My humble thoughts as one guy with opinions about life, love, religion, society, politics, parenting... yada, yada, yada.

  • RSS
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin

Thumbnail Recent Post

Recent Comments

  • Has Fatherhood Become the New Mercedes-Benz?

    It used to be that a tailor-made suit and a Mercedes-Benz were context clues signaling a man’s ability to “provide” and consequently, those were things made a man "sexy". But could it be that for today’s professional women, fatherhood is the modern-day equivalent of a Benz? ...

  • What Does This Election Tell Us About What A "Real American" Is?

    “What on earth is he talking about?”... to put it simply..what does a Real American look like, sound like, act like, eat, wear and drive? Where do Real Americans live? What religion do they belong to? The questions are endless, but as we put answers to the questions will you fit the mold of a “Real American”?

  • “Rope-a-Dope” or Political “SHAKE and BAKE?

    Here’s the deal… President Obama was eaten alive in the 1st debate... BUT could this have been a good thing? Regardless of whether he was off his game or engaging in the most daring “rope-a-dope” in the history of politics, that awful debate performance sets the Obama campaign up for a little "shake and bake." Here’s why.

  • Look Ma! I'm On Web TV!

    Here's Mr. Mansitioning himself (me..lol) talking about Presidential politics and the election on the HuffPost Live... I always appreciate the invite and love the discussion!

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 0 comments


Written for Carol's Daughter's www.transitioningmovement.com



Okay, ladies… Here’s one of those times when we’re probably gonna disagree, and although it may offend some of you, I gotta ask…  Yo… What is up with the see through clothing?

This is one of those things I’ve been really trying wrap my head around ever since I witnessed the first woman I’d ever seen wearing sheer leggings with, what I could only suspect was a pair of Victoria Secrets underwear underneath.  And don’t raise your eyebrow at me like I was somehow not supposed to notice it. ALL men (and I’m not excluding gay men here) notice. Even if we don’t want to notice, we notice because we’re hardwired and preprogrammed to notice, which makes the increasing number of sheer blouses on the streets of New York and, assuredly a town near you so mind-numbingly aggravating (while at the same time kinda cool, but not).

It started with the sweat pants with stuff like “Can’t touch this” written on the butt, then moved from there to leggings, which my wife explained were only about comfort and had nothing to do with the way it accented and drew attention to “can’t touch this.”  After that, it was like all Hell broke loose. Cat suits in the office... sheer T-shirt with no bra... The no padding bras that showed a woman's - never mind.  My point is that, as a dude, I’m just noticing how far the envelope is being pushed, and I’m wondering why and genuinely wondering 'what’s the endgame?' Is it that women are dressing for women’s attention or for men’s? Are the leggings truly for comfort, or is there an expectation that we, as men, will beyond a shadow of a doubt objectify you?


“Where’s all this coming from?” you may ask. Well, a little over a month ago I spent a day with my 14-year-old niece (one of 10) and decided to take her school shopping.  Yep, me, the opinionated writer/uncle, and her, the teenage developing girl/niece fighting over what looks appropriate vs. cool for a girl her age and body type.  Needless to say that I looked like one of those bobble head dolls the way I kept shaking my head “no,” but as we walked down 5th Avenue (skipping the high-end stores for H&M), the abundance of women in see-through clothing provided me the perfect opportunity to impart some “guy” words of wisdom to her about how guys think.

1) Assume all guys are creeps… because we are. Am I being hard on us? Of course, but I’m her uncle and the proud father of a newborn daughter, and I know that within every man is a “Creep-factor” that most of us try to keep suppressed.   Unfortunately, the creep factor is triggered by a women’s flesh, so the more of it you show, the stronger the creep factor becomes, and before you know it’s oozing out of us as we beg you to let us buy you the strongest drink possible from the bar… BTW, there is no cure (maybe prayer).


2) If a guy wants to see it, he will find it.  In other words, women don’t have to wear sheer leggings to attract a man (if that's part of her purpose). I can’t tell you how, but believe me, if we’re really that interested in knowing, we can usually tell whether a woman is wearing bloomers, boy shorts or a thong without her having to go the extra mile to show it.


3Believe it or not, guys actually dig being intrigued by a woman. The more of a woman that we see without us having to put in the work, the less intrigued we actually are by her.  Never trade the power of intrigue for the ease of sexual attraction. Intrigue is an automatic indication of a man’s respect for your beauty and your mind. 


4) The more a woman shows of her body to attract a man, the less that man will be attracted to her for anything else she has to offer other than her body.  So it’s important to distinguish between physical attraction and sexual attraction.  Wanting to be physically attractive is obvious, but when the attraction becomes sexual, it tends to become so dominant that it occupies an overwhelming deal of a guys focus toward you. It’s kind of like us seeing Halle Berry on the red carpet vs. seeing her topless in the movie Swordfish. Halle in the dress is physically attractive and intriguing, but Halle topless has us thinking about nothing else except how to see her completely nude. 


Now, can that change after you and a man (who's  been staring at your underwear through yourh shirt) talk and trade ideas? Sure, but the subsequent attraction to your mind hasn’t replaced or even superseded his sexual appetite for you. So in essence, his initial thought when he saw your 34 C pink-laced bra underneath your sheer blouse was “Damn! I’d sure like to ______,” but after hearing how brilliant your mind is, his thought is “Damn! She’s smart too? I’d sure like to ________ even more.”    



Now before you post your comments below or on Facebook, which I hope you will certainly do, let me just say that this article is intended to be humorous (even though I’m dead serious about every single word I wrote above) and this article is only directed toward those women who show insane amounts of cleavage (by that I mean just about any amount of cleavage) under sheer blouses, with cat-suit pants in a desperate plea for attention from men. It is in no way intended for any of the three hundred and thirty three (I’m probably being generous) American women who wear the those kinds of outfits with absolutely no interest in how a man will respond. Okay, now you can let me have it with your responses on me…lol




Thank you for checking out my column “Mansitioning,” on Transitioningmovement.com.  I hope you’ll leave feedback and follow me on Facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/mansitioning and on twitter (https://twitter.com/mansitioning). Please share your thoughts, problems, inspirations, relationship questions, etc. and spread the word.
[ Read More ]

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 1 comments


THE TSA's TNA, PDA PROBLEM: CONSERVATIVE 9/12'ers UP IN ARMS OVER TSA SECURITY

I wrote this a while back, but during the holidays conservatives tend to do a whole lot of venting about TSA security at our airports, so I'll repost for the purpose of offering a bit of reason....lol.

I knew it was coming. Perhaps it's because I've been subject to "step aside" searches at the airport on a number of occasions, but still I knew that it was only a matter of time before your standard "club bouncer" pat down was instituted, along with some kind of a TOTAL RECALL like scanner (had been talked about for years without much concern from the public soon after 9/11) - Yet now it seems like everyone has retreated to a pre-9/11 mentality on that issue.

This wouldn't be news worthy except for the fact thatthe ones whining about these security measures are the ones who said "Let us never forget 9/11" every day on the floor of the house for at least a year after the Twin Towers came down. And it was them who came out in droves for a "9/12" rally just a short time ago. Yet this is where we find ourselves... Americans are nuts.

Let's be clear. Half of the Americans protesting theTSA's security measures are legitimately concerned about privacy, another portion are legitimately concerned about overreach by the government, but a loud portion are perpetual protesters seeking to inflict "death by a thousand cuts" on President Obama - politically speaking . I get the concern of the two legitimate groups. Our privacy is an integral part of our liberty as Americans (so long as you're not talking about things like drug use and gender issues). But as far as I'm concerned the Patriot Act eroded the foundations of our liberty for the cause of security. Most folks on the right (true libertarians excluded ) defended the Patriot Act with 'hey, if the government wants to listen to my boring conversations - fine. I have nothing to hide, it it means we're safer' (that 's Sean Hannitybtw ).Well, now we're exposed to the slippery slope of Partiot Act-logic since we're dealing with "fruit of kaboom" terrorist... That is terrorist that have bombs in their briefs.

So the question is how do we deal with a "fruit of kaboom" terrorist?.... I know! I know!... The conservatives say
'do what the Israelis do... They racially profile and we're too politically correct here They look you in the eye and asks lots of questions to judge if you're suspicious, etc. etc....'
Well let's examine their naiveté on this point. First and foremost, conservatives are trying to conflate what the Israeli's do (which is behavioral profiling) with what they've been championing here (which is racial profiling). So by simply using the word "profiling" to describe Israel's airport security measures they're either displaying a keen ignorance or they just "don't do nuance" to an astounding degree. And for the life of me I can't understand why allowing the government to racially profile is such a victory for them. As a person who's been racially profiled, I can tell my conservative friends with the utmost confidence, "dude, it's not cool". And you got the never to talk about the TSA violating your liberty... Please! - but I digress.

Secondly, it only takes a small amount of logic and common sense to understand that if a terrorist makes it through Israeli airport security and on to a plane- well obviously that plane is LEAVING Israel.. In other words the threat is being carried out of Israel, which would also mean that Israel has a much bigger concern with planes leaving for Israel from other countries... you know, countries like the United States...

And again, logic should also remind conservatives that Israel's most ardent enemies (my friend mentioned the PLO - which really makes my point) are neighbors... They are within driving distance of Israel... close enough to fire rockets and hit... Why would Al-Qaeda elect to expend the energy to get a terrorist through security to board a plane leaving the very country they want to attack? Doesn't make much sense when you think about it. In fact, one of the reasons that Israeli airport security is without incident is because terrorist attacks in Israel have historically targeted buses.
So the "Talk to Israel" "they look you in the eye and ask questions" solution has merit, but as much as folks would like Israel to be USA-EAST it ain't the United States and what works for them with a country that small won't work for us with country this large.
Also, the Israeli behavioral profiling solution seems awfully odd coming from a certain conservative wing of the country who suggest that Al-Qaeda can train themselves to resit our torture (I'm sorry - enhanced interrogation) techniques now that they have been publicized... If it's possible to train yourself to withstand water-boarding, then it seems most certainly possible for highly trained and highly funded terror groups to have a few people go through Israeli airport security and write down what the process is and what the questions are and so forth, and train themselves to pass lie detector test and beat the behavior profile for a terror suspect, no?

So again, the question is how do we deal with a fruit of Kaboom bomber in a post 9/11 America where we have proven that we deserve neither liberty nor security because we so willingly gave it up 9 years ago?

As far as TSA goes - I guess the conservative remedy for Airport security is to do away with the 
scanners, the pat downs and while we're at it, the shoe and liquid thing and start asking questions to trained, highly funded terrorist that are trained to resist torture... oh, and racially profile. Other than that, I'm not hearing much in terms of real solutions... But should the President cave on this - which wouldn't surprise me- then I trust that we will hear much on FOX "news" about how "Obama let this happen" or had a "pre-9/11" mentality about airport security, although it seems like the complainers are the ones most guilty of this.
Just so you know, the stuff being used in the explosive devices being brought on to planes is a substance called PETN... Here's a little info on it and may shed light on why these measures are necessary. From the Guardian UK:

PETN is non-metallic so it does not show up in x-ray machines. Because it is so energetic, only small amounts of the explosive are used, and these can easily be hidden on the body or in electrical equipment. PETN-based bombs can be detected by the electrical wiring and detonators that accompany them, but there are ways around this. If the bomb is built into electrical equipment, such as a printer, it can easily be missed amid the device's own wiring and components.

On Christmas day last year, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab hid PETN in his underpants in a failed attack on a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The bomb escaped detection in part because Abdulmutallab used a plastic syringe filled with a chemical detonator that was hard to spot with an x-ray scanner. Last summer, Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri, the brother of the man suspected of building the latest devices, tried to assassinate the Saudi deputy interior minister after evading security detectors by hiding a PETN-based bomb inside his body. Around 100g ofPETN is enough to destroy a car.
SO - if we can't detect the PETN (because the technology doesn't exist), then what's left is to try and detect the devices used to detonate it. If it's in a plastic syringe (as was the case of the X-mas underwear bomber, then the only way you'll find it is a pat down or x-ray screening.


Now just for the record, I'm not saying that I think the current system is "all good, yo" or that they shouldn't modify and make adjustments. A woman having to remove a prosthetic breast is overboard... But if the threats are high and a pat down is deemed necessary, then so be it until a better solution comes about. And folks need to dial it down. For the majority of us, you only get the pat down if you opt out of the scanner. Only 10% of passengers are subject to random pat downs. Here you can read FACTS about the TSA security measures.

But if you are still up in arms after learning the facts, then here are two other alternatives... Since conservatives don't have a problem with the patriot act, they can allow the government to randomly screen their travel, phone, and email history and use that to assess them as potential threats. After all Sean Hannity and others routinely say they don't have a problem with the government listening in on their conversations if it makes them safer - or so was the case when it was a Bush Administration listening.... OOOORRRR

They can have two separate flight statuses... They can schedule TSA Pat down/scanner flights where all the passengers have chosen to go through those security measures OR they can book the 9/10 (poking Beck) flight where folks just use the racial profiling, metal detectors and The "look into their eyes - window of their souls" Q&A security method. I think that'd be fair...

But in jest: If we're talking about the Q&A/behavior profile method, let's consider that Sarah Palinwas asked what she reads to inform her world view about politics and froze up... Call me crazy, but that would look pretty suspicious to me if I was a TSA agent, so I'd bet my little pay check that if she was in Israel, she would've made the "no fly list" there based on their behavioral profiling... lol

[ Read More ]

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 0 comments


POST ELECTION DAY ADVICE FOR THE WORKPLACE:

1. DON'T WEAR YOUR "BARACK THE VOTE" OR "BARACKTIMUS PRIME" T-SHIRTS TO THE OFFICE.

2. DON'T CHANGE YOUR SCREEN SAVER TO THE PIC OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA DOING THE "BANKHEAD BOUNCE"

3. DON'T GO AROUND ASKING YOUR REPUBLICAN CO-WORKERS, "YOU OKAY?" OR "WE STILL COOL, RIGHT?"

4. DON'T BREAK OUT INTO SPONTANEOUS DANCES LIKE THE MOONWALK, THE HARLEM 

SHAKE OR "THE CARLTON"

5. DON'T SUDDENLY START SENDING OUT FACEBOOK REQUEST TO ALL YOUR CONSERVATIVE CO-WORKERS

6. DON'T SING R&B RENDITIONS OF "THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER," THE "LIFT EVERY VOICE & SING" OR "NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY GOODBYE"   




7. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, DON'T DO ANY OF THE ABOVE IF YOUR BOSS HAS A ROMNEY/RYAN DECAL ON THE BACK OF THEIR VEHICLE...

*** and btw, "like" my mansitioning page @www.Facebook.com/mansitioning***




[ Read More ]

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 0 comments


Here's Mr. Mansitioning himself (me..lol) talking about Presidential politics and the election on the HuffPost Live... I always appreciate the invite and love the discussion!





 
[ Read More ]

Posted by Lawrence "LAW" Watford - - 0 comments

It seems that, in this year's Presidential Election, the "October surprise" is New Jersey Governor, CHRIS CHRISTIE's praise for PRESIDENT OBAMA's leadership in the face of Hurricane Sandy.  This, of course has many republicans in dismay, especially considering Christie's emphatic rejection of a MITT ROMNEY visit to New Jersey - on "Fox & Friends" of all networks!. Rush Limbaugh, for example has gone as far as to throw out gay innuendo's to describe this picture..
 
But for those who seem baffled and befuddled by the New Jersey Governor's praise of the President, let me boil it down to this...In a nutshell, Chris Christie doesn't respect Mitt Romney. He's the polar opposite kind of politician. Mitt Romney has no backbone... He walks back and moonwalks virtually every position of importance depending on who he's campaigning in front of... He's a relentless and fearless flip-flopper. 

Mitt Romney has been described as having a car-salesman kind of political style,  "You want tinted windows, I'll give you tinted windows... You want leather seats, I'll give you leather seats - oh! you hate leather seats, I hate those too -too hot in the summer"... Mitt Romney is the political equivalent of those traveling salesman in the 50's who'd  show up your door with a vacuum cleaner, a stack of encyclopedias and some tonic water that promises to grow your hair and heal your joints..  The funny thing about these charges is that you'll rarely find a republican or Romney supporter who will even try to refute them... They'll start saying "Obama toooooo," but won't try to make the case that Mitt Romney has the courage of his convictions... Even Rush Limbaugh has basically stated the Obama is who he said he was and is doing what he said he'd do (of course he didn't say this in support of the President)

Chris Christie, on the other hand is cut from a different cloth than "multiple choice Mitt" as he's often called by people in the state of Massachusetts, where he was governor. Chris Christie is not an "Etch-A-Sketch" politician, as Mitt Romney's top campaign strategist described him. He's a straight shooter and a guy not known as a "bulls#!ter". Dishonest, isn't a term that's usually associated with him.  The term "bully," on the other hand is often associated with him, and if it's one thing we know about bully's, it's that they don't respect people who won't stand up for themselves... 

Ironically, Barack Obama is often criticized by the left for allowing himself to be bullied - a criticism that has emboldened his detractors on the right to engage in obstructionism and do things like scream out "you lie!" in the middle of a State of the Union address.  But if Romney is the scared kid who gives the bully all his lunch money and his wrist watch, Obama is more like the quiet cool kid who outsmarts the bully by offering to share his lunch money with him before the bully tries to take it,  and then convinces the bully to share half the lunch with him, while becoming his personal bodyguard.
 
The difference between Obama and Romney is, not only style, but it's the "courage of their convictions'... Obama has them and Romney doesn't and the bully can smell the weakness of the one who doesn't like a shark can smell blood in warm salt water...
[ Read More ]