Roosh’s Return of Kings blog recently posted a list of “7 Brilliant Songs To Make Love To,” to help all the would-be Romeos (and possible rapists) who read his blog to more easily manipulate drunk women into bed.
I would like to provide a somewhat more whimsical service to readers here of all genders. So here are 9 Amazing Songs That It Is Probably Impossible To Have Sex To (Unless You Have Them Playing At Extremely Low Volume).
1) Joe Meek: Original demo version of Telstar. Joe Meek was a brilliant if eccentric British producer who was unfortunately not such a brilliant singer. Here he sings — in a rather jarringly off-key manner — the melody to what became the massive hit “Telstar.” Luckily his studio musicians were able to figure out what he was getting at. For the much improved final product, listen here.
2) Unknown Band: Cocaine It’s impossible not to stare and listen in horror at the train wreck that is this cover version of Cocaine, and staring in horror is not generally conducive to sweet, sweet lovemaking. Plus, I’m guessing at least one of these dudes is a Men’s Rights Activist.
3) Boxxy: You See (Extended Version) It’s the famously and deliberately irritating Internet meme girl Boxxy, only she’s been autotuned into something even more irritating. And this is the Extended Version.
3.1) Boxxy: Boxxy’s love song Oh wait, this one’s even worse.
4) brokeNCYDE: Freaxxx This emo-screamo mess might put you off sex, and music, forever.
5) Throbbing Gristle – Live in Sheffield – University (10 June 1980) If you really want to spoil the mood, 57 minutes of Throbbing Gristle live will certainly do the trick.
6) Rush: The Trees An Ayn-Randian parable on the wonders of the free market, with the main characters in the story being DIFFERENT SPECIES OF TREES. And it’s sung by Geddy Lee. Captain Awkward considers this the ultimate Sex Kryptonite song.
7) Sonseed: Jesus is My Friend Christian ska, by some people who really have no business playing ska at all. So, obviously, no sex will ever be happening to this song.
8) Jade Michael and the FTSU Crew: Go My Own Way A Men’s Rights classic! MRAs will be too busy “going their own way” to have sex to this, while the rest of us will be laughing too hard.
9) Rick Dees: Disco Duck On second thought, I think it might actually be possible to have sex to this song. Possibly even awesome sex.
I feel like there should be an exemption for older scenesters judging the poor sartorial choices of younger ones, though. We can call it the Kids These Days clause.
Can old not-scenesters join too? I have a degree in Get Off My Lawning.
Get Off My Lawning is always allowed, but I feel like there’s a special place for You’re Embarrassing Me, Kid too.
I have a strange attraction to the “baggy” look on people’s clothes – for both men and women. I’m still trying to figure out why. >_>
Definitely.
Hybrid: Get off my lawn until you learn to dress better!
::waves walking stick at whippersnapper Aaliyah::
I’ll tell you what bulky look I do like – knitwear. Big, loose hand-knits and stuff can look gorgeous, and they go over jeans or skirts.
I had a sad before: the yarn I wanted for my jacket project isn’t available. My bank account will be happy, tho’, cos it was $12.30 a skein.
rofl
I guess one reason is that I get the impression that someone with loose, comfortable clothes (not really baggy in the literal sense) is more mellow and relaxed. Of course, that could also be because many of those people happen to have such clothes because of laziness, but that’s not all.
Even with knits I prefer them to fit close around the shoulders and chest. Thick, bulky knits do have a sort of mental association with comfort and happy feelings, though. Maybe because both of my grannies knitted, so I associate heavy knitwear with them.
Heavy knits for me mean Home in winter, snow and firesides. Not that Mr K and I have really bulky stuff, mostly cable-knit cardies for slobbing around (the comfortable and happy feelings) and more fitted things for going out (I can’t even begin to imagine knitting this one – soooo complicated!). I like the bulky jumpers/cardies I see in women’s patterns, though it’d be silly to knit one for myself; our winters in Oz just aren’t that cold.
Why? Why did I click any of these monstrosities!?
Masochism or fatal levels of curiosity?
That was pretty pathetic hardcore dancing you guys. None of them can even two-step worth a damn.
I’m really not a fan of the low-hanging trousers look on men. I’ve seen it look good on exactly one guy and that is because he is otherwise ridiculously gorgeous and a genuinely nice person and a massive Feminist so he’d still be attractive while wearing a bin bag.
Most guys look better in properly fitting trousers, they don’t have to be up around the armpits but on or just above the hip bones are usually most flattering.
And Kittehserf, i’m going to have to disagree with you about tucking in shirts. Shirts of the button down type should always be tucked in, they’re designed to be and just look odd else. T-shirts shouldn’t be tucked, nor polo-shirts or any similar casual tops.
Eh, not with jeans. Tucking things into jeans just makes you look silly. Well, other than undershirts. But button down into jeans is calling to mind all sorts of “you don’t get out much do you?” images.
Proper trousers, yes, things should be tucked in. But tucking seems formal and jeans should not even attempt formal…
I am, of course, no expert on men’s fashion. And really prefer to play “you don’t need to see my waist to hip ratio, no really, you don’t” (cuz I am not blessed with a naturally androgynous figure) so idk, this may be personal preference.
Lol, I have an aversion to knitwear too though. Alpaca is the only thing I’ve found so far that I can tolerate besides synthetics. (Alpacas are soft and furry!)
And yes, cats can get away with saggy butts, though I think it’s more bellies in their case.
I think you need to backtrack a bit there. If someone is wearing a button-down with jeans there’s pretty much nothing that’s going to overcome the inherent inappropriateness of that combination (though I agree that if you must wear those things together, don’t tuck the shirt in, it just makes things worse).
On the knitwear for people with sensitive skin issue, French Connection’s babysoft sweaters are a gift from ceiling cat that proves that zie loves us. I have problems even with cashmere against the skin, so they’re the only warm sweaters I can wear without anything underneath.
The song “I Smell Cartoon Planet”. Should be considered also. It’s purely hilarity removes it from any romantic possibility. 😀
Am I too late for the “Kids These Days Get Off My Lawn” discussion? I work at a college, so I see plenty of people making bad fashion decisions on a daily basis. I am hardly fashionable myself, but even I know not to do the things they’re doing. A summertime outfit of Uggs with sweatpants is a perennial favorite that does not seem to be going away.
I once caught my then-boyfriend with his button-down shirt tucked into sweatpants. That relationship didn’t last long.
My internet was being funny yesterday so I didn’t get to watch the brokeNCYDE video until just now…holy shit, that is ridiculous. I think my favorite part was near the end where there was a short clip of a black guy dancing. It just came off like, “See? We totally have a black friend and he even likes our music!” Although, “I don’t waste my time with lesbians,” or whatever they said was pretty funny too…honey, lesbians are quite happy to hear that.
Also what was with the middle part where they were screaming, “Liar!” at the women? It seemed like a standard (if terrible) club song until then but then they’re all mad that some women aren’t interested in them? I couldn’t understand half of what they were saying.
Blasphemy! Button-down-with-jeans (shirt tucked in, of course) is standard western attire. Granted, it’s only appropriate in some contexts, but there is nothing sexier than a cute cowboy/girl in tight-fitting jeans and a button-down shirt. As long as they can pull it off without looking like they’re playing cowboy dress-up, anyway…
I think a well-cut shirt cut tucked into well-fitting jeans is extremely flattering.
Particularly for tall men, as a lot of the time t-shirts and button downs cut to not be tucked in are too short for their torso. Shirts designed to be tucked in are actually long enough.
In order to win a battle one must know who the real enemy is. Otherwise, one is shooting in the dark and often hitting those not the least bit responsible for the mayhem. In our current battle the real enemy is Manboobz. I guess I should start by saying that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to introduce an important but underrepresented angle on its cankered stratagems.
During the first half of the 20th century, McCarthyism could have been practically identified with Machiavellianism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called a cranky, nutty curmudgeon. Do you think I’m the only one who wants to set the record straight? I assure you, I am not. But Manboobz’s propaganda machine grinds on and on. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
As the oft-repeated saying goes, “This is kind of a touchy subject to some people”. The importance of that saying is that it reminds us that when uttered by Manboobz, the word “global”, as in “global spread of privatism”, implies, “It’s not our fault”. In reality, we’d indubitably have a lot less privatism if it would just stop suckering us into buying a lot of junk we don’t need. In order to solve the big problems with Manboobz we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must call your attention to the problem of procacious Neanderthals. Manboobz must be surrounded by some sort of reality-distortion field. Why else would its understrappers, who are legion, aver that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum? If it weren’t for all that reality distortion they’d instead be observing that Manboobz can’t fool me. I’ve met appalling, shallow skivers before so I know that if Manboobz ever does lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality, it will instantly have as its implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to shout back at Manboobz’s propaganda. Such people know that its attendants have been waxing stridently about zabernism, Manboobz’s modes of thought, and why Manboobz should reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Meanwhile, I myself have been indicating in a rough and approximate way the two meddlesome tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern teetotalism. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that Manboobz’s sycophants have been seen committing senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge Manboobz’s purblind wisecracks. Manboobz claimed it would take responsibility for this flippant behavior, but in fact it did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that when one looks at the increasing influence of quislingism in our culture one sees that Manboobz’s signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? We already have our answer: As a respected journalist put it, “Manboobz’s prevarications are the perfect delivery system for power-drunk, stuck-up behavior.” He probably could have added that Manboobz’s confidants are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Manboobz, who wants nothing less than to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a longiloquent coterie of nihilism.
Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that for those of us who make our living trying to give peace a chance, it is important to consider that someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Manboobz. The memo spells out its plans to wipe out delicate ecosystems. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don’t enjoy are Manboobz’s unstable, deranged obloquies, which support those for whom hatred has become a way of life.
Manboobz’s vituperations were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the “innocents”. Rather, Manboobz’s comments are often appallingly mischievous, sometimes disdainful, frequently off-point, and occasionally temerarious. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Manboobz. They tell us that Manboobz intends to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. I could substantiate what I’m saying about mephitic grifters, but I don’t feel that that’s necessary because we all know what they’re like. Many people are looking for a modern-day Moses who will split the sea of racialism and make this world a better place in which to live. I can’t claim that I’m the right person for the job, but I can say that when you tell Manboobz’s loyalists that Manboobz blames others for its craven deeds, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don’t care. They have no interest in hearing that it has occasionally been successful at shaking belief in all existing institutions through the systematic perversion of both contemporary and historical facts. Upon such points its natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as it further strives to siphon away the more beautiful and fragile parts of the human soul. The take-away message of this letter is that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock. We should hold these words to our bosom, use them as a shield against Manboobz’s inequities, and wield them unilaterally against those who would encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens.
My husband and I have had sex to Throbbing Gristle!
(I guess I should mention we’re in a couple of experimental noise projects ourselves…)
Can I initiate a wildly off topic discussion here? (If you don’t think that’s appropriate, just ignore this.)
I just heard a radio interview by a feminist journalist with our PM Fredrik Reinfeldt. She asked if he was a feminist, and he said he doesn’t want to call himself a feminist, although he believes everyone should have equal opportunity regardless of gender. In response to some follow-up questions he said he doesn’t believe the fact that women take more care about household duties and men spend more time on their careers overall can be explained as individuals making free choices, it’s about old societal structures that still live on despite womens lib and all that. And the minister of finances does call himself a feminist, and they’re usually in agreement on gender issues. But he doesn’t want to call himself a feminist because “I don’t want someone saying to me that “you can’t have those views if you’re a feminist, I’m a feminist and I know what a real feminist is supposed to think” “.
SOOOO I’m thinking that not wanting to call yourself a feminist when you’re right-wing is sort of understandable, since I know lots of left-wing feminists saying it’s impossible to separate feminism from socialism and so on. So I can sort of see how a right-wing politician doesn’t want to get into arguments with these feminists.
Personally, I don’t think we should police other people’s use of the word “feminism” OR any other “ism” for that matter, as long as they haven’t obviously misunderstood what it means. Like, if someone were to declare herself a feminist because she loves feminine things, and she thinks feminism means celebrating the feminine, then she’s misunderstood the word and needs correcting. But I think we ought to acknowledge that people can be feminists and still have fucked-up views in a lot of ways, and still disagree with us in a lot of ways. I might call someone a bad feminist or stupid feminist or whatever, but I won’t say “you’re not actually a feminist” as long as the person agrees that there are ways in which women are oppressed even in today’s society and that ought to change. I think it goes for all “isms” that people are allowed to, as long as they have a basic understanding of what the word means, define for themselves whether they belong to that “ism” or not.
BUUUUUT what do you guys think?