Just came across this TFLN.
"(410):
i refuse to live in a world where loud threesomes in your own apartment are referred to as "rude"
(913):
did you yell 'are you not entertained?'"
How could anyone NOT love this quote? Before I get into it, I'm assuming the threesome was MFF and the reply from the 913 came from a guy. First, I got chills down my back just thinking about Russell Crowe being BA. The only thing that could've made the TFLN better would've been a video along side of it (which yours truly has taken care of thankfully), and maybe all caps to emphasize the BA nature of Russell Crowe. Maybe even an electronic representation of a sword along with the Russell Crowe reference. Nonetheless, I wish I could take credit for that reply from the 913 (wherever that is), but sadly I cannot.
Second, what's more alpha male than a MFF threesome? Being compared to Russell Crowe after a MFF threesome, especially to the tune of his arguably best performance. Dude's mojo must've been off the charts after a MFF threesome AND Russell Crowe comparison. That's a great year for some people. Maybe I'll insert a Russell Crowe reference into my Herman brief, or perhaps just attached Gladiator as an exhibit. Or maybe just these YouTube clips of Russell Crowe in LA Confidential: BA Clip 1 and BA Clip 2 (not as BA as the first, but still good).
Monday, February 1, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
When being unspecific pays
So it's been way too long in between blog posts, so I figured I would post a new one. That and I'm getting bored out of my mind and wildly distracted while writing my brief for the Herman Competition. For anyone that's not in law school that reads this, which I would estimate at around 0, maybe 1, Herman Competition is basically the competition you have to go through to make a Moot Court team. What's Moot Court? It's basically Law and Order minus the jury, the criminal, NBC (but they don't really count for anything anways), the government, Jack McCoy, and any crazy witnesses plus two judges and two "teams" of law students from different schools who basically argue different sides of some important problem taken up by the Supreme Court. To be honest, I'm not even sure I want to be on a Moot Court team, which makes actually competing in the competition and writing a brief all the more painstaking. I'd much rather be doing other things, like getting my GTL on.
But most importantly, my procrastination has led me to my still somewhat favorite (in an ex-GF you still hook up with type of way) website, TFLN. There have been a few law school related text messages I have found rather amusing, and some other general ones that have struck my fancy. But this following one really just stood out to me, probably given the different angles the humor if it flies out at you.
"(781): she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
Where to start with this one. First, I don't condone the practice of unsafe sex. Not only do I feel I need to be some sort of disclaimer up, but I actually don't. Now, technically, my definition of unsafe sex is unprotected sex with someone you wouldn't bring home to mom - not because the girl is slutty or anything like that, but because you don't know her well enough, if at all.
This text screams (between the lines of course) that this girl clearly did not know this guy well enough. Because she did not know this guy well enough, she clearly was having unsafe sex, which leads to the rather obvious question: why would she trust this guy to put on a condom just based on his acknowledgement that he has one (let alone trust any guy at all)? What's even more interesting is the perhaps unobvious observation: what happened between her asking if he had a condom and them finishing having sex?
Usually, when two people have sex, and one asks if the other has a condom, the other person presents said condom and puts it on, usually in plain view of the requesting party, but not necessarily. Sometimes the requesting party assists in the placing on of said condom, but not necessarily. Either way, it's usually pretty obvious the guy has placed said condom on before both parties "get to the business," as Pauly would say on Jersey Shore.
Clearly that wasn't the case here. Based on the fact that usually a girl can see if a guy has put on said condom, I'm presuming they must have been preparing for doggy, where she could not observe the guy with the supposed condom. Which leads to the secondary (and unnecessary and irrelevant, though funny and probably true) assumption that she was rather ugly. This assumption is based on the fact that they were obviously leading out with doggy and not some other, intimate position such as missionary or froggy, or something along those lines. Take the time to google image search froggy style right now if you've never done it or have no idea what I'm talking about. I highly recommend it.
Some blame can and should be placed on the guy for being a total douche, but technically this girl assumed the risk of what followed. But in any event, what point does this TFLN drive home? Depending on the situation, it can actually pay to not be specific. Clearly the guy, by not being specific, came out (no pun intended) on the beneficial side of the studied love equation. However, on the other side, the girl, by also not being specific, came out on the detrimental side. But this assumes she wasn't out to get impregnated (in which case she'd be the winner in this situation) and that the guy actually didn't impregnate her (which would, especially based on the unscientific observation that she was ugly, make him a loser above and beyond his current status as a douche).
As an added bonus, outside of the bedroom, some legal pointers can actually be derived from this TFLN as well. Whether you're in the classroom or courtroom, it can actually pay to be unspecific. For example, next time you're in class, get cold-called and don't know the answer, just say "It depends." Or suppose you're in the courtroom and want to object to the introduction of evidence and forget the relevant rule, just say "Objection. 403." Although if you want to object to relevancy of this evidence, you may want to be specific and say "Your Honor, clearly that isn't drugs."
But most importantly, my procrastination has led me to my still somewhat favorite (in an ex-GF you still hook up with type of way) website, TFLN. There have been a few law school related text messages I have found rather amusing, and some other general ones that have struck my fancy. But this following one really just stood out to me, probably given the different angles the humor if it flies out at you.
"(781): she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
Where to start with this one. First, I don't condone the practice of unsafe sex. Not only do I feel I need to be some sort of disclaimer up, but I actually don't. Now, technically, my definition of unsafe sex is unprotected sex with someone you wouldn't bring home to mom - not because the girl is slutty or anything like that, but because you don't know her well enough, if at all.
This text screams (between the lines of course) that this girl clearly did not know this guy well enough. Because she did not know this guy well enough, she clearly was having unsafe sex, which leads to the rather obvious question: why would she trust this guy to put on a condom just based on his acknowledgement that he has one (let alone trust any guy at all)? What's even more interesting is the perhaps unobvious observation: what happened between her asking if he had a condom and them finishing having sex?
Usually, when two people have sex, and one asks if the other has a condom, the other person presents said condom and puts it on, usually in plain view of the requesting party, but not necessarily. Sometimes the requesting party assists in the placing on of said condom, but not necessarily. Either way, it's usually pretty obvious the guy has placed said condom on before both parties "get to the business," as Pauly would say on Jersey Shore.
Clearly that wasn't the case here. Based on the fact that usually a girl can see if a guy has put on said condom, I'm presuming they must have been preparing for doggy, where she could not observe the guy with the supposed condom. Which leads to the secondary (and unnecessary and irrelevant, though funny and probably true) assumption that she was rather ugly. This assumption is based on the fact that they were obviously leading out with doggy and not some other, intimate position such as missionary or froggy, or something along those lines. Take the time to google image search froggy style right now if you've never done it or have no idea what I'm talking about. I highly recommend it.
Some blame can and should be placed on the guy for being a total douche, but technically this girl assumed the risk of what followed. But in any event, what point does this TFLN drive home? Depending on the situation, it can actually pay to not be specific. Clearly the guy, by not being specific, came out (no pun intended) on the beneficial side of the studied love equation. However, on the other side, the girl, by also not being specific, came out on the detrimental side. But this assumes she wasn't out to get impregnated (in which case she'd be the winner in this situation) and that the guy actually didn't impregnate her (which would, especially based on the unscientific observation that she was ugly, make him a loser above and beyond his current status as a douche).
As an added bonus, outside of the bedroom, some legal pointers can actually be derived from this TFLN as well. Whether you're in the classroom or courtroom, it can actually pay to be unspecific. For example, next time you're in class, get cold-called and don't know the answer, just say "It depends." Or suppose you're in the courtroom and want to object to the introduction of evidence and forget the relevant rule, just say "Objection. 403." Although if you want to object to relevancy of this evidence, you may want to be specific and say "Your Honor, clearly that isn't drugs."
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
I remember my first beer...
One of my favorite law school distracting hobbies is perusing the website "texts from last night." For anyone who happens to be outside of the loop, the website is basically a collection of random text messages usually detailing some outlandish, bizarre event. Some texts are funnier than others, some just make you feel sorry for the person, and some just make you wonder. For example: "(203): i woke up to my roommate spraying cooking spray on my legs. fourth time this has happened. not cool." It's not funny, but how can you feel sorry for the person? After the third time (and prior to the fourth), the person clearly assumed the risk of it happening again by not remedying the situation. Common sense would suggest perhaps hiding the cooking spray would be a good idea. Like I said, some of these just make you wonder.
Pertinent to this blog, the following text deserves some in-depth analysis. "(214): Speaking of school, I've done the math and I get laid about 10 times more often than I did before I got my law degree. $100,000 well spent." First, and of particular note, the text comes from a Dallas, Texas area code. Not sure why that's relevant, nor will I say anything suggestive about Dallas. Why? I'm not one to mess with Texas. Not because everything is bigger in Texas, but just sort of a general rule I have against making jokes about post-Civil War era states that have contemplated succession from the United States.
Second, the author of the text (who we shall call "Mr. 214") would lead you to believe that if a single guy spends $100,000 to go to law school, you will get laid a lot more than you did before law school. This clearly is not true for the middle 90% of single guys. Nothing about law school turns you into a stud. You either have the goods before you walk in the door or you don't. Sort of like Chris Farley's attempt to become a Chippendale's dancer. Some of us (like myself of course) have the goods, minus law school or not. Surely law school is a deterrent and closes otherwise opportune moments, but to say law school gets me "laid about 10 times more often than I did before" is unrealistic, if not impossible.
The exception to this rule is the 10% of single guys that before law school, had little to no success with the ladies before law school (not including those who make the decision to abstain from sex prior to marriage). The stereotypical person in this groups makes it his plot to get with other girls, but ultimately fails. He has a sex count greater than or equal to zero, but not quite two. While Romeo Crennel (if he went to law school) is definitely not part of this 10% group ("If I knew [what to do after a women turns me down], I'd tell you, but I don't know"), a logical explanation shows why Mr. 214 fits the mold.
Assuming Mr. 214 had sex once before law school, and then proceed to have sex 9 more times, he would have raised his sex count to 10. This amounts to a ten-fold increase...not entirely impossible. Had Mr. 214 had sex five or even ten times before law school, now a ten-fold increase gets him into the range of 50-100. Increase that to 15 or 20, now we're talking 150-200. Not impossible, but highly implausible.
But let's look at this from another standpoint that ultimately solidifies our conclusion regarding the type of person Mr. 214 is. First, who brags about their sex count? That's like bragging the next day about how many beers you drank or shots you did after your "legendary" night. What is this, amateur hour? Second, who feels the need to exclaim they had to pay $100,000 in order to have sex? Clearly people like Mr. 214, who are so desperate to have sex (because they've never had it but are dying to) they will pay for it. Third, only those who have sex for the very first of times feels the need to share it with his friends. We all remember the instant urge to tell our closest friends about our first time. It's what men do (click here for a list of other things men do).
In short, by sending this text, Mr. 214 revealed to us he's the type of guy that (1) brags about his sex count, (2) is so desperate (from never having had sex) that he was willing to pay $100,000 to increase his sex count, and (3) is so lacking in sexual encounters, he feels the urge to tell a friend when he stumbles across a few. Unfortunately, the public imagines the typical law student to be like Mr. 214. While they may be true in some instances, it's definitely not stereotypical of us all, especially those of us who come across more like Christian Bale.
Pertinent to this blog, the following text deserves some in-depth analysis. "(214): Speaking of school, I've done the math and I get laid about 10 times more often than I did before I got my law degree. $100,000 well spent." First, and of particular note, the text comes from a Dallas, Texas area code. Not sure why that's relevant, nor will I say anything suggestive about Dallas. Why? I'm not one to mess with Texas. Not because everything is bigger in Texas, but just sort of a general rule I have against making jokes about post-Civil War era states that have contemplated succession from the United States.
Second, the author of the text (who we shall call "Mr. 214") would lead you to believe that if a single guy spends $100,000 to go to law school, you will get laid a lot more than you did before law school. This clearly is not true for the middle 90% of single guys. Nothing about law school turns you into a stud. You either have the goods before you walk in the door or you don't. Sort of like Chris Farley's attempt to become a Chippendale's dancer. Some of us (like myself of course) have the goods, minus law school or not. Surely law school is a deterrent and closes otherwise opportune moments, but to say law school gets me "laid about 10 times more often than I did before" is unrealistic, if not impossible.
The exception to this rule is the 10% of single guys that before law school, had little to no success with the ladies before law school (not including those who make the decision to abstain from sex prior to marriage). The stereotypical person in this groups makes it his plot to get with other girls, but ultimately fails. He has a sex count greater than or equal to zero, but not quite two. While Romeo Crennel (if he went to law school) is definitely not part of this 10% group ("If I knew [what to do after a women turns me down], I'd tell you, but I don't know"), a logical explanation shows why Mr. 214 fits the mold.
Assuming Mr. 214 had sex once before law school, and then proceed to have sex 9 more times, he would have raised his sex count to 10. This amounts to a ten-fold increase...not entirely impossible. Had Mr. 214 had sex five or even ten times before law school, now a ten-fold increase gets him into the range of 50-100. Increase that to 15 or 20, now we're talking 150-200. Not impossible, but highly implausible.
But let's look at this from another standpoint that ultimately solidifies our conclusion regarding the type of person Mr. 214 is. First, who brags about their sex count? That's like bragging the next day about how many beers you drank or shots you did after your "legendary" night. What is this, amateur hour? Second, who feels the need to exclaim they had to pay $100,000 in order to have sex? Clearly people like Mr. 214, who are so desperate to have sex (because they've never had it but are dying to) they will pay for it. Third, only those who have sex for the very first of times feels the need to share it with his friends. We all remember the instant urge to tell our closest friends about our first time. It's what men do (click here for a list of other things men do).
In short, by sending this text, Mr. 214 revealed to us he's the type of guy that (1) brags about his sex count, (2) is so desperate (from never having had sex) that he was willing to pay $100,000 to increase his sex count, and (3) is so lacking in sexual encounters, he feels the urge to tell a friend when he stumbles across a few. Unfortunately, the public imagines the typical law student to be like Mr. 214. While they may be true in some instances, it's definitely not stereotypical of us all, especially those of us who come across more like Christian Bale.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
What would dating in law school be like w/o Erin Andrews and Megyn Kelly?
Wow, only took me nearly 3 semesters of law school to realize that being single in law school is not the worst thing in the world. Why? Because I can blog about it in the free time I have not doing awesome things single guys do. Like wear 'Sex Panther,' which 60% of the time, leaves me slapped in the face everytime.
My name is Chad and I created this blog in honor of my being single for one year. Of course by single for a year I mean more or less; I'm sure some girls would like to dispute my being single, but this is my blog, not theirs.
My inspiration to start this blog came from Mark Titus' sweet blog - Club Trillion. Basically, this blog is an attempt to turn something terrible (being single in law school) into something not so terrible: life views of a single law guy. For you, the reader, hopefully this is comical and funny; for me, hopefully a distraction from law school. My first few posts will be geared toward why dating in law school sucks, but they will progressively snowball into my life views. Nothing too serious, more like a Seinfeld/Shakespeare "much ado about nothing" type blog. Probably the most exciting part of this blog's future is I may chronical my (potentially uncensored) dating experiences on here. Who wouldn't want to know all about that?
So you might be asking yourself, how can being a 24 year old, single guy (and not to mention great-looking, handsome, jacked/ripped, sensitive yet dominant, like Sylvester Stallone without all of the sweet reasons he has), who lives on a college campus be terrible? What could be so bad about living near thousands of beautiful coed undergrads and 20-something year olds? Well, nothing actually - that's pretty sweet and definitely beats being single somewhere in West Virginia or something like that. There's even a bar that'll pick you up and take you there to where all the undergrads party, for free. Not that I've done that before. Besides, it's really not that cool.
But what is terrible is dating + law school. Imagine this scenario happening at a bar:
Superior Alpha-Male (me) to Hot Girl (HG): Hey what's up? I'm Chad.
HG: Heyyyyy, how you doin' tonight?
Me: Oh you know, just livin' the dream to get you on my team.
HG: (Giggles). Ohhh you're funny...take me now you stud.
Obnoxious/Untimely Friend: Hey have you started outlining for our law school exams yet?
HG: Ewww you're in law school?!?! Get away from me!
So why is dating + law school terrible? Because law school is selfish and non-monogamous, screwing every one that walks in, at all hours of the day, at least when it comes to dating. Even a good-looking girl studying wildlife biologist had a similar-type reaction when she found out I was in law school. I mean seriously, wildlife biology? Like that's not the most uninteresting topic ever. Unfortunately, no wittiness of mine can compete with the truth that she was probably right. Thanks law school.
In short, every girl will (or at least should) learn at sometime or another that you are a law student. Why is this bad? Unfortunately nobody places law students or lawyers on par with, say, professional athletes, rock stars, or basically anyone who loves to party, and basically knows how to get down and have a good time (like John Claude Van Damme minus the hideous 80s music. And by hideous I mean awesome).
That pretty much wraps up why dating in law school sucks. No longer can I sweep girls off their feet with stories of how I'm a minor league baseball player or professional cage fighter. Can't say my friends host parties for me that end up with me waking up next to Elisha Cuthbert (pre-hooking up with the entire NHL) and then finding out I work for her dad and that she's actually in high school. Wait, that's just part of the plot of Old School. Either way, I can't even pull a 1980s Tom Cruise rendition of "You've lost that lovin' feeling" anymore. Not that I ever have (Of course I have). What has this life come to?
Fortunately for the single law guy, there's Erin Andrews and Megyn Kelly. If I were Garth from Wayne's World, and this were the 90s, I'd say both are "magically babelicious."
Random Thought of the Day: Are video posts on facebook not the creepiest thing ever?
My name is Chad and I created this blog in honor of my being single for one year. Of course by single for a year I mean more or less; I'm sure some girls would like to dispute my being single, but this is my blog, not theirs.
My inspiration to start this blog came from Mark Titus' sweet blog - Club Trillion. Basically, this blog is an attempt to turn something terrible (being single in law school) into something not so terrible: life views of a single law guy. For you, the reader, hopefully this is comical and funny; for me, hopefully a distraction from law school. My first few posts will be geared toward why dating in law school sucks, but they will progressively snowball into my life views. Nothing too serious, more like a Seinfeld/Shakespeare "much ado about nothing" type blog. Probably the most exciting part of this blog's future is I may chronical my (potentially uncensored) dating experiences on here. Who wouldn't want to know all about that?
So you might be asking yourself, how can being a 24 year old, single guy (and not to mention great-looking, handsome, jacked/ripped, sensitive yet dominant, like Sylvester Stallone without all of the sweet reasons he has), who lives on a college campus be terrible? What could be so bad about living near thousands of beautiful coed undergrads and 20-something year olds? Well, nothing actually - that's pretty sweet and definitely beats being single somewhere in West Virginia or something like that. There's even a bar that'll pick you up and take you there to where all the undergrads party, for free. Not that I've done that before. Besides, it's really not that cool.
But what is terrible is dating + law school. Imagine this scenario happening at a bar:
Superior Alpha-Male (me) to Hot Girl (HG): Hey what's up? I'm Chad.
HG: Heyyyyy, how you doin' tonight?
Me: Oh you know, just livin' the dream to get you on my team.
HG: (Giggles). Ohhh you're funny...take me now you stud.
Obnoxious/Untimely Friend: Hey have you started outlining for our law school exams yet?
HG: Ewww you're in law school?!?! Get away from me!
So why is dating + law school terrible? Because law school is selfish and non-monogamous, screwing every one that walks in, at all hours of the day, at least when it comes to dating. Even a good-looking girl studying wildlife biologist had a similar-type reaction when she found out I was in law school. I mean seriously, wildlife biology? Like that's not the most uninteresting topic ever. Unfortunately, no wittiness of mine can compete with the truth that she was probably right. Thanks law school.
In short, every girl will (or at least should) learn at sometime or another that you are a law student. Why is this bad? Unfortunately nobody places law students or lawyers on par with, say, professional athletes, rock stars, or basically anyone who loves to party, and basically knows how to get down and have a good time (like John Claude Van Damme minus the hideous 80s music. And by hideous I mean awesome).
That pretty much wraps up why dating in law school sucks. No longer can I sweep girls off their feet with stories of how I'm a minor league baseball player or professional cage fighter. Can't say my friends host parties for me that end up with me waking up next to Elisha Cuthbert (pre-hooking up with the entire NHL) and then finding out I work for her dad and that she's actually in high school. Wait, that's just part of the plot of Old School. Either way, I can't even pull a 1980s Tom Cruise rendition of "You've lost that lovin' feeling" anymore. Not that I ever have (Of course I have). What has this life come to?
Fortunately for the single law guy, there's Erin Andrews and Megyn Kelly. If I were Garth from Wayne's World, and this were the 90s, I'd say both are "magically babelicious."
Random Thought of the Day: Are video posts on facebook not the creepiest thing ever?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)