Vegas Mom Gives Birth to Quintuplets in Arizona

Now these are truly the Arizona quins. So many Coen brothers references here from Raising Arizona which includes the Biker of the Apocalypse and a guy said “I get the menstrual cramps real hard.” God, I love that movie.

Fictional Villains Who Kind of Had a Point


In fiction, villains are figures we’re not supposed to sympathize with and are mostly no good since they’re usually the main obstacle in the hero’s goal. Sometimes they’re evil personified but other times they could just be evil overlords serving as dragons to a higher power, very selfish people who don’t give a shit about anyone else, or just an adversary. And of course, villains tend to do bad things to make sure he or she gets his or her way and doesn’t care who gets hurt. Many of times these villains tend to have inherently evil motivations or ones that are at least misguided. However, though some of them might not have done things that might not be good, some of them tend to have motivations that seem rather complex and somewhat justified. They just probably tried to accomplish it the wrong way.

1. The Wicked Witch of the West

From: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)

Why She’s Evil: The Wicked Witch of the West basically spends the entire time trying to pursue and kill Dorothy because she’s wearing her ruby slippers as well as killed her sister as well as conquer Oz and does whatever she can to get them such as throwing a ball of fire, sending the flying monkeys, enchanting the poppy fields, and threatens the Scarecrow with fire. She’s also a pretty menacing figure who strikes fear into Dorothy and her friends. It’s easy to see why the Wizard and Glinda wanted her dead.

Why She has a Point: Aside from wanting to conquer Oz bit, the Wicked Witch of the West does sort of have a reasonable motivation for the slippers and wanting to kill Dorothy to get them off her. For one, the slippers couldn’t be removed while Dorothy was still alive. Second, the ruby slippers belonged to her sister which she probably was supposed to get but Glinda basically put the slippers on Dorothy’s feet upon the latter’s arrival in Oz via tornado. And the Wicked Witch of the West wasn’t even consulted on the whole thing. The fact that Dorothy ends up accidentally caught up in this as her adversary which compels the Wicked Witch of the West to focus all her energies on is what makes her the villain. Also, the Wizard is pretty much a phony while Glinda was just using Dorothy as a pawn so she can control Oz herself since she made the girl go all the way to Oz when she just could’ve tap the ruby slippers in the beginning which would’ve solved everything. This sort of makes Glinda the bigger villain since she may not have the kind of motivation The Wicked Witch of the West did.

2. Madame Defarge

From: A Tale of Two Cities

Why She’s Evil: She’s a bloodthirsty French revolutionary who is all to happy to inflict violence and anti-royalist sentiment however way she can. Politics aside, she also puts the climate of the French Revolution to her advantage such as her everlasting hatred for the noble Evermonde family and her obsessive desire to see Charles Darnay guillotined. Not to mention, she almost gets her way with that when Darnay and his companions return. I mean almost.

Why She Has a Point: Madame Defarge has every reason to hate the Evermonde family since Dickens goes to great lengths to show that this family is a pretty nasty bunch who even Charles Darnay doesn’t even want to do with (since he basically changed his name and moved to a different country to get away from them). Not to mention, Dr. Manette basically denounced the clan while in prison at the Bastille. The fact that Madame Defarge is a peasant may be enough to justify her hatred for the Evermonde but her hatred for that bunch is even more personal than that as well as dates back to her childhood. The real reason? She witnessed her mother being raped by Darnay’s father and uncle, which was also the incident that put Dr. Manette in prison since he was the guy treating her. Not to mention, the Evermonde twins were never brought to justice and probably died peacefully. Still, the fact that Charles Darnay is the last living Evermonde she knows, Madame Defarge is determined to have him pay dearly for his family’s sins as a scapegoat. On the other hand, while Dr. Manette hates the Evermondes every bit as much as Madame Defarge, he’s willing to see Charles Darnay as the person he is and lets him live in his house and marry his daughter.

3. Heathcliff

From: Wuthering Heights

Why he’s Evil: Heathcliff basically makes life hell for most of the characters involved by buying Wuthering Heights and makes Hindley’s life a living hell as well as takes advantage of his alcoholism. Also, though he may be a self-made man, we never know how he got the money. Not to mention, he marries Isabella Linton out of spite for Cathy for dumping him and Edgar for marrying the only person in his life who doesn’t make him look like a psychopath. And he treats Isabella like shit as well as well as curses everyone in the room when Cathy dies which sort of makes Wuthering Heights haunted ever since. Basically he’s a complete bastard and Cathy and him might have had the same dad.

Why He Has a Point: Heathcliff probably wouldn’t be the asshole he became if Cathy’s old man didn’t die when he did. It’s perhaps plausible that Heathcliff’s love for Cathy as obsessive and destructive it is, is perhaps the only redeeming quality he has. The fact that Cathy’s father died pretty early on pretty much sets Heathcliff off a course to infamy led by Hindley’s bullying, Linton’s class prejudice, and Cathy’s rejection of him. And Heathcliff pretty much has a good reason to treat Hindley the way he did when he returns to Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff might not have been a sweet kid but he certainly wouldn’t have turned out as bad as he did if he had a decent adult in his life who might have given him the parental guidance he surely needed. The fact he’s the bad guy is that he’s all doing his deeds in revenge for bad treatment and not being seen as good enough for the world around him.


4. King Richard III (or Richard, Duke of Glouchester)

From: Richard III

Why He’s Evil: Well, if we’re to credit Shakespeare, he basically knocks off Lady Anne’s father and previous husband as well as tries to marry her which he does over the man’s corpse. Not to mention, he’s a complete bastard who later poisons his wife, drowns his brother in a vat of wine, and knocks off two of his nephews in the Tower of London so he could have the crown for himself. Evil man indeed.

Why He Has a Point: For one, Richard III was a real historical figure who probably not as bad as Shakespeare said he was or no worse than any other medieval king at the time. Not to mention, Shakespeare wrote he play during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I so it probably isn’t nearly 50% accurate given the guy who defeated him was the Queen’s grandfather. Though a great work of literature, it’s also historic propaganda. Also, though Richard III did take the throne from his nephews and put them in the Tower of London, he simply did it by stating the fact that Edward IV was engaged to another woman at the time he married their mom which not only serves as grounds of illegitimacy but also was perfectly legal at the time. Plus, the boys were children (and England had boy-kings before with disastrous results) and he was basically running the country anyway. Many people in his place would’ve done the same thing, especially during the Middle Ages. Oh, and there’s the fact that he also had his other nephews and nieces including five of Edward IV’s daughters (including Elizabeth of York who married Henry VII and was Elizabeth I’s grandmother) and two of George of Clarence’s kids as well. And there are no Tower stories about them either maybe because many of them were women and he didn’t off them but still. Not to mention, he might not have been responsible for killing the Princes in the Tower. However, the main reason why he’s depicted as a villain is that he was the last king of of a royal dynasty (who usually ends up having a bad reputation) and the fact his death brought the end of the Wars of the Roses and the beginning of the Tudors in England. Also, the fact he seized the throne also counts as well. Sure Richard III might have been bad, but he might have just as been a victim of circumstance.

5. Raoul Silvia

From: Skyfall

Why He’s Evil: For one, he basically a James Bond villain who kills a bunch of people as well as destroys MI-6 headquarters via hacking through the computers. Oh, and he has a massive beef with M and sort of gets even James Bond to question whether his own boss has his best interests.

Why He Has a Point: Face it, compared to most James Bond villains, Raoul actually has a good excuse to make M’s life a living hell, even if his actions aren’t entirely justified. I mean he used to be an agent for MI-6 as well as one of the best and M was probably the closest thing he ever had to a mom (since most recruits at MI-6 were orphans). Not to mention, James Bond sort of views M the same way. Still, how would you feel if you were tortured to the point of insanity severe facial deformity and later learned that you were left for dead by your own boss? Sure M was only doing her job but it really hit Raoul pretty hard that someone he cared for like that would ever betray him. In any case, Raoul has every reason to be angry with her, but maybe not to the point of doing what he did.

6. Stanley Kowalksi

From: A Streetcar Named Desire

Why He’s Evil: Basically he’s an abusive jerk who beats his pregnant wife and treats her sister like an unwelcome guest the whole entire time. Oh, and he basically rapes Blanche to the point of insanity on the night of her birthday, right after he takes his wife to the hospital in labor. Also, he sabotages Blanche’s relationship with Mitch as well as is a selfish man and all around hyper aggressive brute.

Why He Has a Point: By no means, do I find much sympathy with this bastard of a man. Yet, you have to have some understanding with him since anyone would probably not like if their wife’s sister suddenly turned up at their doorstep after little communication for years. Oh, and it’s pretty obvious that Stanley doesn’t know her that well in the beginning but he does his research. Also, he’s basically one of the characters of the whole thing who’s quick to point out Blanche’s rather unpleasant qualities such as that she doesn’t care for him being a Pole, after Belle Reve was lost she moonlighted as a prostitute at some seedy motel which she was kicked out of, drove her husband to suicide after she discovered him having an affair with another man, and being fired from her teaching job for having sex with a seventeen-year-old boy. Not to mention, she’s basically staying with Stella because she has nowhere else to go and has been going to great lengths to conceal her checkered past. Sure Stanley was no saint by any means nor had any right to rape her, but Blanche was certainly not one either. Not to mention, raping vulnerable and mentally unstable woman seems more terrible than having questionable consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, as far as post WWII America was concerned.

7. Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus

From: The Pink Panther series

Why He’s Evil: Basically went nuts and not only tried to kill Inspector Clouseau multiple times but also tried to destroy an entire country out of angry at being lied to about Clouseau’s assassination as well as whereabouts at one point or another. And he tried to pull that off pretty treacherously as a matter of fact.

Why He Has a Point: Because he’s Inspector Clouseau’s boss and later replaces him once he ends up in the madhouse. Not to mention, Clouseau is such an idiot and borderline incompetent that he basically gets through on cases despite his own stupidity and it’s pretty apparent that he’s the one who drives Dreyfus over the edge but not intentionally though. Clouseau can drive just about anyone familiar with him crazy. Still, what makes Dreyfus a villain is that he wants Clouseau dead and is willing to kill him, instead of maybe simply firing him or getting him transferred like most people would.

In Iowa, the Blind Can Buy a Gun, Take Aim, and Fire

There are probably plenty of people who shouldn’t own a gun, not just blind people. Still, it’s pretty logical why we shouldn’t issue gun permits for people who can’t even see. As a side note, Michigan and Texas are the only two states that allow blind people to hunt. While blind people in Texas are required to have a sighted companion, a blind person in Michigan can hunt alone. Still, involving the blind on gun issues tends to border on a level of silliness more than anything.

Why Modesty Doesn’t Prevent Being Objectified

As a young woman, I’m thoroughly aware that people are going to notice me by the way I dress as well as be told how I should dress in public in order to divert unwanted attention from the opposite sex whose lustful feelings I may entice which might put me in a terrible situation. Still, I’m also aware of the way the media objectifies women in the way that is unhealthy for young girls which I highly object to. Sure I’m aware how the media tells girls that wearing scantily outfits makes them look attractive but I know that the media’s agenda is to make money but portraying women in the media is an entirely different story. Besides, I never really follow fashion trends nor place my appearance as a high priority, at least not above my brains, health, or personality. I may want people to respect me but I want them to do so because I’m a human being regardless what I wear or how I look in public. However, though I think the way women are shown in the media is a great concern, many of these conservative groups blame the 1960s as to why we keep showing women as objects and so provocatively as well. Not to mention, they tell girls that if they cover up, people will respect them and they will not draw unwanted attention from guys who want nothing to do with them. Yet, though modesty does have a place in society, it’s not going to prevent women and girls being objectified which is the result of some bigger problem of society as a whole which has roots way before 1960s ever swept the world.

1. Objectification of women has been prevalent throughout history-When conservatives talk about the objectification of women, they usually use the 1960s as a starting point since that the era of the Sexual Revolution, feminism, rock n’ roll, and the miniskirt. However, like most aspects of life during the 1960s, objectification of women didn’t start in the 1960s, it was just the time when people noticed the trend and saw it as problematic.  Even so, while many people link objectification of women as an unfortunate side affect of women’s liberation, it is not and never has. Namely the reason why we start seeing this is that people in the media just used feminism and the Sexual Revolution as an excuse to depict women as more scantily clad and sexual in ways they couldn’t do otherwise. And this was all for money since sex has always sold and many guys thought that portraying women this way would make them look like they were supporting female empowerment when in fact, they weren’t. Also note that the people behind these kind of ideas were men. Feminism doesn’t just mean women having sexual freedom, but also freedom to be treated as human beings to the same degree as men are, despite their flaws or other unlikeable qualities. Still, the notion of depicting women as objects while prevalent as ever today didn’t start with feminism, but rather is a notion as old as perhaps civilization itself, maybe even earlier than that. Throughout history, women have not only been treated as objects to be bought and sold but also used to fulfill men’s needs. In stories they were seen as prizes to be won, as ornaments to be adorned, as idols to be worshiped, and even as decoration to entice people to buy some sort of product. Yes, women have been objectified throughout history, always being told to concentrate on their looks in order to be attractive as well as respectable and be good to their loved ones unconditionally, while their voices, needs, and desires don’t matter. And what these women wore didn’t make any difference since being objectified doesn’t require a person to be scantily clad. Still, there were also plenty of people who spoke out on it then as well, including women.

2. Appearance doesn’t always affect chances of getting attention- Sure it’s a given that everyone is going to judge a person by their appearance, especially a woman. And it’s also a given that we will all draw unwanted attention to ourselves in one way or another, sometimes based on what we wear, but most of the time not. Sometimes a woman would receive unwanted attention because guys simply find her attractive or whatever. Sure she may turn men’s heads while prancing around in a miniskirt but she’s just as likely to do the same in sweatpants but while some may get distracted, most of them probably won’t go any further than ogle or mildly harass her until she’s out of their sight or at least try to concentrate on what they’re doing. Some men may think about asking her out but  few would ever think of actually doing anything to her that she didn’t want. If any of those guys did try to harass or assault her, then it’s their fault not hers. Some people think that women’s clothing choices are dependent on the chances of receiving unwanted attention, while in reality, there’s no correlation between the two whatsoever. To say so is an insult to men as well since they are said to be unable to control their sexual urges as well as an insult to say that women are responsible for them and must cover up to protect themselves. If that notion was true then the Middle East would have a low rate of rape incidents and marital fidelity would be almost nonexistent. Men certainly can control their sexual urges and do so all the time regardless of how women dress or behave themselves. The prevalence of many happily marriages serve as living proof that men can be responsible for their sexual behavior and certainly do say no and not because of impotence either. The reason why some men say they can’t because they don’t want to take responsibility, just don’t want to resist the temptation, or want to have their way regardless of what the other person says. Still, because there are men who don’t want to take responsibility for their sexual behavior, it’s women who get blamed for tempting them even though they had no desire to draw that kind of attention as well as repeatedly said no. Still, that doesn’t stop other men from blaming women for their own rapes and use any excuse to try to justify why she’s responsible such as dressing provocatively, being a slut, or being drunk which they say is sort of “asking for it.” However, regardless of how slutty a woman may appear, if she was asking for it, she wouldn’t be raped and therefore, isn’t responsible for the rape itself.

However, a woman doesn’t always have to be attractive to attract unwanted attention, sexual or otherwise. For one, not every man has the same criteria of beauty standards and might find one woman attractive that others may find disgusting. Second, you may have women being harassed and gawked at for simply being ugly or wearing something that’s utterly ridiculous. Then in some areas a woman might receive unwanted attention just for simply being one in an area where there are mostly men, like in North Dakota.

3. Modesty standards are defined by culture and vary through history- Whenever conservatives use the term “modesty” it’s usually by their standards whether they be in the US or anywhere else in the world. And modesty standards will always be dictated according to culture and customs. What may be inappropriate in one culture might be perfectly fine in another. For instance, many conservative groups may not think women should wear a bikini in this country, an African Bushman may see a woman with her bikini on as way overdressed. And of course, a woman in a Christmas sweater and pajama bottoms would look too much like a slut, according to the Taliban who wish their women wear burqas. At another time in history, anyone within means would cause a scandal if they went around in public dressed in something comfortable and weather permitting in the Western world (if you ever go tour the Confederate White House in Richmond during the summer, you’ll see why). Every culture has a different standards on what’s decent and what’s not and can be subject to change depending on climate, economy, social norms, religion in some cases, or other factors. Significant events in history can also alter our perception of decency standards like wars, social movements, and aesthetic trends.

4. Modesty only enforces the importance of appearance- Since objectification of women is rather dependent on a woman’s looks modesty doesn’t at all prevent a woman from being seen as an object since it only reinforces the notion of women being judged by their outward personal appearance, which is no help to make women more human or develop a healthy body image. And for the longest time, society has always taught women that their appearance is important which has made many women and girls insecure about their body image. Still, modesty isn’t necessarily a bad thing nor is lecturing about the importance of one’s own appearance either. I fully understand that appearances are important when living in society and that people should always try to look respectable. We can all agree that no one wants to see anyone out in public in their birthday suit and that there’s nothing wrong with store owners putting signs out  that read “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.” Public nudity is always a distraction no matter what the person looks like or what feelings he or she projects on other people, everyone is going to assume that the nudist is a freak if he or she’s old enough to know better. Not to mention, public nudity is illegal in most areas so any nudist showing his tallywhacker will surely be arrested for indecent exposure. This is where modesty standards are okay since a taboo against public nudity is applied to everyone in which their only expectation is that they at least cover their privates in a public setting.

However, modesty can be used in harmful ways, especially when it’s unfairly applied and contributes to a negative body image or personal shame. And women have been the brunt of this kind of negative appearance reinforcement since modesty has not only been used to control them but also to judge them by their appearance as well. And the more people judge women on their appearance the more they tend to see them as objects and treat them that  way as well. Not to mention, it doesn’t help that countless women have been taught to value their physical appearance above all their personal attributes as well as that their looks are key to their success in life. Modesty may teach people to judge others by the way they dress, but it can also judge people by the way they look as well and not always fairly. For instance, a woman in a skimpy outfit would be seen as slutty but while an attractive woman in the same clothes would come off as distracting to the guys in the room, a woman who’s not so attractive, overweight, and/or over the age of 40 would be judged as disgusting wearing the same thing. Being seen as distracting to others because of your outfit may not be a good thing or cultivate a healthy body image as well as contribute to some degree of humiliation, but to some girls being criticized for wearing a skimpy outfit might be a compliment to them since it might give them an affirmation that they’re attractive. Being seen as ugly and disgusting, on the other hand, is hurtful for a woman to hear and further encourages her to develop a negative body image which could lead to further problems. Covering up because of oogling eyes is one thing, covering up because there’s something unsightly about your body is another. If we want to encourage people not to treat women as objects, we need to humanize them and see them as people first, not tell them to cover up when they’re in a skimpy outfit.

5. Objectification comes in many forms and is not always sexual- When we talk about objectification, we talk about women being seen and used as sexual objects for men’s wishes and needs, we also don’t talk about how else we treat people as objects to do what we ask them while placing very little value on them as human beings. For instance, slavery is a classic example of people being treated as less than human since slaves were forced to work each and every day with little benefit to themselves and were seen as easily disposable as well as had to do whatever their bosses wanted since he or she owned them. Paid labor has also suffered from this kind of objectification as well, especially in the days when people had to work twelve hour days six days a week while getting very little for it in return for bosses who had no regard for their well being. Things might have changed since then but even in this country we still have people being exploited by their work places whenever the upper management can get away with it, particularly in places that prohibit their workers from forming a union (which I think is unconstitutional) but still treats them as if they were a commodity which will work cheaply because he or she can’t get it anywhere else and can be disposed at will. This is increasingly evident in today’s economy where benefits are being cut and layoffs are just a fact of life. People may not always like unions but even so, unions serve a purpose in society by making employers see workers as human beings whose contribution to the economy should be recognized and valued since they are just as responsible for a company’s profits as the CEO. Business and politics tend to have habits of using people as pawns all for the money and power, but that’s another story.

Useful Relationship Deal-Breakers You Wouldn’t Find in a Relationship Manual

Sure we know the kind of deal breakers that most relationship experts tell us such as cheating, abusive behavior, financial deadbeat, or what not. Here is a list of dealbreakers that you don’t find in those manuals or other things either because they’re too obvious, don’t happen in real life, or don’t seem to cross other people’s minds. Also, these deal breakers are much more interesting to read about. And by the way, though I may use he or she, these apply mostly to both sexes.

1. If his previous relationship had ended with his significant other’s mysterious disappearance, especially if she was last seen with him. (Okay, she might not be murdered nor he may not have killed her, but still.)

2. If his last significant other died under mysterious circumstances which may or may not be due to natural causes, an accident, or suicide. (If her cause of death even remotely seems to be murder, you might want to head for the hills. And if it was murder and they never found who did it, that’s also a deal breaker.)

3. If he’s on the Megan’s Law database. (Which means he’s a registered sex offender.)

4. If he’s appeared on the Dateline during To Catch a Predator moments. (As seen on 30 Rock. Actually any show like that, really.)

5. If she planned her dream wedding almost to a T before you even propose to her or even started dating her. (This might mean that she doesn’t value your opinion or possibly cares more about the wedding than the marriage. Gaston sort of falls in this as well who basically set up a wedding before he even proposed to Belle and they weren’t even a couple.)

6. Works for an organized crime syndicate.

7. If she’s a little too much into 50 Shades of Grey.

8. Has an arrest record that can be its own epic.

9. Has a bad case of amnesia.

10. Has killed your family, friends, and/or previous significant other. (Also, applies to his own friends, family, or previous significant other. Many ancient and medieval rulers did this quite frequently.)

11. If he expresses any desire for a dream wedding that includes getting married in a Nazi uniform, especially if you’re Jewish. (And for any reason.)

12. If he’s brainwashed by his mother who uses him as an enemy spy. (As you can guess this is from The Manchurian Candidate and you can guess what happened to Janet Leigh in this one.)

13. If he’s been caught trying to elicit gay sex, especially from an undercover cop in a public restroom. (I’m looking at you Larry Craig.)

14. If he has had a history of dumping his previous significant others for their serious illnesses. (a.k.a Gingrich clone.)

15. If he goes hiking on the Appalachian Trail. (And I don’t mean actually hiking on the Appalachian Trail. I mean disappearing without notice for a certain amount of time to carry on an extramarital affair {or some other act of infidelity}. Derived from the Mark Sanford scandal who used “hiking the Appalachian Trail” as an excuse for his disappearance while he was actually was seeing a woman from Argentina.)

16. If he has a sexual discretion that won’t make him able to have sex with you and he doesn’t tell you about it until your wedding night. (And by discretion, I don’t mean erectile dysfunction either or anything that can be treatable and also don’t mean being gay either. Also, this is from The Barefoot Contessa. Also, applies if he has an STD and never tells you about until after you have sex.)

17. If he plans to move after getting married and doesn’t tell you until shortly before the wedding.

18. If he is of comfortable income and/or has a decent paying job but doesn’t pay child support or wants nothing to do with his kids. (This only applies if he has kids to a previous partner  and he’s not raising them. Not to mention, this also applies to deadbeat dads {or moms} who can afford child support and take the time to see their kids but chooses not to. This doesn’t apply to deadbeat dads {or moms} who don’t play a role in their kids lives under the mother’s {or father’s} discretion, those who can’t afford to pay child support or have other legitimate reason, men who have no knowledge of their child’s existence, and women who had given up their children for adoption.)

19. If she works in the “adult” entertainment business or sex trade. (By this, I mean occupations like stripper, “exotic” dancer, porn actor, porn model, or prostitute. Also applies to men who can also be in these professions as well as people of both sexes involved in the business and administrative side of things. Sure going out with someone in that line of work might make your friends jealous but most of us would have a problem with being in a relationship with one. I mean would you want to let your parents know you were dating a porn star? Also, some pimps tend to use dating as a recruiting tool. And ditto, if he or she is a sex trafficker.)

20. If he is just going out with you only because the person he wants to be with is unavailable or won’t date him. (This only applies to those people who don’t have much interest in their current partners.)

21. If he’s a clergyman or is closely related to one that isn’t of your denomination. (Of course, for those dating Catholics who aren’t of the faith, only the latter applies since most priests aren’t permitted to marry {except in the Eastern Rite and permanent deacons}. Also, monks and nuns can be considered as clergymen as well but they’re also known to be celibate mostly. However, this doesn’t apply if the clergyman in question is of the extended family and a different religion than the rest. While I wouldn’t have much problem with dating or marrying someone outside my religion, I would definitely reject a guy if I found out he’s a minister or related to one.)

22. If his personality reminds you of a leading male character of a Hitchcock movie. (Trust me, most major male characters in Hitchcock films tend to be evil, crazy, in trouble, aren’t particularly nice once you get to know them, or are a combination of a few. Still, even the good guys aren’t particularly men you’d want to date like Max de Winter {killed his first wife and wasn’t willing to talk about her}, John Ballantyne {suffers from amnesia brought on by PTSD and is suspected of murder}, Barry Kane {suspected of terrorism}, Richard Hannay {suspected of murder}, Guy Haines {cheats on his wife and may not have the best social skills}, L. B. “Jeff” Jeffries {peeping tom}, Roger Thornhill {suspected of murder as well as being used as a decoy}, John Robie {ex-con but still has notoriety}, and John “Scottie” Ferguson {crazy, obsessed with a woman he’s never met [because she’s dead], and kind of a creep}. The villains are much worse, naturally.)

23. If he is a religious fanatic or an obnoxiously religious person. (I’m not bashing religious people here for as a liberal Catholic in Pennsylvania, I know plenty of nice religious people throughout my life. I have nothing against them though I may not always agree with their views. I’m just bashing religious people who are either willing to commit violent acts in the name of God, use their religion as an excuse to subject their crazy beliefs on everybody, or tend to discuss their faith in a way that seems so self-righteous and egotistical that they just become a major pain in the ass {like Tim Tebow}. I have no problem with religion or religious people in general. I just have a problem with religious assholes who think they’re right about everything just because their faith says so. This also applies to atheists and other non-religious people as well.)

24. If he’s in a cult. (Could also apply to Scientology to some extent.)

25. If he’s a professional athlete. (Seriously, if you hear what kind of assholes pro-athletes can be since many tend to have big egos, a history of alleged criminal behavior, and multiple kids to a bunch of different women, at least male ones, that is. As for female athletes, many of them tend to be lesbians. Also, many professional athletes have never grew up.)

26. If he has absolutely no sense of humor.

27. If he frequently posts pictures of his junk to random people on the internet. (Like Anthony Weiner. Seriously, I don’t know why people would do such a thing when they really shouldn’t.)

28. If he has a problem with women who are smarter and more successful than him. (Men, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with women who are smart and successful in their own right. Anyone who has a problem with a woman’s success is an asshole.)

29. If he’s a gambling addict. (Or someone who can’t be trusted with money, not necessarily someone who doesn’t have any.)

30. If he’s a regular on a reality show. (Honestly, you two will have no privacy in this department.

The Moral Ambiguity of Bathroom Humor

In the American media, we have these moral crusader advocacy organizations that aren’t above decrying moral indecency whenever the media depicts something that greatly offends them. Some can range from offensive depiction of certain groups or creeds which is understandable since many of conservative decency organizations tend to be religiously affiliated while liberal ones tend to represent ethnic or religious minorities.  Some could pertain to the depiction of sex and nudity which is also understandable to moral crusaders and parents alike (however, moral outcry over depictions of a homosexual couple just sharing their life together is just a major overreaction. Same for separate beds and showing pregnancy.) Sometimes it could be the depiction of drug use, violence, or profanity which is understandable as well since most people don’t want their kids using drugs, inflicting violence, or swear (though that may not be possible) and sometimes these three things can be shown as cool in the media. However, there’s a kind of category which many moral crusaders tend to see as non-family friendly or flat out inappropriate in general which I don’t see as something you should shelter kids from which is, you guessed it, bathroom humor.

Now I understand that the human body does conduct certain bodily functions that are typically seen as crude and disgusting as well as in poor taste to talk about them in a humorous context. And when such bodily functions are sometimes brought up on TV it’s usually in advertising pertaining to health as well as discussed as discreetly as possible. For instance, in an ad for Activia yogurt, you have a bunch of women saying how the two-week Activia challenge helped “regulate” their “digestion.” Of course, you’d have to be a two-year-old not to know that what these women are talking about are their bowel movements (a parody video of this has the girl on the toilet towards the end).  Still, I can understand why you’d put women in a commercial like that instead of men because they’d probably be much more blunt about it and perhaps use profanity. Then there are plenty of commercials for laxatives and adult diapers as well. Of course, you also got the fart jokes in Gas-X but still, many of these commercials that tend to be discreet and boring all aimed for adults. And whenever there is an ad that contains bathroom humor like the farting horse commercial from Bud Light, then people complain about it citing poor taste, indecency, disgust or not suitable for children. Sure bodily functions like urinating. defecating, or farting are in poor taste, disgusting, or even indecent but there’s no way that jokes about any of them aren’t suitable for children. For God’s sake do you think you can corrupt little kids by telling them poop jokes? No, for toilet humor pertains to certain things everyone does on multiple occasions every single day of their lives. Not to mention, toilet humor has been around for a very long time and is present in almost every culture on the planet. Besides, there are many children who make their own poop jokes and think farts are funny and don’t ask me why, they just do. Still, at least potty humor in a commercial is much more entertaining than a commercial devoted to a more serious discussion of bowel movements, especially in the format of a pharma ad.

Thus, we can’t always assume what is in poor taste is always considered  something we need to shelter our kids from. Basically the only thing what bathroom humor does to children is make them more likely to engage in bathroom jokes of their own. But if references to bodily functions aren’t something we need to shelter our kids from, then why aren’t there more scenes in the media depicting people going to the bathroom? Because going to the bathroom is such a mundane activity that the act itself doesn’t really contribute to the plot unless something out of the ordinary happens while in it. Also, the notion of privacy is an issue as well even though going to the bathroom wasn’t always something people did alone. Take the Romans who had communal public toilets, for instance. Still, this doesn’t mean that these characters aren’t going to the bathroom. Going to the toilet just isn’t that important in fiction and not many people want to see that sort of thing since it’s kind of disgusting, especially when the piece is set in historical times. And believe me, you may not want to know how they conducted their business.