Skinny jeans? Really?

Dude, it's 90 degrees out.

Just buy some cargos.

## Thursday, May 31, 2007

## Wednesday, May 30, 2007

### Boy Algorithm

I finally cracked the code and figured out a mathematical way to explain the type of boy that I am most often attracted to. I have, for years, baffled friends with some of my seemingly quirky choices, and I have finally figured out a way to verbalize my theory.

For simplicity's sake, let's use numbers, from 1 to 10. A "1" is a universally highly unattractive man. And, a "10" in a universally highly attractive man.

Through what I'll call the "distillation principle," the 1's and 10's are automatically eliminated from my scope of attraction. Sorry, 1's, but I need to get at least a little bit of a girl boner. And, sorry, 10's, but I have never been attracted to the perfect dude types. I just don't trust someone who's that good looking. Or rather, I don't trust all of his female friends.

Now, here's where my theory gets good.

Each dude has two numbers of attraction attached to them: an actual number and a self-perceived number. And the self-perceived number can actually alter the actual number.

Let's say you're a dude, and you're a solid 7, looks-wise. (That's your actual number). But, you THINK you're a 9. (That's your self-perceived number).

That totally sucks. Because, a 7 who thinks he's a 9 is really a 4. Because each false image of perfection equates to roughly -1.5 points.

Stay with me here...(i.e. 9 - 7 = 2 and 2 x (-1.5) = -3 and 7 +(-3) = 4.) Got it?

But, likewise, a false backwards image lends itself to humble bonus attraction points, in the ratio of 1 to 1.5. So, a solid 6 who thinks he's only a 4 is really equal to a perfect 9. (i.e. 6 - 4 = 2 and 2 x 1.5 = 3 and 6 + 3 = 9.)

There. That was simple.

For simplicity's sake, let's use numbers, from 1 to 10. A "1" is a universally highly unattractive man. And, a "10" in a universally highly attractive man.

Through what I'll call the "distillation principle," the 1's and 10's are automatically eliminated from my scope of attraction. Sorry, 1's, but I need to get at least a little bit of a girl boner. And, sorry, 10's, but I have never been attracted to the perfect dude types. I just don't trust someone who's that good looking. Or rather, I don't trust all of his female friends.

Now, here's where my theory gets good.

Each dude has two numbers of attraction attached to them: an actual number and a self-perceived number. And the self-perceived number can actually alter the actual number.

Let's say you're a dude, and you're a solid 7, looks-wise. (That's your actual number). But, you THINK you're a 9. (That's your self-perceived number).

That totally sucks. Because, a 7 who thinks he's a 9 is really a 4. Because each false image of perfection equates to roughly -1.5 points.

Stay with me here...(i.e. 9 - 7 = 2 and 2 x (-1.5) = -3 and 7 +(-3) = 4.) Got it?

But, likewise, a false backwards image lends itself to humble bonus attraction points, in the ratio of 1 to 1.5. So, a solid 6 who thinks he's only a 4 is really equal to a perfect 9. (i.e. 6 - 4 = 2 and 2 x 1.5 = 3 and 6 + 3 = 9.)

There. That was simple.

## Tuesday, May 29, 2007

### The Worst Part About Not Having a Boyfriend Is...

..having to install your heavy air conditioner by yourself.

Seriously, that's the worst of it. The rest, I can totally deal with.

Seriously, that's the worst of it. The rest, I can totally deal with.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)