The Lab – Episode 01: Response To Randolfe

In response to The Lab Episode 01: Swingers, Randolfe wrote:

It was well edited and entertaining.

Thank you. ๐Ÿ™‚

Ultimately, I think you fell into the trap of allowing the film to pull you down to it’s (their) level.

This statement assumes a couple of things. A) It assumes that I’m not “down to their level” already. B) It assumes that whatever I say in a video has anything to do with my actual personality. C) It assumes that “their level” is below someone else’s level. I see why you feel that way based on your statements below.

“IF” I were fifty years younger and female in gender (‘if’ is a famously BIG word), I don’t think I’d be interested in getting to know you better and/or dating you.

This is an interesting statement because I realized after I read this line that in all of my calculations about set design and show concept and DVD selection and graphics and music and decisions on commentary and editing….. that I gave *ZERO* thought to A) whether females would watch my show or not, B) whether they’d want to date me, or C) whether anything I said might increase or decrease my chances of getting a rap.

The reason I can’t be concerned with that is that it’s tough enough to get topics that I want to talk about and make it all happen without adding in the filter of “I can’t use this clip or say this or that because some chick might not want to hook up with me”. ๐Ÿ˜€

I agree with you that if my goal were to present myself as a candidate for marriage, talking about not only manipulating women, but in fact manipulating guys into having abilities beyond their natural capacity to “pull chicks” would be just about THE LAST thing I’d want to do. ๐Ÿ˜€

As a matter of fact, if you watch the video again, you’ll notice that I call guys out for their bullshitting, lying behavior. They don’t ACTUALLY own yachts and expensive apartments. They just SAY they do because that’s what they think women want to hear in order to give them some. They’re hoping they can hit it before she figures out that they don’t have any of that stuff. That’s why Mikey got caught in a lie. Instead of just coming at her straight up, that he liked how she looked and wanted whatever he wanted from her, he went the typical route and tried to talk himself up and got busted. The problem with that technique is that so many guys use it that it’s effectiveness is diluted. You may as well walk up to her and say “I’m about to lie to you so I can try to get laid”. ๐Ÿ™‚

Anyway… Having thought about what you said, and appreciating your comments, for sure… I STILL can’t be concerned with whether some chick wants to hook up with me or not because she doesn’t like something I said in a video. hehehe Something about that just makes me laugh. ๐Ÿ˜€

Actually… Your suggestion that I tailor what I say on the show to present myself in the best light as a suitor is merely a different technique of manipulation. That would be as bad, ethically, as the behavior I just finished discussing. ๐Ÿ™‚

This “game” single males (of all orientations) play demeans the really important dynamic in sexual-social relationships by reducing them to the level of a sport like fox-hunting and/or archery practice.

Yes. You are right about that. However, that doesn’t make “the game” any less of a reality for very many guys. Some guys chase chicks just for sport… just because they can. Other guys try to develop skills because they CAN’T pick up girls to save their lives. It’s because of Mikey’s lack of confidence in himself that he decides to lie about his job and what he owns and what he plans to buy. It’s because he doesn’t believe this girl will like him for who he actually is. For some guys, having some sort of tactics are just plain necessary, or they’ll never get on in their entire lives.

I had a parting of ways with a friend of mine over just this very issue. For some odd reason, he wasn’t getting any interest from girls that he liked. I mean, he was really in a bad way about it. Once he started learning how “the game” works, his first reaction was JOY that now, he could pull girls that used to NOT give him the time of day. Eventually, he rejected “the game” for the very reasons you mention. What he wanted was a girl that he liked that also liked him. You can’t get that by lying to her, because she likes who it is that you told her you are, and she doesn’t know a damned thing about YOU at all. She likes what you told her… It’s not that she likes YOU. What he learned for himself was that he was better off going the honest route and throwing his hat in the ring, win or lose, without manipulating the ladies into giving him what he wants. Unfortunately, once he “converted”, I represented the dark side of the force to him, so we didn’t hang out after that. I respect his decision and wish him all the best.. but that path doesn’t work for everyone.

I agree with you though that “the game” has a desensitizing effect on guys. Women become expendable when you can get another one five minutes from now or by turning the next corner. The more effective you get in “the game”, the less each individual “success” matters at all. It’s merely repetition and reinforcement that the same stimulus creates the same response in many different women. *YAWN* For guys that can get on without gaming chicks, I recommend that you don’t get involved in the sport of it all.

You’re a bright perceptive guy. Focus on more serious and deeper stuff. Leave films like this one to the loners and losers who inevitably end up living them :-).

Thanks. ๐Ÿ™‚ However, you’re projecting _your_ value system onto *me*. I’m sure there are serious as well as deep topics that I’ll get into eventually… however… hahahaha it’s NOT going to be in Episode 02! ๐Ÿ˜€ If you disliked Episode 01, you’re going to HATE Episode 02! hahahaha

Please take all this as a compliment not as criticism.

I appreciate your comments as well as your being up front about how you felt about the episode instead of just saying something generically nice. I really hadn’t noticed that I honestly didn’t consider AT ALL what chicks might think about my “Swingers” commentary. I’m glad about not caring about that, but I can’t take all the credit for it. Not that I would ever compare a single-episode-show to Rocketboom, but look at the statistics. They had something like 8% of their viewers as females. There’s a low percentage of females in the Yahoo Videoblogging Group. Even out of the females that are apparent, the vast majority of them are in some form of relationship or are for whatever reasons completely undateable. From Friday to right now, approximately 48 hours, I have a reported total from blip.tv of 116 views. Even if all of those were unique visitors (which they aren’t), there are two chances that one of them would be a “dateable” female… SLIM… and NONE…..

….. and Slim left town! hahahahaha ๐Ÿ˜€

I thought the ending credits were the best part :-).

Again, thanks. After all I went through to get Episode 01 “in the can” and then back out of the can, I had to give myself proper credit for doing EVERYTHING. It’s out of my system now, and I’ll be using “regular” credits from now on. ๐Ÿ˜€

Thanks for the note, Randolfe. ๐Ÿ™‚

Friends with an Ex

re: http://www.sexerati.com/2007/01/08/how-to-be-friends-with-your-ex/

You’re absolutely right that “let’s just be friends” means that he’s
not interested in hitting it anymore. The reasons aren’t important.
It may be because your body has changed and he’s not physically
attracted to you anymore, or he’s met someone that turns him on a lot
more than you do so that sex with you would be hehe anti-climactic. ๐Ÿ™‚

It’s entirely possible to be friends with someone after your
“relationship” has gone south. First of all, it’s not the
relationship that went south, it’s his desire to have sex with you.
That has nothing to do with whether he likes you as a person or would
spend time with you like any other person he’s met in life and likes
personality-wise. Second… It all depends on whether the two of you
were ever friends in the first place.

As the saying goes, women give sex to get relationships and men give
relationships to get sex. When they’re no longer interested in the
sex, there’s no reason for the guy to fake being in a relationship
with you. Or, if you don’t like the term “faking”, the only thing
that was causing him to consider you as “special” is now gone, and he
becomes either a free agent or has a new “special someone” that he’s
devoting his physcial time to. That doesn’t mean he won’t hang out
with you or talk to you on the phone or check out a movie with you IF
he feels friendly towards you without the impetus of ‘getting on’.

There are lots of reasons people declare that they’re in a
relationship with someone, including loneliness, horniness, and the
fact that they just can’t get anyone else to have sex with them. If
that’s why he was with you, you’re short. If he liked you as a
person and felt that you were worthwhile to hang out with regardless
of whether he’s having sex with you, he’s going to have just as much
respect and esteem for you “after the fact” as he did when it was on.

It’s funny how you often don’t find out what’s really going on in a
relationship until it’s over. ๐Ÿ˜€

Sexism?

A few days ago, I became aware of a… series of comments (because it wasn’t actually a conversation or a debate) that revolved around the reasons someone would choose or hire someone else to be a spokesperson for them. I missed that conversation, entirely, so I’ll just mention my thoughts about it here, and be done with it. Specifically, it pertained to whether a woman should be chosen for the job? and if so, should it be an attractive woman? and if so, should that be the deciding factor in hiring her? To be even more specific, they were looking to hire someone to be on-air talent… not on television, but on the internet. A host of a show. “The Face” of their broadcast.

Anyone could have been chosen to be the host of this show, yet they specifically requested an attractive female. This was called “sexism”. Definition #2 of sexism, according to m-w.com/dictionary/sexism, is “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”. Could choosing an attractive female to host a show foster stereotypes of a woman’s social role? Could choosing a more attractive woman who knows nothing about the topic (but is going to be fed her lines anyway, via a script) over a less attractive woman who knows a lot about the topic imply things to the viewers or people that become aware of this situation about the role of a woman in this society or what’s valued about her? I think it says more about the people looking to hire this attractive woman and their target demographic than it says about the woman herself or women in general. What could be the reason that an attractive woman was desired for the position? How about RATINGS? ๐Ÿ˜€

How about if one of the reasons… if not the ONLY reason to put on the show was to get viewers? How about if they knew that they would get MORE viewers to tune in with an attractive female spokesperson than an unattractive female or a male? What’s their incentive to go with decidedly less effective ‘bait’ when they’re fishing for viewers? Where’s the ROI?

On top of all that, it’s not like they were trying to hire her for some kind of intellectual show
like “On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren”. ๐Ÿ˜€

All this new spokesperson has to do is study some simple introductory lines or read them from a teleprompter. She’s there to wave and smile and look good and ATTRACT viewers to watch the show, which benefits the guys that were looking to hire her in the first place. Mission accomplished. If you’re trying to do a show about lawyers, and you hire a woman that looks good and is NOT and never WAS a lawyer, you’re a fool. If you want someone to turn letters on a game show, there’s no need to hire a lawyer. ๐Ÿ™‚

What does that say for the _content_ of a show that needs eye-candy to get viewers? hehehehe… well…… ๐Ÿ™‚

However, like I said… I think it says more about the show and the show’s demographics than it says about women. If the show’s topic is appealing to men, then putting an attractive woman in the spotlight is only going to benefit you. Look at Harlequin….


They’re selling fantasies to women. Does Harlequin hire busted-looking, out-of-shape, unsuccessful-looking ‘Joe Average’s to model for the covers of their novels for women? NOPE! ๐Ÿ˜€ You know why? Because fewer women would BUY.THE.BOOK. They’re better off using covers that don’t imply anything about the guy’s looks at all than they are using a cover that defines the protagonist as visually unattractive.

That’s not to say that I don’t see the other side of the ‘argument’. Television’s filled with uncommonly attractive people, percentage-wise. Most places you go, people don’t actually look like that. ๐Ÿ˜€ I understand that a lot of girls and women feel pressure to attempt to make themselves look like models because they think models are the definition of good-looking, when, in fact, models are models because they fit the ONE.SIZE.OF.THE.DRESS that the designer made for the show. They hire models to fit clothes… they DON’T make the clothes to fit the models. I understand the reasons that women want to ‘fight the power’ and get more unattractive women into on-air-talent positions. However… what they’re missing is that the woman wasn’t being sought because she was a woman. They were looking for someone that would have been attractive to their target demographic… MEN. If you take away the desire to hire someone attractive, that doesn’t mean that the unattractive woman has a chance at all. She’s on the same level (if not lower) than a man now, because neither the man nor the unattractive woman is going to add to the show’s ratings. Unfortunately, even fighting the power doesn’t mean a win for the unattractive woman… it’s merely a loss for the attractive woman. And, yes… I’m aware that I’m using terms that relate to _visual_ attractiveness, because that’s the line that was drawn in this particular case.

Do I think this situation was sexist? No. It would have been sexist if what the new employee looked like wouldn’t have mattered at all to their ratings. If they were hiring a video editor, who was never going to be seen on the broadcast, choosing a more attractive and less qualified woman would have been a sexist decision, benefitting the men in the company that would rather walk in the editing suite and see an attractive woman, and hurting the bottom line, since she would be less effective at getting the job done than the less attractive woman. In the case of hiring on-air talent for a mindless hostess position, go for the gusto. Get all the ratings you can, because that’s where you’re going to get viewers, fame, advertisers, more work… whatever. If you need the new hire to actually DO SOMETHING, go with the most qualified person in the best interests of your business.

Like I said, I missed the boat on this conversation, but it ended with ZERO resolution, whatsoever. Each camp rallied around their respective positions, and no solutions came up that might have gotten a less attractive, yet more qualified female the job. In this case, its absolutely right what the women were saying, that her personality wasn’t being showcased and that she was chosen for her looks instead of her ideas and thoughts. “Someone” also said something that I found interesting and true. One of the arguments from the “good looks” side was that “sex sells”. Her response was that it wasn’t actually sex that was “selling”… it was how attractive the woman looked. I think she’s absolutely right. I don’t think a more sexual or sensual, yet visually unattractive woman would have stood a chance of being hired for this position, because she still wouldn’t have helped the ratings.

What never came up in the conversation is Human nature. Regardless of the technology, it’s still people on the other end of the line. Attractive people get more ‘stuff’ in this world. That’s how it is. Every time there’s a scientific study done, those are the results. All other things being equal, attractiveness wins the position. Even when things AREN’T equal, attractiveness wins the position. It’s valiant and respectable to fight the good fight, but until the society changes to the point where the viewers don’t care what the host / hostess / romance novel cover model looks like, their visual or physical attractiveness is going to be a tool to use to bait viewers into watching something they otherwise wouldn’t even consider taking a FIRST look at.

ReelSolidTV Episode 25

The Harlem Renaissance 5-Mile Classic Road Race was founded by: Dr. Roscoe C. Brown Jr., Tuskegee Airman and past President of Bronx Community College; Preston King Jr., CPA, and marathon runner; and Abdul El Amin, runner of two Ultra Marathons and trainer. They convened a committee of runners, coaches, educators, civic & business leaders to create a racing and cultural event for the enrichment of the Harlem community.

The 1990รขโ‚ฌโ„ขs brought another, major cultural and economic revitalization spurred by the formation of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, New York City housing Development programs and investment by visionary entrepreneurs. Today, The Harlem Renaissance 5-Mile Classic is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization with a mission to generate college scholarship funds for Harlem youth by celebrating the aspirations of the Renaissance of the past and the joy of revival currently spreading throughout this world-famous community. The race event brings light to the contributions made by Harlem residents in the fields of art, civics, history, literature and the sciences. The hope is to provide participants and spectators alike with a glimpse of Harlem’s energy, diverse architectural structures, great cultural institutions, historic sites, and world renowned churches.

Raising Scholarship Funds for youth of the Harlem Community is the stated Mission of HR5MCO. For this reason, this race event has earned the support of national corporations, as well as local businesses, elected officials and other non-profit organizations.

Your participation as an individual or team entrant is welcomed. Your presence will help create new educational opportunities for the youth of the Harlem community.

Attendees @ the 8th annual The Harlem Renaissance 5-Mile Classic included:

Dr. Roscoe C. Brown Jr. – Tuskegee Airman, Hero, National Treasure… ๐Ÿ˜€
Congressman Charles B. Rangel
Ms. Elaine Edmonds – Executive Director, Harlem YMCA
Mr. Danny Mixon – Legendary Pianist, Organist, World Traveler
Mr. Rudy Lawless – Legendary Drummer
Mr. Michael Max Fleming – Legendary Bassist
Mr. Gerald Hayes – Legendary Saxophonist
Dr. Bob Lee – WBLS Radio Personality
Councilman Bill Perkins
Rev. Reginald E. Moore – Salem United Methodist Church, NY