Courtesy of the Get Rich Slowly blog and the book, “Secrets of the Millionaire Mind”…

1. Rich people believe: “I create my life.” Poor people believe: “Life happens to me.”
2. Rich people play the money game to win. Poor people play the money game to not lose.
3. Rich people are committed to being rich. Poor people want to be rich.
4. Rich people think big. Poor people think small.
5. Rich people focus on opportunities. Poor people focus on obstacles.
6. Rich people admire other rich and successful people. Poor people resent rich and successful people.
7. Rich people associate with positive, successful people. Poor people associate with negative or unsuccessful people.
8. Rich people are willing to promote themselves and their value. Poor people think negatively about selling and promotion.
9. Rich people are bigger than their problems. Poor people are smaller than their problems.
10. Rich people are excellent receivers. Poor people are poor receivers.
11. Rich people choose to get paid based on results. Poor people choose to get paid based on time.
12. Rich people think “both”. Poor people think “either/or”.
13. Rich people focus on their net worth. Poor people focus on their working income.
14. Rich people manage their money well. Poor people mismanage their money well.
15. Rich people have their money work hard for them. Poor people work hard for their money.
16. Rich people act in spite of fear. Poor people let fear stop them.
17. Rich people constantly learn and grow. Poor people think they already know.

Next lesson to learn: being wealthy isn’t a dirty thing, being wealthy isn’t a dirty thing…

So, he’s off the air for a huge-ass two weeks. A suspension. Nice. He’ll be in Fiji, if you’re looking (just a guess). The Rutger’s women’s basketball team must be over the bloody moon.

This makes me laugh. How is this supposed to affect him, again? Workplace suspensions only work if the employee is living hand-to-mouth (such is life for most of America), and cannot afford the two weeks of non-pay. I’m supposed to believe that Imus is going to be eating ramen and sweating for the return of his check? Booooogus.

Nappy headed ho’s. Us Black women are nappy headed ho’s. I didn’t know that it was a bad thing to keep natural hair, if you so choose. As Pam notes, natural hair seems to be the mark of the hoooor in much of the mainstream. Think about it…even as far as brunettes are concerned. What is the hair color of a “good girl”, and was is the color of the vixen?

How much longer before women can be terminated for their cosmetic choices? Ooops. Already happened:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, said Harrah’s Entertainment Inc. could impose appearance standards on its employees, including bartender Darlene Jespersen who was fired in Reno in 2000 for failing to follow a grooming policy for beverage servers.

Among the requirements for female beverage servers was that makeup must be worn, including mascara, blush, lipstick and foundation. Jespersen objected and was given 30 days to apply for another job that did not require makeup. She did not apply and was fired.

In this case, Harrah’s required that the hair of male beverage servers could not extend below the top of the shirt collar and ponytails were prohibited. The company also said fingernails must be clean and trimmed and no colored polish is permitted. Makeup also was forbidden for men. The policy for women, in addition to makeup, was that the hair must be “teased, curled or styled” every day and must be worn down at all times. Women were also required to wear stockings of a nude or natural color, and certain colors of nail polish, with “no exotic nail art or length.” “Although employers are free to adopt different appearance standards for each sex, they may not adopt standards that impose a greater burden on one sex than the other,” Tashima wrote.

Jespersen maintained the makeup requirement imposed a bigger burden on women because cosmetics can cost hundreds of dollars per year and putting on the makeup requires significant time.

The court said there was no evidence in the record to support that contention or that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement were greater than the burdens imposed on male bartenders.

It’s amazing. You know, I have to say that this sort of thinking would never be a problem if men had to pay for this mess on a routine basis. Let me give you some prices here.

• relaxer: $60 done professionally, $10 done at home (risky, if you don’t know what you’re doing). For non-relaxer women, I’ll quote highlight prices ranging from $45 to $175.
• nails: $25 for mani/pedi combo
• makeup: haHA! Good makeup can easily set you back $200. This means foundation, blush, lipstick, shadow, finishing powder, mascara, liners.
• brows and facial waxing: $30
• skincare products: bare minimum, $40 a month.

All of the above are things that a woman should be able to do because they’re fun, not necessary. It shouldn’t be necessary to have straight hair. It shouldn’t be necessary to have perfect kewpie brows. But, somewhere along the way, it became just that.

Being a professional woman and having the right to earn still carries the whiff of indentured servitude, as if we have to pay back the favor of a payday with a healthy dose of sexual appeal. If an employer wants such standards, fine, but furnish an expense account and paid time to get these procedures done. That’s what Cirque did for a friend of mine when she got her highlights done. They paid for her hair. It was part of the costume. Point blank.

What we’re seeing in the Imus incident is a bitter disgust at the free-range woman. Affluent, pampered celebutards like Imus are used to women who do nothing but act as arm candy. He makes me think of Howard Stern in this regard. Stern’s girlfriend, Beth Ostrosky, isn’t a hardhitting journalist or businesswoman. She lives to be blonde and pretty. That’s it. That’s her job, since she’s a model. You can bet, too, that Stern and Imus, in their capacities as prominent public figures, feels that it is their duty to be seen with “the best”.

For many men, “the best” is personified by a woman who doesn’t appear to belong in the ranks of the influence brokers. She should be generic, pleasant, and doll-like. In short, she personifies the fantasy acquisition, seemingly incapable of producing a strong statement of any sort.

There’s nothing wrong with being a hottie who makes her living by being hot. What’s wrong is when people think a woman’s highest and most respectable place is in being nothing but that. A powerful woman will be forgiven much if she’s got long, silky hair, dresses provocatively, and smiles seductively.

Women who dress or appear the fantasy are instantly less threatening than their counterparts who have better things to do with their time. Imus and men of that ilk need to learn that professional ladies are way more interested in making a difference in the world than fulfilling their dick’s latest fantasy. The prevalent mindset that a woman’s best place is in the salon really needs to die a quick death.

(First off…sorry about vanishing. I’m just out of bed from having the flu. My apologies.)

Have you noticed sexual paranoia today? No? I’m surprised. Yes? If you’re living in the States, I’m not shocked in the least.

I’m fearful for folk in the US these days. With our present regime (I will not glorify this administration with the term “elected officials”), it’s becoming very hard to find out any useful sexual information. There is a lot- A LOT- of anecdotal evidence and scaremongering on the Inter-webs about sex, and not a lot of solid meat to chew on.

I also feel that most of the weight of birth control and STD control falls unduly on the shoulders of women. Mind you, I’m not saying that men should take all the pressure, and we women none. What I am saying is that I’m seeing more info pop up under Cosmo-variety magazines than Details. Funny, that.

For instance, a search of the terms “pregnancy pre cum” yields a top result from WikiAnswers.com…where “answers from this site come from users like you”. Great. Just great. Whereas the ever useful and highly-recommended MedHelp Forums gets pushed to about halfway down the page. I have to say that, even there, the help was highly anecdotal.

Just so you can get a peek at the quality of the answers:

WikiAnswers:

Answer:

As quoted from “http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Can_you_get_pregnant_from_preseminal_fluid”

” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12286905

1: Contracept Technol Update. 1993 Oct;14(10):154-6. Related Articles, Links

Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid.

[No authors listed]

PIP: A study in Boston, Massachusetts, and another study in New York City examined samples of pre ejaculate fluid from HIV seropositive and HIV seronegative men to determine whether HIV was or was not present in pre ejaculate fluid. The researchers found macrophages and CD4 lymphocytes in most samples, indicating that HIV was present. The more significant finding, however, was that most pre ejaculate samples did not contain any sperm and those that did had only small clumps of a very small amount of sperm which seemed to be immobile. A larger study is needed to verify these results. If these results are confirmed, they may dispel the myth that pre ejaculate fluid contains sperm. An ongoing WHO/USAID study shows that the pregnancy rate caused by men with 3 million sperm/ml/ejaculation is very low; fertility clinics consider men with a sperm count of no more than 5 million/ml to be infertile, particularly if is there is low motility. The average ejaculation has about 100 million sperm/ml, but about 10 million sperm pass through the cervical mucus, about 1 million make it to the top of the uterine tract, and just about 100,000 sperm reach the fallopian tubes. Thus, only a couple of sperm, assuming motility, would reach the fallopian tubes in the case of the pre ejaculate samples with some sperm, which tended to be immobile (sperm levels only in the 1000s). Thus, the probability of pregnancy is very love if pre-ejaculate fluid enters the vagina. Pre-ejaculate fluid of 6 of the 9 HIV seropositive donors in Boston and 6 of the 14 HIV seropositive donors in New York contained HIV, regardless of symptom status or antiretroviral therapy status. Thus, the risk of HIV transmission may be higher than unplanned pregnancy, so people should use condoms before the penis enters the vagina, mouth, or anus.

PMID: 12286905 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Journal of Assisted Reproduction Genetics, 2003 Apr;20(4):157-9. Zukerman asked “Does preejaculatory penile secretion originating from Cowper’s gland contain sperm?” - conclusion: “Preejaculatory fluid secreted at the tip of the urethra from Cowper’s gland during sexual stimulation did not contain sperm and therefore cannot be responsible for pregnancies during coitus interruptus.”

Here’s another two studies that were studying the HIV viral load in pre-ejaculate and incidentally showed that there isn’t sperm:

Ilaria G, Jacobs JL, Polsky B, Koll B, Baron P, MacLow C, Armstrong D, Schlegel PN. Detection of HIV-1 DNA sequences in pre-ejaculatory fluid. Lancet 1992;340:1469.

Pudney J, Oneta M, Mayer K, Seage G, Anderson D. Pre-ejaculatory fluid as potential vector for sexual transmission of HIV-1. Lancet 1992;340:1470.

Links: http://www.livejournal.com/community/vaginapagina/5007778.htmlhttp://www.livejournal.com/community/vaginapagina/4887539.htmlhttp://magazines.ivillage.com/cosmopolitan/experts/carnal/qas/0,638353_615777,00.html http://www.sexualhealth.com/question.php?Action=read&question_id=7509&channel=2&topic=33 ”

What these scientific findings suggest is that precum either does NOT contain sperm AT ALL, or that there is so little that the chances of pregnancy are very VERY low. The chances are not eliminated but they are so low that becoming pregnant from pre-cum easily becomes urban myth.

Also remember, if the man has ejaculated before you have intercourse again, the chances are increased for conception because semen will still be left within the penis itself and further along the male reproductive organ.

Obviously, use contraception and if you miss a period or have signs of pregnancy get tested and find out.

Don’t forget your common sense in light of science (e.g. use contraception, always, and every time!). More importantly, don’t use other’s common sense in place of science (e.g. people think scaring you will make you use contraception and/or stop having sex. Psychology tells us punishment (scaring you) is one of the least effective ways to stop you and change your future behavior - from a behavior stand-point that is. Only you can stop yourself in the end, and only you can discipline yourself. With your actions you will reap your own rewards. Think smart, plan ahead, and act smart.)

Answer:

I had sex one time in a nine month span…. he pulled out and actually had to finish off himself for a few seconds to ejaculate…. all that got in me was precum and I am now 11 weeks pregnant….. if you dont want it, dont risk it

Answer:

I have been having monogamous sex with the same partner for 9 years using the withdrawal method, and we haven’t got pregnant using it. EVER. I have had 2 children with him, as well, without withdrawing, because we were ready. Why are some websites trying to scare women? Just state the facts people, not your “beliefs”.

Answer:

The statistic is that a woman will get pregnant within a year of using the pull out method. Precum has sperm in it. There is a risk for pregnancy, use protection if you don’t want a baby.

I found useful info at Go Ask Alice, which is maintained by Columbia University. That site is really clean, to the point, and real.

Most sites are written towards giving advice to girls and women. This gives the idea that protection isn’t a cooperative effort between all parties involved. Also, if something untoward happens, who gets the blame? All together now…

It’s really not a huge mystery as to why four in ten women will have sexual issues during their lives. Would YOU be whooping it up if you were told that the fate of all concerned parties rests on your shoulders? Does sex seem like such a great deal when it still seems that women are called sluts and tramps for wanting to enjoy themselves equally, sharing responsibility and consequences with their partners?

Rebounding to fundamentalist principles about sexuality is not the way to go. Womanhood had always been defined as the womb’s value, and the ability of society to dictate what we can and can’t do with it (beyond abortion). Witness the present tittering and tattering about working women vs. stay-at-homes that has graced our newspaper pages, and the emergence of virginity as a sort of new accessory, much like the hallowed Birkin bag.

The only way out of this moral morass that we find ourselves in is through just admitting that:

1. Yes, we mostly all like sex.
2. Bad things can happen from it at times, but not usually. In other words, you will not get pregnant if a guy touches your pubic hair with a finger that has cum on it. You have more of a chance of dying in a double decker bus accident in the middle of Livingston, NJ while Hoffa walks out the ShopRite with some hot matzoh ball soup.
3. Both parties need to take care of themselves, which means that they take care of each other. Wow! Personal responsibility!

If we think in terms of caring for ourselves and furnishing the things that we need to be comfortable and intimate, then the problem is solved. There. Finished.

PS: For those that think that fear is the best way to teach kids…well, sure. Look at that approach’s success rate re: the War on Drugs, Terruh, rock music…didn’t work then, and it ain’t workin’ now. I think that you can see that the whole fear thing probably just makes things look all the more yummy. Truth is the way to go, not embellishment and hyperbole. Worked for me, and worked for my friends, too.