about me
Name: Opus
Location: London, UK
Sun Cancer/Moon Aries
Year of The Goat
my links
previous posts
favourite posts
rings & directories
Listed on BlogShares
moon phase
currently clicking

help me evolve
Blogroll Me!
link to me!

Design by May
Modified by Opus
Comments Haloscan

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by
Powered by Blogger
Untamed Symphony
| my mind in motion | deep | light | controversial | outrageous | witty | naughty | a chorus of free thought

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Kiss & Tell

Over the languid Easter break I read a few articles on the art of kissing; what makes a good kisser. Kiss & Tell

I read that kissing technique and style is very important because when we meet a new potential partner/lover, the first kiss is often a determining factor as to whether or not we decide to get naked with that person. Simply put, we judge a persons sexual compatibility by how they kiss.

Personally speaking I know that I do this, but I’ve only been aware of it since the age of 30, before this, it was a subconscious thing.

It makes perfectly good sense. If a guy kisses me and I’m not enjoying his style and I’m not connecting with him as a kisser then it’s very likely that we won’t connect sexually. In the past when I have ignored my instincts, the sex has always been bad for me even though the guy enjoyed it.

My top 5 non-starter kissing styles are:

  1. Face kisser: this is when the kisser attempts to devour your entire face, as well as being very off-putting it is extremely dangerous!

  2. Doggie style kisser: need I say more… slurp! Definitely not Woof!

  3. Deep throat kisser: the kisser seeks to get intimately acquainted with your tonsils

  4. Toothy kisser: I’m not quite sure how to describe this, but the kisser never quite manages to get their teeth out of the way, the lips are parted in a sort of manic grin style à la Jack Nicholson in ‘The Shining’

  5. Nipper kisser: you know what it feels like to have a dog nipping at your ankles, well this is what a nipper kisser does but to your lips, using just their lips, as if they were trying to nip at some remnants of food
So I’m just wandering if you guys realise that this is how you decide whether to get intimate or not, and if you do realise, what type of kissing puts you off?

Oh, and have you noticed that 75% of kissers lean their faces to the right when going in for a kiss. You’ll have to become a bit of a voyeur to check this out!

posted by Opus at 09:44 | |

Friday, March 25, 2005

Alternative Easter Bunny (Girl)

Happy Easter!

I was going to post a sweet Easter bunny, but then I thought me sweet! No, I’m a naughty bunny.

“I’m not bad; I’m just drawn that way.”

Happy Easter from Jessica Rabbit

posted by Opus at 10:06 | |

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Clever Clocky!

Well a snoring partner causing sleep depravation is the least of my worries, but this timely invention has me concerned.

Scientists at MIT's Media Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, have invented an alarm clock called Clocky, an evil little thing.

After the snooze button is pressed, the clock, which is equipped with a set of wheels, rolls off the table to another part of the room.

"When the alarm sounds again, simply finding Clocky ought to be strenuous enough to prevent even the doziest owner from going back to sleep,"
New Scientist said on Tuesday.

I think this is outrageous and think all snoozers should unite.

If a friend should ever think it funny to buy you a clever Clocky as a gift you do have a few defense options:

Apply a liberal layer of extra sticky honey to Clocky’s wheels upon retiring

Ply Clocky with alcohol to ensure a hangover

Install your bedside table with a miniature traffic light constantly set to red

If you’re skilled at engineering build Clocky a handbrake

Jack Clocky up and remove its wheels

Other suggestions welcome!

posted by Opus at 10:42 | |

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Sweet dreams…

According to a study many women lose 5 hours sleep a week due to snoring partners.

Although I’ve been lucky in the
taste stakes I haven’t fared so well with the snoring, but I’ve never lost sleep over it.

Apparently a lot of women are too meek to interrupt their snoring partners slumber, whereas men have no qualms in prodding and waking a female partner who snores.

Personally I’m a nudging type. It has been well documented that men tend to snore when they sleep lying on their backs. I have found this to be true, if a partner snores I will gently nudge him over on to his side, the snoring stops immediately.

Of course if this fails then I can highly recommend
soft ear plugs, especially if your partners’ snoring is showing up on the Richter Scale.

posted by Opus at 14:12 | |

Monday, March 21, 2005

Wanted: Opinionated females

Whatever next!

Alpha females are just too smart to marry. Men have better aptitude than women for science and math. Now we have bleating in the media that women don’t do opinionated.

SUBJECT TO DEBATE by Katha Pollitt

Women don't shout. Women don't like politics. Women shrink from intellectual debate. Women don't try. It's time for another round of "What's Wrong with Women?" Last month's category was science. This month it's punditry, sparked by a testy (well, nasty) letter from syndicated columnist and FOX-TV commentator Susan Estrich to Michael Kinsley, the courtly editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, pointing out the lack of female talent on his op-ed pages: In nine weeks, only 20 percent of pieces were written by women. Now everybody's jumping in: "Feminists Get Hysterical" (Heather MacDonald in City Journal) is a typical sentiment.

"There ought to be more women on op-ed pages in general. Over time, I intend to make that happen," said Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Washington Post, which counts one woman, Anne Applebaum, among its nineteen pundits; in the first two months of 2005 one in ten op-ed pieces were by women. Take your time, Mr. Hiatt! As Applebaum warns, you don't want to hire untalented women who'll just write about "women's issues." Her friends got their bylines by "having clear views, knowing their subjects, writing well and learning to ignore the ad hominem attacks that go with the job." And you know how few women meet those lofty criteria! "The pool of available people doing opinion writing is still tilted toward men," said New York Times editorial page editor Gail Collins. "There are probably fewer women, in the great cosmic scheme of things, who feel comfortable writing very straight opinion stuff, and they're less comfortable hearing something on the news and batting something out." Come April, the Times will have seven male op-ed columnists, plus Maureen Dowd. Not to worry though, Dowd writes, there are "plenty of brilliant women.... We just need to find and nurture them."

Oh, nurture my eye. It may be true that more men than women like to bloviate and "bat things out"--socialization does count for something. So do social rewards: I have seen men advance professionally on levels of aggression, self-promotion and hostility that would have a woman carted off to a loony bin--unless, of course, she happens to be Ann Coulter. But feminine psychology doesn't explain why all five of USA Today's political columnists are male, or why Time's eleven columnists are male--down to the four in Arts and Entertainment--or why at Newsweek it's one out of six in print and two out of thirteen on the Web. According to Editor and Publisher, the proportion of female syndicated columnists (one in four) hasn't budged since 1999. The tiny universe of political-opinion writers includes plenty of women who hold their own with men, who do not wilt at the prospect of an angry e-mail, who have written cover stories and bestsellers and won prizes--and whose phone numbers are likely already in the Rolodexes of the editors who wonder where the women are. How hard could it be to "find" Barbara Ehrenreich, who filled in for Thomas Friedman for one month last summer and wrote nine of the best columns the Times has seen in a decade? Or Dahlia Lithwick, legal correspondent for Slate, another Friedman fill-in, who actually possesses a deep grasp of the field she covers--which cannot always be said for John Tierney, who begins his Times column in April? What about Susan Faludi? The Village Voice's Sharon Lerner? Debra Dickerson? Wendy Kaminer? The Progressive's Ruth Conniff? Laura Flanders? Debbie Nathan? Ruth Rosen, veteran of the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle? Our own Patricia Williams and Naomi Klein? Natalie Angier, bestselling author and top New York Times science writer, would be a fabulous op-ed columnist. And, not to be one of those shrinking violets everyone's suddenly so down on, What about me? Am I a potted plant?

You'll note I've mostly named liberals and feminists--I'm sure there are good women writers on the right out there, too, and their job prospects are probably a lot rosier. A conservative woman who endlessly attacks feminists, like The New Yorker's Caitlin Flanagan or the Los Angeles Times's departed Norah Vincent or the Boston Globe's Cathy Young--what could be hotter than that?

Besides being false and insulting, all this fuss about women not having the cojones for no-holds-barred debate overlooks the fact that, as Deborah Tannen pointed out in the LA Times, there are many ways to write political commentary. Not every male columnist is a fire-breather, an instant expert, a tub-thumper, an obnox. Think of the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. or USA Today's Walter Shapiro, both mannerly and sweet-natured to a fault. Some columnists use their perch to do crusading reporting--Bob Herbert's great strength--to tell stories, to analyze ideas and policies, to ask questions, to skewer received opinion with wit and humor. And then there are the ones who just drone boringly on. Surely there are women
capable of that!

That opinion writing is a kind of testosterone-powered food fight is a popular idea in the blogosphere. Male bloggers are always wondering where the women are and why women can't/don't/won't throw bananas. After all, anyone can have a blog, right? In the wake of the Estrich-Kinsley contretemps, the Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum mused upon the absence of women bloggers and got a major earful from women bloggers, who are understandably sick of hearing that they don't exist. "I'm staring you right in the face, Kevin," wrote Avedon Carol
(sideshow.me.uk), "and even though you've said you read me every day you don't have me on your blogroll. It's things like this that make me tear out my hair when people wonder why women are underrepresented...." There are actually lots of women political bloggers out there--spend half an hour reading them and you will never again say women aren't as argumentative as men! But what makes a blog visible is links, and male bloggers tend not to link to women (to his credit, Kevin Drum has added nineteen to his blogroll). Perhaps they sense it might interfere with the circle jerk in cyberspace--the endless mutual self-infatuation that is one of the less attractive aspects of the blogging phenom.

Or maybe, like so many op-ed editors, they just don't see women, even when the women are right in front of them.

Sometimes I really do feel like banging someone else’s head against a wall, simply because they just don’t get the obvious.

To say that women don’t do opinionated, well it’s like saying the Pope doesn’t pray!

Of course women do opinionated but in general men in media don’t really get how women do opinionated.

All too often a man tends to write an opinion piece from an ego point of view, regardless of the facts. A woman on the other hand tends to write an opinion piece from an informed point of view.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that male op-ed columnists don’t know the facts; it’s just that they don’t always use them. Put a bunch of guys together and watch them debate, I can promise you, you won’t hear many facts flying around, but you’ll most definitely see feathers flying as they coo and plump up their chests.

Put a bunch of women together and you will witness an informed discussion, women don’t form opinions based on ego, and in general they don’t debate with aggression, so facts are all they have, but facts are vital in forming an opinion.

I totally agree with Katha Pollitt; unless female op-ed columnists write in an aggressive, ego driven, shout it from the rooftops kind of way, they don’t cause much of a blip on the radar.

Related article
The Feminine Technique

posted by Opus at 10:36 | |

Friday, March 18, 2005

Investing is like Sex!

Top 10 Reasons why Investing is Like Sex...

  • Some like it long, some like it short.

  • You can study the market as much as you like, but it all comes down to luck.

  • Those who talk about it the most, have the least experience.

  • One simple mistake could lead to 18 unprofitable years.

  • Some prefer to sit back and watch it grow.

  • Terms include swing trading, asset turnover, naked call, after hours, insider trading, silent partner, blind entries, 30-day wash rule, straddle, triangles, descending tops, ascending bottoms, pump and dump, partial surrender, stop order, position limit, voluntary liquidation, and explicit interest.

  • Low confidence can keep you out of the market.

  • Everyone tends to focus on performance.

  • Some do it alone, others do it with a group, and some hire professionals.

  • Some positions are better than others and the best position is always up for debate!

And remember past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.


And for all you funsters out there the next Cake London 'Eros' is happening on Thursday 24th… take a big bite!

posted by Opus at 11:13 | |

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

I give you a poem by W. B. Yeats

Aedh Wishes For The Clothes Of Heaven

Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

posted by Opus at 11:18 | |

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Sunshine's Better

click here to play music file

It makes such a difference to ones frame of mind when the Sun is out don’t you think. Anyway today is beautiful and touching 17˚C so I thought I’d share another of my favourite tracks along with the lyrics.

I have an equal passion for words and music so I hope you don’t mind me sharing my indulgence. I especially love good lyrics that tell a story. Enjoy!

Sunshine’s Better - Talvin Singh Remix from Café Del Mar Vol. 4
Artist - John Martyn

If I call you sugar, if you call me honey,
Does this mean you've got a hand in my fate.
If you take my money, if I take your liberty,
Does it mean it's all down to love and hate.
If you open doors for me, I'll have the manners to respond;
I'll treat you like mine.
Ah babe, ah baby.

Sunshine's better on the other side,
Sunshine's better when you make it shine,
The sun shines better.
Sunshine's better on the other side,
The other side of the hill;
The sun shines better.

If I call you lover and if you call me daddy,
Does it mean that we're in love?
If you give me all your hate,
Open up the garden gate,
Does that mean we're in love.

Tell me sugar, call me honey,
Come on darling, I'll just take all my money.
We can run away naked with the flames of desire.
Running through water like birds on fire,
Like birds of a feather...

I tell you, sunshine's better on the other side,
The other side of the stream.
Let's run in tonight - let's run in tonight.
The sunshine's better on the other side of the fence;
Come on darling, let's jump in tonight,
Let's jump in tonight.

Sunshine's better on the other side,
Sunshine's better every time you make that smile of yours reappear.
You chorkle, chuckle, giggle, mumble and
Swing like a bitch,
'Til the day is done - that's what you do.
You can giggle and laugh, make yourself happy,
'Til the day is done, remember.

Sunshine's better on the other side, other side of the hill,
We're going to get there, come on, come on,
Skinny dip, skinny dip, skinny dip, skinny dip.
Skinny dipping around the scene,
Way down by the river,
Sunshine's better on the other side.

They tell me that the sunshine's better on the other side;
Better than this side, you know.
The sunshine's better over there, better over there, better over there.

Sunshine's better;
Sunshine's better on the other side.
Sunshine's better.
Sunshine's better on the other side, the other side of the hill.
Lord, you know where the grass is green,
Oh lord, greener than you've ever seen.

Sunshine's better on the other side
On the other side... 1)
Sunshine's better on the other side,
Sunshine's better, don't you dare to go and hide from me now...

If I call you sugar, would you dare to call me honey?
If I tell you that I love you, would you take all my money.
We could run naked, naked through the fire;
Through the water, through the ice, through the sun,
Through the jungle, through the desert sands.
On the road, down and around the swings, roundabouts.

Sunshine's better on the other side,
Sunshine's better than you've ever seen before in your life.
I'm telling you how I know:
I've been there,
I've been there and gone,
Been there, been there and gone.
Been there.

posted by Opus at 15:00 | |

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Where's my wife?

I’ve read a few articles recently about an upcoming experiment, The Week The Women Went. The village of Harby in Nottinghamshire is to have its womenfolk packed off to a hotel for seven nights to see how their men cope without them.

At first I thought well what is the point, in general most people will agree that men are not as good at multi tasking as women are; balancing job, home, and kids.

On closer inspection I don’t think this is really the only motive for the experiment, I think there is a broader element.

Over the last 50 years women in Western Europe and developed countries have ventured in to the work arena, but at the same time they have continued to play a role at home and in their immediate environment, and particularly in small villages such as Harby, women realise the importance of being involved in the local community.

Harby is a village of around 240 adult inhabitants, 80 of the 119 women will leave their men for one week to see how they cope. From what I can make out, it’s more a case of seeing whether or not the men rise to the challenge by getting involved not just at home but also within the community. Of course with 80 women gone this community will be largely made up of other men in the same situation, but I think this is intentional and should be seen as an opportunity.

Series producer Kelly Webb-Lamb says of the project:

"The series aims to go beyond dated clichés like will he burn the beans? Can he change nappies? We want to see what men do differently. Of course there's an element of fun here and it will be a fascinating experiment, but if we didn't feel the community as a whole would learn something of value from their experience and look at their lives differently afterwards, we wouldn't be doing it."

As a Londoner looking in I think it will be an interesting experiment and it should be rewarding for both the women and the men. So I was surprised to read about the uproar it is causing. So much so, that the local parish council is to hold a meeting to gauge the strength of opposition to the production.

I had to laugh, the village is divided, and of course it’s mainly the men who are opposed. Seems like typical male village mentality; don’t do anything to upset the status quo, we’d like things to stay just the way they are, it’s bad enough what with women going off to work.

Well I hope the production goes ahead, but I have to say I’m very happy to be a London gal.

posted by Opus at 18:28 | |

Monday, March 14, 2005

Lads of leisure...

What fun I had reading the papers over the weekend; the past few weeks has seen the media sprinkled with articles about Alpha Females and their lack of marriage offers, all to do with Neanderthal types not seeking to marry intelligent, high IQ, career oriented, clever women.

Then before you can say inequality sucks, behold the new new man. He is not afraid of marrying the Alpha Female; in fact he may have hunted her down and dragged her back to his cave for a game of chess.

While Alpha Female is out bringing home £1m plus a year, new new man is out doing lunch with his fellow new new men.

I say, and why not, and about time too.

Lads who lunch
John-Paul Flintoff

A new group of men who are kept by high-flying wives is emerging. They are pioneers — no less public-spirited than the early feminists

One of London’s fashionable restaurants, any day of the week; four married men sit at a corner table ogling waitresses and washing down food with the most expensive wines. If they do not seem in a hurry to get back to the office, that’s because they are not.

These men used to hold high-powered jobs that brought them to these same restaurants to entertain clients. But there was no point in working any more — because their wives earned more than enough to support them.

Now they have lunch with each other, daydreaming like children about new lives as inventors, explorers and sportsmen. Unlike children, though, they have the means to make some of those dreams come true. This group recently went truffle-hunting in Italy. Another time they went heli-skiing. Not content with merely going to the gym, they became triathletes.

Whatever else the great feminist pioneers intended, you can be sure that it was not this. But for an increasing number of women — the ones who have benefited most from social reform, with the most lucrative and powerful jobs — this more or less describes the life of a modern husband.

You have heard of the ladies who lunch. Now there are the lads who lunch.

The advent of this seemingly blessed type can partly be explained by the modern economy. Job security is a thing of the past and layoffs happen all the time.

Additionally, with more women getting degrees, including MBAs and doctorates, the number of households in which the woman earns more than the man has increased dramatically. Most households need both incomes. But not if the wife is a seriously high earner. In those households, when the husband gets the chance to drop out he grabs it.

“My wife wasn’t wealthy when we married,” said James Millett, formerly in publishing. “She was penniless. But there came a time when there was no way I could compare my income with hers.”

His wife works for an investment bank. Her annual bonus alone eclipsed his salary. So he resigned.

“And here I am,” he said, “wandering around my estate surrounded by servants, living the life of a new rural squire. Forget the 35-hour week, I’m on a 35-hour year.”

Others have made similar moves. There is the civil servant from the Foreign Office, whose wife brings home more than £1m a year as partner in an international law firm: he gave up work to listen to Deep Purple records and play cricket.

Or there is the financial analyst, also married to a lawyer, who set up as a day trader after he was made redundant and refused to look after the children. Not even in emergencies. Or there is the broker, married to an heiress, who packed it in to live in tax exile.

Or there is the man whose wife is a headhunter, who did nothing for weeks except to lunch and play golf — until he found idleness itself was burdensome. “You need status,” he explained. “At dinner parties you need an answer to the question, ‘What do you do?’ ” His solution was to trade wine. He earns about £25,000, which barely pays for the childcare and his season ticket on the train. He goes home and does not have to think about work. He can sit and watch television and have a drink. His wife, by contrast, continues to work at home in the evenings and at weekends.

Perhaps understandably, these men prefer not to discuss their arrangements publicly. “I’m not sure about being named in the paper,” said one. “I’m not sure that I want to be . . . you know. But I’ll talk to you if you don’t use my real name.”

Despite the bravado, some of these men have a big psychological problem with their situation. “It’s very sensitive,” said Fiona O’Sullivan, the headhunter whose husband trades wine. “You could probably get more people to talk to you on the record about how often they have sex.”

It is important to emphasise that this is a new phenomenon. Sociologists, if they have started their research, have yet to publish any papers on the lads who lunch. But if you examine the latest reports from the Office for National Statistics, a picture emerges to support the anecdotal evidence. These show, for instance, that more men now “work at home” than women: 14% of men, compared with only 8% of women. And plentiful research shows that working at home permits greater leisure time.

More telling, Trish McOrmond of the Office for National Statistics said that women who give up full-time jobs to work part-time do so because they want to spend more time with their children. Men go part-time because they can afford to and much less frequently mention children as a motivating factor. For men, it seems, the lure is indolence.

Millett does not altogether disagree. “Behind every great woman is a great man,” he joked. “Because even if we don’t do the housework and the cooking, we can hire and fire the people who do.”

One recent study showed that the likelihood of divorce is higher than average when women earn 51% to 75% of the family income, but that, for reasons nobody entirely understands, when women earn more than 75% the divorce rate decreases.

How can that be? Here is one possibility. The business magazine Fortune reported in 2003 that 30% of its “most powerful women in business” had a stay-at-home spouse. They included Anne Mulcahy, chairman and chief executive of Xerox, and Carly Fiorina, then chairman and chief executive of Hewlett-Packard.

Fortune also described the husband of Anne Stevens, Ford’s group vice-president Canada, Mexico and South America. He “tends the gardens, runs errands, manages the social calendar and . . . makes a killer beef wellington”. In the evenings he “would love some scintillating conversation, but he usually lets Anne flop in front of Wheel of Fortune and fall asleep”.

Until recently few British men would have gone public about such a feminised existence. But a survey has shown that similar men exist here, too. Future Laboratory, a consumer forecasting consultancy, was commissioned by a dating agency to interview more than 2,500 people aged between 20 and 45. It found that British women are looking for a “new type of man who is compliant, does the housework, is considerate in bed and will cut his career to tend the children”.

Martin Raymond, a director at Future Laboratory, has a name for such a man: the Stepford husband.

“They feel their role is to keep their partner or wife happy,” he said. “They tended to be bankrolled (by their wives) but did not feel it questioned their masculinity. And the women did not want someone whose career competed with their own.”

Examples of the type pop up all the time. One of the latest is Derek Gadd, reported to have put his own career to one side so that his wife Ruth Kelly, the education secretary, could make a success of her life in politics.

On the face of it there would seem to be a massive difference between Stepford husbands and the lads who lunch. But if you look closely you sometimes find they describe the same individuals — men who struggle to manage the changing imperatives of manhood, who give up work with the best intentions but find it difficult to keep to their high ideals.

Men, in short, like Harry Bell. A 35-year-old graphic designer whose wife, a financial analyst, earned much more than him, Bell left his job to do the childcare after their son was born. But when a second child arrived he insisted that they hire a nanny. Looking after one child was tiring and depressing, he found; two was out of the question.

Now he spends his days at the gym, in Waitrose, browsing in antique shops, in the basement of their smart north London town house playing computer games and (naturally) going out to lunch. He resents it that people find that funny or objectionable. After all, women have been doing the same thing for years.

Nobody said the sexual revolution was going to be easy. Perhaps the men who push at the boundaries — the boastful lads who lunch and the meek Stepford husbands alike — deserve to be regarded as innovators, no less public-spirited than the pioneering feminists of the early 20th century.


posted by Opus at 21:04 | |

Friday, March 11, 2005

Back to life, back to reality

With all the reality TV that is being pumped out you would think that reality cinema would start to kick in. In general the public obviously love ‘good’ reality TV, so why do producers and directors seem to be ignoring this call to action?

I don’t know about you but I go to the movies a lot and the majority of what’s out there is so unreal. I appreciate that many people go to the movies to escape reality, but in reality there is no escape.

I enjoy documentaries and biographies but by today’s terms these cannot be defined as reality cinema.

I’m not suggesting there should be a flux of one reality movie after another, no, definitely not. All it needs is one or two insightful, interesting, and original movies of this type, and I’m certain they would be box office hits.

An obvious topic or theme would of course be sex, sex sells, but I doubt if such potential reality cinema would be produced in the US considering the uproar
Kinsey has created. No, I think it will have to be fired up by some European director.

Michael Winterbottom’s
9 Songs out today in the UK, shows actors Kieran O'Brien and Margot Stilley having real, un-glamorized sex, along with natural sounds rather than the usual background music. While this may be seen as ground breaking cinema, it could also be viewed as soft porn with non-porn actors. Of course I will need to see it to really commit to any opinion.

True reality cinema would however, have no plot, no script etc. Just the all seeing cameras and attached microphones. Will we ever see the day?

posted by Opus at 11:40 | |

Thursday, March 10, 2005

I Heard Love Is Blind

click here to play music file

Today I thought I would share a certain little song that always brings a smile to my face. The lyrics on the debut album Frank from talented 21 year old Amy Winehouse, remind me of what life was like growing up as a teenager in London back in 1984 and onwards, the boyfriends, the clubbing, the drugs, oh yeah there were drugs. Time may pass but some things don’t change much in the London teenage scene.

Why does this song make me smile? It’s direct, cheeky, and strangely innocent.

Amy Winehouse

I couldn't resist him
His eyes were like yours
His hair was exactly the shade of brown
He's just not as tall, but I couldn't tell
It was dark and I was lying down

You are everything – he means nothing to me
I can't even remember his name
Why you so upset?
Baby, you weren't there and I was thinking of you when I came

What do you expect?
You left me here alone; I drank so much and needed to touch
Don't overreact – I pretended he was you
You wouldn't want me to be lonely

How can I put it so you understand?
I didn't let him hold my hand
But he looked like you; I guess he looked like you
No he wasn't you
But you can still trust me, this ain't infidelity
It's not cheating; you were on my mind

Yes he looked like you
But I heard love is blind…

On the CD

Btw, is it just me or has anyone else been having problems with Blogger today?

posted by Opus at 19:46 | |

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Pimpin' it!

I found a very suitable treatment for yesterdays post over at LilRed

I have to say Michael’s views towards women as wives leaves a lot to be desired, so my only option was to pimp up his article, made me feel much better. Here’s an excerpt:

There is many good reasons fo` putt'n yo wife out of business n shit. One is you want someone ta pay careful attention ta yo children, n you don't feel like doing it yoself. Anotha is tha shot calla amount of time it frees up fo` her ta pay attention ta you . Slap your mutha fuckin self. But tha best reason is tha pleasure you wizzy receive from pimpin' ta tha outside world tizzle you can do it .

Can you think of anyone who deserves
da treatment?

Go ahead give it a spin @

posted by Opus at 14:15 | |

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Is he for real?

Please, somebody tell me this is just this guy’s warped sense of humour… sadly I don't think it is.

How to Put Your Wife Out of Business

Michael Lewis

With women now paid as much as 90 cents on the dollar for the same work as men, it is increasingly difficult to shut down your wife's commercial activities and get her to focus on household chores. Many men don't even bother, but simply accept that their wives will keep their jobs. But those of us who don't — those men who want to bring home the bacon in the spirit of our fathers, and their fathers before them — have very little in the way of guidance or support. Women seeking counsel on how to get the most out of their husbands can dip into a river of self-help books, tawdry daytime TV shows and features that dramatize the female author's plight in women's magazines. Every week, it seems, women are offered ever more expert advice on how to manipulate their men. Men, however, are expected to figure it out all by themselves. And so they don't.

There are many good reasons for putting your wife out of business. One is you want someone to pay careful attention to your children, and you don't feel like doing it yourself. Another is the sheer amount of time it frees up for her to pay attention to you. But the best reason is the pleasure you will receive from proving to the outside world that you can do it.

There was a brief time, from about 1985 to 1991, when high-powered males demonstrated their status by marrying equally high-powered females with high-paying jobs. That time has passed. The surest way for a man to exhibit his social status — the finest bourgeois bling — is to find the most highly paid woman you can, working in the most high-profile job, and shut her down. Bonus points if her job is typically viewed as a "man's" job. Find, for instance, a female professor of science at Harvard and persuade her to swap her Bunsen burners for your Viking gas ones; you will earn the degree of respect typically reserved for CEOs and movie stars. Bonus points for making her unemployment stick. Warren Beatty briefly made a flagrant display of his stature when he married Annette Bening and took her out of movies — but now, alas, she has returned to her acting. And where does that leave him? A bit lower than he was, I think.

What men need, really, are role models. Other men who have done it and lived to tell the tale. Consider, for example, me. I hope I don't need to remind the reader, but I will anyway: When we met, my wife — Tabitha Soren — was a hotshot. She walked from her offices at MTV into Times Square and people shrieked her name and bayed for her autograph. She made pots of money. She couldn't swing a dead cat in the television business without hitting a job offer. And now — behold! Two children later, she has happily abandoned fame and fortune and is making a second "career" as a fine-art photographer.

"How did you do it?," I can hear you asking. I can't claim to offer a comprehensive answer. Just a few pointers:

  • Never mention money. It sounds counterintuitive, as money is the source of your power. But you must cede apparent control of the loot you bring in. (This is different from actually ceding control of it.) When you see the credit card charge from the shoe stores, or the charitable donations to women's causes, wince to yourself, by all means. But say nothing. She's just testing you. She too knows the value of a dollar, as she once made money. She suspects that you plan to use your money-making as a weapon against her. Once she sees that you won't — at least, not overtly — she'll rein it in.

  • Cushion her fall. The fact is, she'll suffer a bit, psychologically. Our society attaches an absurd importance to the way people get their money. After you've put your wife out of business, she will go from feeling the center of attention to feeling slightly neglected. At dinner parties, people will want to know all about you and nothing about her. Pleasant for you in the short term, the extra attention is disastrous in the long run. You must become expert in a kind of social jujitsu: taking the energy aimed at you and redirecting it toward your wife. Learn to say things like, "Yes, it's true, I painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but see that woman over there, she cleaned the floor! Why is it that no one ever looks more closely at the floor? That's where the beauty is!" It's very important to sound sincere. If you let other people have their way, you'll lose yours.

  • Lie. A lot. Women obviously love high- status males, and so they secretly love the fact that you are acquiring status by putting them out of business. But they may not be entirely conscious of the pleasure; they may even believe that one day, after they are finished having children, they would like to return to work. Indulge this fantasy. Allow them to believe that their unemployment is temporary. Say things like, "You can always go back, whenever you want" or "You're probably in more demand now than you were when you were working, you just don't see it." The longer you have her believing this, the less true it becomes.

Are there really men out there who think like this?

Source: LA Times

posted by Opus at 12:32 | |

Monday, March 07, 2005


Breasts - better in or out?

By Melanie Rickey

With a smoother, more natural, rounded look coming into fashion, it's time to ask whether the cleavage has finally had its day

Women’s relationship with their breasts changed irrevocably with the launch of the Wonderbra in 1994. Before Wonderbra, unless it was seduction gear, underwear served a practical purpose — we wore bras that kept our boobs tidy and out of the way. (A lot of us still do. The world’s bestselling bra is by Triumph: it’s called Doreen, and it looks like it sounds.)

After Wonderbra, we all wanted a thrusting cleavage. Then a boob job. Or to look like we’d had one, using those hideous chicken-fillet things. In bars and clubs, you couldn’t move for women wielding their trussed-up assets like a couple of wobbly jellies on a plate. The upshot of the Wonderbra phenomenon was ultimately positive: we discovered bras as fashion items and, crucially, we realised that the right bra would give us the boobs we wanted. All we had to do was try more new bras. Sales of bras jumped 40% in the 1990s. Then Jordan and her outsized puppies came along: thanks in no small part to her, last year saw a 55% leap in the number of boob jobs in the UK, with most chicks opting for a C cup.

One by one, though, boob-brandishing celebrities are covering up. First Kylie. Then Heidi. Victoria Beckham has, allegedly, had a breast reduction. Eva Herzigova, the original Wonderbra girl, bears boobs that seem a shadow of their former selves. Now, even Jennifer Lopez has gone demure, and fashion designers are championing a new modesty that leaves almost everything to the imagination. When a girlfriend of mine, famous for her propensity to “get her tits out for the lads”, declared “I feel it just isn’t right to put them on display any more”, the game was up. The trend, it seems, has finally passed. RIP cleavage.

Canvassing opinion on the subject down my local was enlightening. “Jordan culture, for me, destroyed the allure of having a big cleavage,” said thirtysomething Amy. “I don’t wear my Wonderbra any more,” Caireen, 26, told me. “Guys recognise the triangles at the back. They wised up to it — they know I’m faking it.” Liz, 24, added: “You’ve got to look as if you haven’ t tried. Anyway, I don’t want to attract the kind of guy who’s staring down my top.” Judy Berger is a personal shopper for cash-rich, time-poor women. She also happens to be 5ft 1in with 32F breasts. “The big-cleavage trend was in when I was 20. I loved it, but that trend is over. When I put a cleavage bra on now, it makes me look like a porn star. At 27, my objective is to look sophisticated. I need a bra to keep them in the centre of my chest; I want to cover them, but not so much that I can’t wear low-cut tops. It’s all about shape: you want a nice shape, whatever cup you are.”

Charlotte Semler, co-founder of Myla, the lingerie line, doesn’t even have a push-up, stick-out bra in her collection. “Women want to look curvy, not busty barmaid. People are just bored of cleavage. It’s like bare midriffs. In fact, we have a healthy market in nipple covers.”

Figleaves.com, the British e-tailer that sold 21,000 push-up bras last year, concedes that these account for 40% of its business. However, Amanda Lepar, the company’s bra buyer, is seeing that change. “The smoothing and enhancing bras will ultimately take over from the cleavage market,” she says. “We are selling more and more of them, as well as what I call the five-minute bra — balconettes and half-cups, which women wear for the bedroom.”

“We do have a problem,” admits Hervé Bailly, Wonderbra’s marketing director. “Everyone relates Wonderbra to cleavage. For many years, women considered showing cleavage to be the only way to look sexy. That has changed. Women now want to communicate their sexiness in a different way; they want rounded, more natural-looking breasts. Or to play with a low neckline, which is not, technically, cleavage.”

On Tuesday, Gossard launches the antidote to its Wonderbra (one is still sold every six seconds) with a £1m campaign created by Trevor “Hello Boys” Beattie, whose ad agency is TBWA. The SuperSmooth bra aims to tap into our new-found desire for enhanced shape and less cleavage. It is an amazing piece of engineering. It looks like a piece of moulded neoprene (the flesh-coloured one looks really spooky) and has no seams, stitches or elastic, and no itchy label. The idea is that it is so comfortable you can’t feel it on, and so smooth it looks invisible under clothes; to the unknowing eye, your boobs appear naturally gorgeous, perky and rounded. I’ve been wearing mine for two days and can verify all of the above. The bra plays a clever double game: cleavage uplift to satisfy men, without making a woman feel like an obvious sex object.

Bil Bungay, of TBWA, also worked on the campaign. “To me, Wonderbra-wearers come across as a bit desperate. SuperSmooth says: ‘I don’t need to fake it to look gorgeous.’” Mary McCartney Donald, who shot the campaign, says: “I wanted to put across a natural feeling, to show that you can radiate your sexuality without showing it. I also want to show that there’s a spectrum of acceptable sizes — not all men like big tits.” McCartney Donald selected the model because she has what must be the most desired boob size in the land: 32C.

The SuperSmooth was inspired by a French bra called the Super Touch Up, which is currently the runaway bestseller in France. So, could SuperSmooth be the new It bra? The industry thinks so. Calvin Klein launches a similar one in the autumn, called Perfectly Fit; Splendour is on the case too.

Let’s leave the last word to a self-appointed breast connoisseur: Neil, 35, who I met on my pub test. “They have to feel like breasts, move like breasts. Not be trussed-up or fake. Most guys hate fake. The bottom line is, we all know you’ve got them, we all like to think about them all the time, but we don’t need to see them. The thrill of imagination is so much better than having it pushed in your face.”


Personally I’m rather glad that eau natural is de rigour, as Neil says guys know we’ve got them. I mean can you imagine if men were to wear penis enhancers, I definitely prefer to have it left to my imagination.

Source: The Sunday Times Style Magazine

posted by Opus at 11:37 | |

Friday, March 04, 2005

I’m a Sex Goddess, apparently

Are You a Sex Goddess?
Opus, your result is Persephone!

A brilliant bolt of lightning descends! SHAZAAM! The oracle has spoken! The smoke clears to reveal that inside you is a divine being, Persephone, Goddess of the Night, a woman in touch with her deepest inner desires.

As the most sexual of all the female deities, you are very comfortable in the bedroom. Your skill at pleasing a man is unmatched, and you know exactly what you need for your own pleasure.

As a woman of passion, you're very comfortable with expressing your desires to anyone. You are a proud and confident woman who exudes sensuality. You cherish the intimacy of physical attraction and know what it takes to win a man.

As a woman deeply in touch with your sexuality, you definitely know how to thoroughly enjoy yourself! Your polished bedroom performance always keeps them coming back for more.

When everything is going right, a light shines down from the heavens. Behold, the skies proclaim, here lies a goddess!

Well tickle my fancy

And while I was there:

Who's Your Type?
Opus, yours is the Clown type!

Laughter is the way to your heart. A man with a fab sense of humour is definitely the one for you! You want a Clown, someone who can laugh at himself and make you laugh, too.

There's nothing more tedious than a man who takes himself too seriously. You know that if a chap is silly, he's generally self-confident and secure.

Your man is a people magnet and everyone's favourite friend. There's never a dull moment with your clown nearby. You crave excitement and a bit of a laugh, and your clown enhances those things in your life.

You probably think life is too short to spend it without a smile. Your witty lad will ensure that that doesn't happen - his light hearted and silly ways make everything a little bit brighter.

Well laughter is the best medicine.

And of course as its Friday a little teaser for you The Mind Reader

posted by Opus at 11:15 | |

Thursday, March 03, 2005

What’s your flavour?

Scientists have discovered a musician who can taste sounds.

According to the journal
Nature researchers in Zurich, Switzerland, put it down to crossed sensory brain "wires".

The musician, identified only as ES, finds a minor second note tastes sour, a major second bitter, a minor third salty, a major third sweet and a minor sixth creamy.

I don’t know about you readers but I cum in a major third… what’s your flavour?

posted by Opus at 15:01 | |

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Its not rocket science…

Hmm… women are getting a bit of stick at the moment. We’re either too smart to be considered as marriage material, or too dumb to do the math.

Thankfully this article clears up the latter assumption.


Harvard President Summer's speech attributing biological differences in women's abilities in science sparks an examination of the situation at BC

By Vanessa Voltolina
Published: Monday, February 28, 2005

Discussions at the college across the river sparked a great deal of controversy nationwide on Jan. 14. During a two-day conference at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of Cambridge economists and a small group of attendees from all over the country discussed the role of women and minorities in the science and engineering workforce.

At this conference, Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers caused an uproar when he stated that fewer number of women excel in the sciences and engineering careers due to biological and innate differences between men and women.

Summers claimed he was only stating the hypotheses based on scholarly work, however, his statements offended many people at the conference. While the Harvard president claims that more research needs to be done on this issue, he was acting as a top economist at the time of the comment, and told the press that he was aiming to be provocative.

While many may turn a blind eye to Summers' defense, it is only fair to look at this objectively. The Boston Globe and many national papers have already hung him out to dry.

"The idea that women are less able than men in science has been bruited about for centuries." says Marc Muskavich, Deluca Chair in biology at Boston College.

This widely known stereotype - men excel in math and sciences and women excel in the humanities - has been a prevailing generalization for years. Girls say they enjoy math in earlier grades, but tend to shy away in adolescence. As many girls as boys, however, now take advanced math classes in high school and major in math almost as often in college.

The gender distinction seems to begin during the elementary years, when females tend to be praised for their neat handwriting and appearance of assignments, while boys are judged more on the actual content.

A study conducted by students at the University of Wisonsin-Madison discovered that girls think more about what they say in class; therefore, it takes them a longer amount of time to raise their hand in response to a question. Boys tend to speak as they think, which explains teachers' quick recognition of male students.

Girls are more successful in math and science programs that incorporate a cooperative, hands-on approach than in programs that stress competition and individual learning, according to the National Council for Research on Women.

Therefore, it is possible to surmise that excelling in sciences is based on a socialization issue rather than a biological one.

"The lack of women in the fields of science and engineering can be blamed on the history of politics, not biology," says Melanie McNally, a Beckman Scholar and A&S '06.

"For centuries, there has been a certain political bias against women entering these fields, and a constant obligation to prove oneself to committees and councils of science."

Summers offered two other possible explanations for the small number of women in high-level positions in science and engineering.

The first was the reluctance or inability of women who have children to work 80-hour weeks.The second was that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years.

Summers defended his controversial statement by calling for more research.

"It's possible I made some reference to innate differences, I did say that you have to be careful in attributing things to socialization. That's what we would prefer to believe, but these are things that need to be studied," says Summers, according to The Globe.

With all of this media hype about women in the sciences, BC's own science departments come into question. Do we really believe that biology is a factor in women excelling?

"This suggestion is unfounded and a lack of women in the sciences is not due to a lack of ability in that area, but instead due to personal preference in choosing professions," says Jennifer Bordeaux, a biochemistry major and A&S '06.

"The idea that women have a biological difference preventing them from taking part in sciences is ridiculous," she adds.

Dave Karpuk, A&S '06, agrees.

"I don't think there is a difference between genders when it comes to mathematical thinking. Some people have the right kind of brain for it, and some don't. But I don't think that has anything to do with gender. I know plenty of girl math majors who are just as smart, or smarter, than I am," he says.

But Karpuk agrees that the cards might be stacked against women entering the sciences.

"I think math is traditionally a more masculine subject, so girls are probably turned off or intimidated by the fact that it is male dominated," he says.

"I think it is changing though, pretty quickly too. The male tradition only means that there are more male professors in the department, but that doesn't matter much because unlike other subjects, there's no real way to put a gender biased spin on the material.

"The idea that biology affects the ability to succeed in the sciences neglects to examine other issues in our history and human psychology.

"As a social psychologist, I am keenly aware of how our behavior is driven by context. We are immersed in a culture that communicates subtle and overt expectations for what we are to do with our lives," says Tamlin Conner, Ph.D, visiting assistant professor of psychology.

These cultural expectations exist in the form of stereotypes (women = humanities and men = math and science), which can affect our life paths in subtle ways. A strictly biological explanation neglects the lessons learned from social psychology.

The Premedical Office in Higgins estimated that "the difference among male and female [medical school] applicants is statistically insignificant," with about 78 percent of females being granted acceptance to medical school and 75 percent male applicant acceptance rate.

The information was based on an analysis of the numbers from the class of medical students set to begin their studies in the fall of 2004.

"Some of the best scientists I know, and know of, are women. Some of the best scientists I know, and know of, are men," says Muskavich.

"My experience suggests that the ranges and medians of scientific intelligence and ability are comparable in men and women," he says.

While Summers is skeptical about the fate of females in the sciences, it seems that students at BC have a more positive outlook for the future.

"Science and engineering will see a change in the next few decades - many of the most visible and involved scientists I know are female," says McNally.


posted by Opus at 10:29 | |

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Alpha females

There seems to be no end to this topic in the news:

Why men are scared of Alpha females
By David Wilkes, Daily Mail 28 February 2005

Intelligent, high achievers and high earners, they have been dubbed 'Alpha females'.

But while this new class of women seem to have it all, they have become victims of their own success when it comes to finding a partner.

Men are terrified to marry them, according to research, because they are intimidated by their brains and achievements.

Instead they prefer to settle down with women 'like their mums' who do not challenge them intellectually.

Two studies, in Britain and the U.S., both backed the widely-held notion that women who do well in their careers find it hard to repeat that success in their personal lives.

In one, four British universities measured the IQ of 900 11-year-olds and revisited them 40 years later to see how their lives had moved on.

They found that the brighter girls were less likely to find a man who wants to marry them, with their chances diminishing dramatically in direct proportion to their level of intelligence.

For each 16-point rise in their IQ, their marriage prospects fell by 40 per cent.

In contrast, boys' chances increased by 35 per cent with each 16-point rise.

The researchers, from Bristol, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow universities, believe this is because men like to be in control of a relationship.

The other study, by the University of Michigan, suggested that men would rather marry women in subordinate jobs because they think that high-fliers are more likely to commit adultery.

'The hypothesis is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own,' said lead scientist Dr Stephanie Brown.

'These findings support the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women.'

The term 'Alpha' comes from the Animal Kingdom, in which species arrange themselves into a ranked order.

Successful women who have been unlucky in love include the actress Minnie Driver, who once lamented: 'I don't know whether men are scared to ask me out, or if they think I am seeing someone else.'

The sad truth of my dating history is that of a serially single woman.'

Earlier this month Natasha Bedingfield revealed she hasn't had a relationship for two years, nor much time for one because of the way her singing career has taken off.

The 23-year-old described her ideal man as someone 'who can keep up with me'. She added: 'I'm going at such high-speed and I need someone who can handle that - not be an anchor and stop me - and who is comfortable with my success.'

Miss Bedingfield says she has 'the odd moments when I'd like to be with someone, but I'm not desperate'.

She is unwilling to settle for second best in a partner because she has seen through her brother and her father that romantic, loving and unselfish men do exist.

One of her songs, Single, is about 'the joys of being unattached'.

'Not wanting to commit to a partner is something that men usually celebrate, so I sang about it from a woman's point of view,' she said.

'If you're an attractive, single girl, you're made to think you've got a problem if you're not with someone. It shouldn't be like that.' Relationship expert Dr Linda Papadopoulos said Alpha females should carry some of the blame for their unwanted single status.

'If women have invested a certain amount in their career, it's going to take a hell of a lot for Mr Right to sweep them off their feet because they have more to lose,' she said.

'Women in this situation need to be honest with themselves and know what they're really looking for. Maybe they should be looking for someone who complements them, rather than hoping for someone who completes them.'

Marcelle d'Argy Smith, broadcaster and former editor of Cosmopolitan, said: 'Of course men don't want to marry Alpha females; it means they might not get looked after.'

Of course all academics and indeed anyone else can do is theorize and assume on the findings of this research.

Personally – as regular readers will know – I don’t think it is just about men not wanting to marry Alpha females. I also believe that Alpha females don’t have a requirement for the traditional, conventional set-up of marriage. If further research was to be carried out, I wonder what percentage of Alpha females chose or choose to co-habit.

It makes perfect sense that Alpha females will tend to focus on their careers, they want to achieve, and they are driven, just the same as Alpha males. However for males marriage does not hinder the opportunity to achieve. Alpha females know that marriage and children impede the likelihood of promotion, but co-habiting does not.

posted by Opus at 20:18 | |

design by may / modified by opus