Friday Mad Science: Alice Kramden Speaks!

I should preface everything I’m about to say by noting that Sally agreed with last week’s poster that I sounded like a sexist asshole.  So maybe this is one of those "Women are from Mars, Men are from Penis" kinds of things.  Keep that in mind as you read through this next bit.

I ask you: is THIS a happy marriage?

Last week I wrote some perhaps tactless tuff about a professional hurdler who’s still a virgin, and at least one of you found it offensive.  You called me stuff and made fun of my grilling—that was unnecessary, by the way—but since my internal voice heard your opinions in the high-pitched screeching of Alice Kramden from The Honeymooners, your comments were also a hilarious diversion from the typical monotony of my regular morning commute.  And I tried to answer while on my commute via my new phone, but that got to be such a pain in the ass that I finally decided to just finish my thoughts here. 

So here is the deal.

My problem with this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is that it makes sex out to be some kind of gift or reward.  Like, “When my guy finally agrees to marry me, I’m going to reward him the greatest gift I have to give in return.”  And that’s an attitude that I absolutely hate.  Because if you think of sex as a gift or a reward that you, as a woman, are giving your spouse because of his good behavior then you’re totally short-changing and distorting your relationship.  You are, bottom line, prostituting yourself.  I mean, you can dress it up however you like, but in reality it’s just a kind of business arrangement.  You give me this, and I will give you that.

I don’t personally like to think of sex as currency.

On the contrary, while I wouldn’t call sex the center of a good relationship, I would personally argue that it’s pretty damned close.  I mean, sex might not be the bricks and foundation of the house, but it’s certainly the mortar that holds those bricks together.  It is, bottom line, the physical manifestation of the relationship itself.  So treating it like a reward is treating the relationship itself like a reward.  If sex is a reward, then withholding sex as part of an argument is acceptable as a means of achieving a change in behavior, which is just another way of saying that it’s okay to use sex as a weapon or as a tool of manipulation.  And frankly, while that might be legal, I don’t recommend it if you want your relationship to work out long-term.

The decision of when a couple should become intimate is, of course, unique to the couple itself.  You’ll note that I’m not promoting pre-marital sex for teenagers.  However, I think that when two people are adults, then they ought to feel empowered to make adult decisions without making those decisions into some kind of game.

‘Nuff said.

* * *

MQ-9 Reapers seem to be doing most of the killing in
Afghanistan.  I've long thought the problem with this
program is that we're using Hellfire missiles to kill troops.
In economic terms, that's a TERRIBLE use of resources.

I saw a couple of places this week that the War in Afghanistan is now basically located in Western Pakistan, and that U.S. officials are increasingly willing to admit it.  This is only possible because the war, such as it is, is mostly being waged by drone strikes, punctuated by the occasional commando raid, neither of which require much in the way of a footprint inside Pakistan itself.

So the real question is this: is it hard to shoot a drone down?  Apparently it’s not at all difficult technically, but as with so much else that’s going on, the reality is that there are parts of the Pakistani government that are more than happy with the United States’ covert war in the western part of their country.

This is one of the unfortunate recurring themes in the Middle East if you ask me.  I mean, I’m no expert, but it seems to me like the leaders in the region specialize in saying one thing for public consumption and then doing something else, something that is in their interests politically though perhaps not publicly.  Which is to say that parts of the Pakistani government would very much like to bring their lawless tribal regions under control and stop all the bullshit that the people in those regions constantly cause.  But in reality, the Pakistanis don’t seem to have enough control over their own territory to actually crack down on the militants, leaving them with the unpalatable choice of allowing foreigners to do their fighting for them—even within their own borders.  Of course, that makes them look weak, and so here we are.  To save face, the Pakistani government has no choice but to protest the drone strike killings, especially when those killings involve collateral civilian casualties, even when, in reality, the people being targeted are—at least unofficially—well known enemies of the Pakistani state.

It would be nice if the U.S. could find some way to ratchet down the violence on all sides and get some of these guys to come to some kind of long-term accommodation with us and with each other.  That’d be more useful than, “You’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us, we’re going to kill you.”  I mean, brute intimidation and containment might work for awhile, but a better long term strategy would, in my opinion, lead to a more stable outcome for all concerned.  Of course, that’s only possible when you have a negotiating partner who’s willing and able to negotiate in good faith for the other side, and I’m not at all sure that one of those exists in tribal Pakistan, but at the same time, there is a good definition of insanity that defines the term as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  I’m continually afraid that bureaucratic inertia is going to keep us engaged in these places long after a more considered policy would have found a better third way.

* * *

Thor Hushovd in the World Champion's
Rainbow Jersey at the Tour of Britain in 2011.

One of my favorite riders, Thor Hushovd, is skipping the Tour de France, and I’m really sad about it.  Hushovd is an all-arounder and recent World Champion who won several stages in last year’s tour, and if memory serves he even managed to keep the Yellow Jersey for something like a week last year after an initial success in an early time trial.  In any event, I like Thor because he’s a bigger guy who’s not a great climber but who climbs well enough that his other skills make him a match for even the best riders on all but the highest mountaintop finishes.  That’s the kind of rider that I aspire to be, and seeing that others actually make it work at the highest levels of the sport inspires me.

* * *

Still on pre-Tour news, last year’s winner Cadel Evans won a stage of the Criterium du Dauphine earlier this week.  In contrast to the routes from the last two Tours, this year’s Tour route apparently contains over 100km of time trialing, which tends to favor time trialists and all-arounders like Sky’s Bradley Wiggins, along with Mr. Evans, over pure climbers like two-time runner-up Andy Schleck.  So, bottom line, it once again looks like a pretty good Tour in the making, though not at all the same kind of Tour the last two Tours have been.  This one is looking to be a sprinty affair with lots of little chances taken to gain tiny advantages in the general classification.  Bottom line, after all that racing, whoever time trials the best is looking to win the whole thing.

And that's all I've got.  Have a good weekend!