so be it. If you're only dating flawless people, then you ain't dating. In fact, you'll be waiting a long time to date. We're all flawed. I think God created us that way on purpose. It gives us a common denominator.
I don't know how to end this blog properly, so I'll just list a bunch of things I love about Britney:
• Her smile
• Her lips
• Her determination
• Her ass (duh!)
• Her legs (double duh!)
• Her terrible fashion sense
• Her tremendous fashion sense
• Her hideous weave
• Her ability to make people stop dead in their tracks
• Her insanity
• Her sanity
• Everything, etc., etc.
Truthfully, there's really nothing to dislike about Britney. But people do dislike her. And that makes me like her even more.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
We Can Rebuild Her (Even Though She Doesn't Need Rebuilding)
There's a bad trend in Hollywood (I know, shocking, right) that sees magazines using old, outdated photos of a celebrity (usually a woman) at his/her worst to trump up a story about that particular celebrity's "drastic change."
Go into any supermarket and you're bound to see a magazine with a headline reading, "How I lost the weight." Forget for a second that the I in that sentence doesn't necessarily mean the celebrity weight loser actually spoke to the magazine, because that's not the point. What you need to be worried about is the idea.
The magazine will create the false notion that some celebrity, be it Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Mariah Carey, whomever, lost some amount of weight (usually between 10-20 pounds), and that they did it in a short time frame (usually one month or so). Not only is it unhealthy for women to think they can and should be dropping 20lbs in a month, it's just one big fat lie.
When Us Weekly, InStyle, OK! Magazine or whichever gossip rag you subscribe to uses that headline, two pictures usually accompany it: a large photo of the celebrity's current body and a smaller photo of their before body (i.e. the one when they supposedly weighed 20lbs more). Now, the before picture tends to not actually show the whole body, otherwise we'd all be able to see that there was in fact NO weight loss. None was needed.
Also, the before picture tends to be from well before the alleged time-frame of weight loss occurred (i.e. two-three years ago). Therefore, perhaps in that particular photo the celebrity was 20lbs heavier, but the magazine doesn't tell you that photo is three years old, thus causing you to believe the weight loss did occur in the one month time period (and not the ACTUAL three year time period). Lies.
Recently, Britney Spears hit the beaches of Hawaii in her little bikini. Practically every magazine has since featured (or will feature) a story on how she got her "body back" (i.e. lost the weight). Well, as my friend and fellow Britney-devotee/blogger, Poor Britney, said today, her body didn't go anywhere.
When Britney was pictured leaving a recording studio recently, everyone jumped at the chance to proclaim her hot body had returned. Again, it never left.
Sadly, people buy it. People will go to the store and see so-and-so lost x amount of weight in y amount of days and will believe it. They'll believe it because we're a fat country obsessed with weight loss. Not our own weight loss, mind you, but others'. We love weight loss stories. We love those Jenny Craig commercials with Sara Rue and Valerie Bertinelli. We think if they can do it, we can do it. But we don't do it, because we never try. We are the perpetual dreamers in the world of greasy cheeseburgers and friend chicken.
Yes, only in America could you claim to be on a diet while you stuff your face with pizza.
Don't believe the lies. These people are not losing 20lbs in two-weeks or one month. And don't buy the magazine, because you sure as hell won't either.
Go into any supermarket and you're bound to see a magazine with a headline reading, "How I lost the weight." Forget for a second that the I in that sentence doesn't necessarily mean the celebrity weight loser actually spoke to the magazine, because that's not the point. What you need to be worried about is the idea.
The magazine will create the false notion that some celebrity, be it Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Mariah Carey, whomever, lost some amount of weight (usually between 10-20 pounds), and that they did it in a short time frame (usually one month or so). Not only is it unhealthy for women to think they can and should be dropping 20lbs in a month, it's just one big fat lie.
When Us Weekly, InStyle, OK! Magazine or whichever gossip rag you subscribe to uses that headline, two pictures usually accompany it: a large photo of the celebrity's current body and a smaller photo of their before body (i.e. the one when they supposedly weighed 20lbs more). Now, the before picture tends to not actually show the whole body, otherwise we'd all be able to see that there was in fact NO weight loss. None was needed.
Also, the before picture tends to be from well before the alleged time-frame of weight loss occurred (i.e. two-three years ago). Therefore, perhaps in that particular photo the celebrity was 20lbs heavier, but the magazine doesn't tell you that photo is three years old, thus causing you to believe the weight loss did occur in the one month time period (and not the ACTUAL three year time period). Lies.
Recently, Britney Spears hit the beaches of Hawaii in her little bikini. Practically every magazine has since featured (or will feature) a story on how she got her "body back" (i.e. lost the weight). Well, as my friend and fellow Britney-devotee/blogger, Poor Britney, said today, her body didn't go anywhere.
When Britney was pictured leaving a recording studio recently, everyone jumped at the chance to proclaim her hot body had returned. Again, it never left.
Sadly, people buy it. People will go to the store and see so-and-so lost x amount of weight in y amount of days and will believe it. They'll believe it because we're a fat country obsessed with weight loss. Not our own weight loss, mind you, but others'. We love weight loss stories. We love those Jenny Craig commercials with Sara Rue and Valerie Bertinelli. We think if they can do it, we can do it. But we don't do it, because we never try. We are the perpetual dreamers in the world of greasy cheeseburgers and friend chicken.
Yes, only in America could you claim to be on a diet while you stuff your face with pizza.
Don't believe the lies. These people are not losing 20lbs in two-weeks or one month. And don't buy the magazine, because you sure as hell won't either.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Rumors and Gossip are Fun (Until Someone Loses an Eye)
If there's one thing I don't understand (one of many, anyway) it's how people can fall for the same silly rumors over and over again. I'm always astounded when, say, someone claims to have information about something they couldn't possibly know about. Would you believe someone if they claimed to know who the president of the United States was going to be five years from now? Of course not. How could they know that? They couldn't. Yet, those same people line up to believe that mystery person x (and it's always a mystery person) knows when Britney Spears' new album is coming out, what it's going to be called, the name of the first single, etc. But isn't believing that just as foolish as believing the person who claims to know who the next president is going to be?
We build this timeline of events in our mind of how something is going to go. For instance, on a first date, you've already mapped out the entire date in your mind before you even sat down to dinner. If someone came buy and told you how the date was going to go, and if that information matched up with your self-created timeline, you'd buy it. It's the same with Britney. We have a general timeline set for when we feel things are going to happen, and if someone comes along and claims data that matches, well, we're standing there in line waiting to hear more.
Human beings need structure to function: things have to happen in a certain order. You date, fall in love, get married, have kids. A system. We have a tendency to force feed our system onto others, i.e. telling people the rumor about Britney's next album coming out on Sept. 13 is true simply because we already created that timeline in our minds.
We stop thinking rationally when the rumored information matches our preconceived information. And that's a problem. Thinking is very important. My advice is simply to look things over, removing all preconceived notions, before arriving at a final decision. You may decide to believe the rumor in the end, but not because it jibes with your self-created timeline; rather, because you've deduced there's actual truth in there.
I guess I DO understand how people can fall for the same silly rumors after all.
We build this timeline of events in our mind of how something is going to go. For instance, on a first date, you've already mapped out the entire date in your mind before you even sat down to dinner. If someone came buy and told you how the date was going to go, and if that information matched up with your self-created timeline, you'd buy it. It's the same with Britney. We have a general timeline set for when we feel things are going to happen, and if someone comes along and claims data that matches, well, we're standing there in line waiting to hear more.
Human beings need structure to function: things have to happen in a certain order. You date, fall in love, get married, have kids. A system. We have a tendency to force feed our system onto others, i.e. telling people the rumor about Britney's next album coming out on Sept. 13 is true simply because we already created that timeline in our minds.
We stop thinking rationally when the rumored information matches our preconceived information. And that's a problem. Thinking is very important. My advice is simply to look things over, removing all preconceived notions, before arriving at a final decision. You may decide to believe the rumor in the end, but not because it jibes with your self-created timeline; rather, because you've deduced there's actual truth in there.
I guess I DO understand how people can fall for the same silly rumors after all.
Britney Spears is NOT Japanese (She Just Plays One in Magazines)
Britney Spears somehow landed on the cover of Pop Magazine, a magazine I will freely admit to knowing nothing about. The concept was created by Takashi something (I forget his last name and am too lazy to look it up). She looks white (very white) and young (very young) in the magazine (as opposed to in real life where she just looks varying degrees of white and young). It appears from this Westerners perspective, the Japanese like their women looking white and young (if that's offensive to Japanese, well, the truth hurts).
I have no idea why Britney is on the cover of this particular magazine. I know she sings pop music, but I doubt the magazine is about that. It could be a fashion magazine, and seeing as how Britney is such the fashionista, her appearance on the cover would make complete sense (I am, of course, being sarcastic; Britney is rarely fashionable. No offense to Britney).
It's more than likely promotion for an album that may or may not come out this year. Hell, the album may not come out until 2023. At this rate, everyone has an opinion. Most of them are wrong, of course; they just don't know it yet.
Or perhaps it's promotion for her Glee appearance, which needs no promotion. More than likely, it's simply a desire of the editors to use Britney, as she has never been in this magazine before. She's quite popular, attractive, in demand, etc. etc., all the qualities one looks for in a cover girl.
Britney has been on cover of a lot of magazines throughout her career: everything from Rolling Stone to Teen Beat (or Tiger Beat or Teen Dream or whatever its called nowadays). But rarely has a cover been so . . . unsexy? This Takashi person obviously had no intent to play up Britney's sex appeal. Don't get me wrong, she's quite beautiful on the cover. But beautiful in the way a six-year old flower girl is beautiful. We want to pinch her little cheeks and fawn and sigh and say, "She's so precious." No one looking at her cover could possibly have sexual thoughts (unless you're a pedophile, in which case those are the only thoughts you might have).
Britney is at once both a fantasy and a disaster. We want to be her and be with her, but at the same time we prepare for the worst whenever we see a thread titled "New Britney pictures," because we're afraid of what her hair might look like, what crazy outfit she'll be wearing and whether or not she'll be in those damn Ugg boots that went out of style five years ago.
However, on the Pop cover, she is all fantasy. No Ugg boots, no crazy hair, no reason at all to worry. Personally, I don't like the cover. I happen to like my 28-year olds looking like 28-years olds (or 25-year olds or at least older than 15). But some people find it fascinating and get lost in the artistry. Good. She is a fantasy girl on the cover, all young and naive and innocent and coquettish (any time you can use the word coquettish, it's a good day).
She's bathed in white light, as if God himself turned his spotlight on her (she did once say that a lady told her to go to the light and see Jesus, so perhaps that's exactly what Britney is doing).
Looking at the cover you would never have known she shaved her head, lost custody of her children or frequently leaves the house without undergarments. And I guess that's the point. Britney can be a million things, including an angel bathed in light on the cover of a magazine most people never heard of.
I have no idea why Britney is on the cover of this particular magazine. I know she sings pop music, but I doubt the magazine is about that. It could be a fashion magazine, and seeing as how Britney is such the fashionista, her appearance on the cover would make complete sense (I am, of course, being sarcastic; Britney is rarely fashionable. No offense to Britney).
It's more than likely promotion for an album that may or may not come out this year. Hell, the album may not come out until 2023. At this rate, everyone has an opinion. Most of them are wrong, of course; they just don't know it yet.
Or perhaps it's promotion for her Glee appearance, which needs no promotion. More than likely, it's simply a desire of the editors to use Britney, as she has never been in this magazine before. She's quite popular, attractive, in demand, etc. etc., all the qualities one looks for in a cover girl.
Britney has been on cover of a lot of magazines throughout her career: everything from Rolling Stone to Teen Beat (or Tiger Beat or Teen Dream or whatever its called nowadays). But rarely has a cover been so . . . unsexy? This Takashi person obviously had no intent to play up Britney's sex appeal. Don't get me wrong, she's quite beautiful on the cover. But beautiful in the way a six-year old flower girl is beautiful. We want to pinch her little cheeks and fawn and sigh and say, "She's so precious." No one looking at her cover could possibly have sexual thoughts (unless you're a pedophile, in which case those are the only thoughts you might have).
Britney is at once both a fantasy and a disaster. We want to be her and be with her, but at the same time we prepare for the worst whenever we see a thread titled "New Britney pictures," because we're afraid of what her hair might look like, what crazy outfit she'll be wearing and whether or not she'll be in those damn Ugg boots that went out of style five years ago.
However, on the Pop cover, she is all fantasy. No Ugg boots, no crazy hair, no reason at all to worry. Personally, I don't like the cover. I happen to like my 28-year olds looking like 28-years olds (or 25-year olds or at least older than 15). But some people find it fascinating and get lost in the artistry. Good. She is a fantasy girl on the cover, all young and naive and innocent and coquettish (any time you can use the word coquettish, it's a good day).
She's bathed in white light, as if God himself turned his spotlight on her (she did once say that a lady told her to go to the light and see Jesus, so perhaps that's exactly what Britney is doing).
Looking at the cover you would never have known she shaved her head, lost custody of her children or frequently leaves the house without undergarments. And I guess that's the point. Britney can be a million things, including an angel bathed in light on the cover of a magazine most people never heard of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)