Rich “skating” in the name of love.
Rich and WIM discuss the aftermath of Valentine’s Day including skating in the name of love (3:45), men pushing it to the limit with selfies (20:35), the Jordan Davis trial outcome (27:00), the difference between hot and beautiful women (39:50), a black neighborhood fighting to keep a Trader Joe’s out (1:04:00), the key to a happy relationship (1:10:20), listener feedback and questions including why men stand women up (1:26:00), pursuing your passion (1:53:45), and the WIM Rant on women asking “why did you stop texting?” (2:01:00), and more. **Don’t forget to leave us a five rating on iTunes and/or Stitcher**
Download the Episode
Or use this player:
055: Every Guy Takes a Loss
095: New Year, New Us (Still Washed)
017: One Last Run
This was a long show but I enjoyed it. Hope you guys like detailed comments!
– “What is the thin line between appreciating a
beautiful woman and objectifying her?” I think the line is getting to
know this woman. It’s difficult to objectify someone you actually know
well. Also, I think the article had a point about finding the beauty in
women who aren’t necessarily hot.
It’s not that women who
like to look good are bad and women who don’t dress up are good. That’s
oversimplifying. It’s just that the women who don’t dress up and focus
on their appearance, their beauty gets overlooked. That’s it. It’s
still there, though. But no one is good or bad. Attractive people get
attention, people who aren’t considered attractive don’t get as much,
well, sometimes. There are other things to attract attention besides
looks. But looks are important in this society. I think that’s all the
article is trying to say.
I googled the author, Lauren Martin, and she’s not homely! You guys are so funny.
I
don’t think men notice eyelashes, but if a woman starts to let herself
go, her man will notice. Not the small things, but it sometimes starts small.
I do think men definitely will notice if a woman is unkempt, but I
don’t think men really understand all the many little grooming things a
woman does that makes that complete picture that he wants. Yes,
eyelashes, eyebrows, may be small, but when those start to go, so can go
the whole package. Honestly, very little of that is actually for the
woman herself. At least the women I know.
The
“900 candidate is shit out of luck”. Yes. Yes, she is. There you go.
– As
for attraction and their personality. I think if you aren’t attracted
to someone, really they don’t turn you on, there isn’t anywhere to go
from there. But there is a gray area. Sometimes there is a person where
you’re not sure yet, if you are attracted to them. Personality can
make a difference in that case. (For women, anyway.)
– “If my
text message got lost in the Matrix, it’s just not meant to be.” LOL. I
love that, definitely going to keep line in mind! If it’s gone, let it go!
Solid comment (and not too long by the way). I actually don’t have much to add or debate. You made some good points. I definitely think beauty extends beyond the exterior, but for me, some points in the article seemed to discount women simply for being born attractive. That’s not something I can support. It’s the opposite, yet equivalent, of discounting a woman because she wasn’t born stereotypically “attractive.” None of us can control what we were or were not blessed with from birth. I believe beauty beyond the skin can be found in both attractive and less than attractive women. Still, speaking for self, I want to be attracted to the outside as well as the inside – and if I’m being honest, most times my being attracted to the external is what encourages me to want to get to know more about the internal.
– “Older Black male claiming self-defense” – WIM might not know, Slim, might not know if you remember, but out in L.I., there was an older black male who actually did shoot at young white kids who were on his property, and he warned them to get back (i think the kids were trying to get at his son, and the son had retreated into the house)…in short he shot, 1 kid died…and i believe he was convicted and did serve 3-4 years before the Governor at the time pardoned her (google John White case out in Islip)
– you right tho WIM, you can’t really talk to women, look at women unless they allow it…that’s why i don’t say nothing in the club or the subway man, i aint trying to get arrested on harrassment charged #NotTryingtoGoToJail #ThomasDuboisStyle
– Don’t Chase – you right man, we cant be falling for the okie-doke. they fall off the earth, let ’em go *cue pivotal scene from Free Willy*
A little late. Thought I replied, but I think that was in my head. I do vaguely remember hearing about the situation in LI. Didn’t know about the pardon though.
This was one of the rare few episodes that I wanted to IMMEDIATELY (real life got in the way) offer feedback on. Namely, the neighborhood fighting to keep Trader Joe’s out.
Gentrification is a topic near and dear to my heart, being a born and raised New Yorker now living in Austin, TX and seeing gentrification play out here. While I am by no means impartial I’m going to share some insight into why the people of Portland (?) are right in fighting to keep Trader Joe’s out if they want to keep their neighborhood.
Your line of thinking is that Trader Joe’s has probably done a survey. I also agree wholeheartedly that better food choices are a good thing, though we assume the neighborhood doesn’t already have adequate choices (which is a whole other argument). What is not common knowledge is that companies like Trader Joe’s (in this case) Whole Foods, Panera Bread, etc. do not move in/open stores in neighborhoods that are predominately minority or otherwise, based on who might buy that currently live there.
These companies are usually tied to other companies and businesses. For example, Trader Joes is moving in because they may be leasing the building from a developer building high priced condos above or adjacent to said Trader Joe’s. People think that “uh-oh, here it comes. Once there’s a Starbucks, high-priced condos are soon on the way!” which is slightly inaccurate. Those who have been through or understand how gentrification works (at least on the surface) think that one happens because the other brought in a new opportunity. Again, inaccurate. These are planned events that are tied to each other; one will not happen unless both come to fruition.
Land is brought and/or leased by the lot well in advance of when they will actually build. Sometimes decades in advance. Businesses aren’t surveying current residents to peddle their products to; they’ve already done that. They’re surveying other businesses and developers to come up with a plan to make the area they venture into profitable by bringing in more of the target market, to the area that they have already identified as being able to “break-even” in. It’s easier to price out/displace those that are already identified as customers and move customers with higher spend thresholds in, because the displaced will continue to shop their business in the area they were displaced from.The area already has demand;which is why companies move in. These companies MARKET (aka sell you the idea) that they are supplying the demand. In actuality, they’re creating demand to then supply to.
Corporations realize their products and services are in demand by sales and surveys from “nearby” locations (which is why you get asked your zip code when you purchase at Target and banana republic*). Chances are that Trader Joe’s is tied to additional development that WILL price out those that currently live in that neighborhood. The reality is that Trader Joe’s will open once the unannounced nearby housing, business or corporate entity being developed has reached a certain benchmark in sales, leasing or confirmed permits to build. One development project usually does not happen without the other. The residents should be suspicious.
Not having read the article, I will say that the media didn’t have to reach to put a slant on this one. Racist assumptions and stereotypes do most of the heavy lifting. Not knowing the area, median income and education level of said area, as a listener (or reader) the assumption is that the area is the hood and those who live in the area are poor and uneducated because:
a. They are black
b. They are the majority in the area they live in
c. Trader Joe’s or a corporate entity like it, isn’t already in the area.
It’s worth noting that land lots brought and/or leased is public information. A quick inquiry at the local County or Assessor’s office could have told residents not only who currently owns lands and lots, but also if it’s being brought/leased in large quantities, who paying the taxes and the development paper trail. By law some counties have to notify those with vested interest in the community if surrounding areas will undergo development plans and what they are. Or more than a few residents could have been offered buyouts for their property.
It sounds like there are a lot of home or business owners in this black area. Which means they have a vested interest in their neighborhood, which is never a bad thing for residents. They may have wanted to keep the area black (for better or for worse) like Harlem and Bed-Stuy used to be. Though those aren’t the best examples, pre-dominantly black areas do not always equate to the hood. Just like integration with whites does not equate to right.
Hadn’t thought about other companies TJ’s might have ties to. Actually explains some development I’ve seen where when one place/restaurant shows up, there’s always another common name that eventually pops up nearby. Good insight overall!