You know what you should love? Manny's Lemon Tortilla Chips. Seriously, you don't even have to eat them, just standing next to them makes you a better person...although they really are best when they turn your fingers red in all of their lemon, chili pepper, crisp bubble goodness. I usually eat 10 out of the 14 servings in one sitting though =(

So I'm watching Comedy Central and it's 1:30 in the morning. Anyone who has ever done this knows that there's plenty of dirty movies advertised. Well, for the first time, I saw an advertisement for "Guys Gone Wild." Pretty much it's identical to "Girls Gone Wild" but with the opposite sex. They appear to do all of the "naughty, wild, behaviors" that they encourage in the other ones. However, the interesting part is how putting men in identical situations to the ones we put women into highlights how bizarre the whole thing really is. Nobody questions it or even thinks about it when a college girl comes out in a bikini and starts grinding on a chair, but when I saw a guy do it I actually laughed. What makes demeaning, stupid behavior sexy when a woman does it? Why is it ok for a woman to do anything to appease someone but when a man emulates her we say, "don't be ridiculous."

Also, it weirds me out hearing a woman say in a monotone voice "You look like this is the first time you've done something like this," to the half naked man she was filming. "Can you show us some moves?" she said next, and I know I've heard that one on the Girls Gone Wild commercials. It's not like I enjoyed hearing the man say this stuff to the woman on the one geared toward men, but I just dismissed it as porn and I didn't think about it. I'm not sure I've ever heard a woman, on the other hand, behaving like a "manizer." (On that note, why is "manizer" not a word, but "womanizer" is?) The only real differences between the two videos was that the women also say things to the men like, "Baby, you smell good," and there's no guy-on-guy action. Some might argue that it's because women care more about emotional attachment in their porn and monogamy (there are arousal studies I've read, I can get them to you if you like). Either way, these are double standards I'd rather not have in this world.

I don't know. I'm kind of glad that they're evening things out between the sexes (or at least capitalizing on different audiences) but it really highlights the apathy and indifference people have toward the subjugation of women. They may be trying to appeal to everyone, but the content is still disgracefully objectifying. Well, I suppose now they're less discriminating about who they objectify, the only subculture I see left out is gay men. Do you hear me, "gone wild people," I expect to see multi-man action before "Girls Gone Wild 37" or "Girls Gone Geriatric."

ON A MORE SOPHISTICATED TONE, we were in the museum again on Friday for my art history class. I know I've mentioned how mind-bending it is for me to picture the lives of the artifacts, but I'm bringing it up again. I think sculptures, pottery, clothing, and other lasting 3D works are more engaging than paintings. Don't get me wrong, paintings are amazing and I think we have a lot to learn from them. I also like to picture the artist, the inspiration, and what other people said and thought while looking at it through time, and I think we can learn a lot by focusing on how people interpreted the composition in different eras. When you take a 3D object, however, more often than not it had an actual physical function when it was made. It was crafted for a practical reason - storing food, sitting on, idol worship - but most of them no longer are used for their initial function. It seems to me like having a purpose and being used on a regular basis gives it so much more depth. Then it gets buried for thousands of years, dug up, and put on display. Or maybe it sat around somebody's house forever because they didn't know it was worth anything (or maybe it wasn't worth anything shortly after it went obsolete in the household.)

Paintings miss out on a whole amazing stage. As far as I know, paintings degrade when buried, they don't have the longevity and endurance to sit underground for entire lifetimes. I love 2D art but I am mystified by the idea that something like a musical instrument can change its role in the world as it ages. It would seem to me like people go through similar phases. You're introduced to the world and people hope the best, suddenly you're young, strong, and important - you make a mark on your environment, you contribute physically, you have a "purpose," then you age and get tossed aside, until finally you're old enough for people to appreciate you and learn something from your lifetime (if you're lucky).

Labels: gender, philosophy