House of Eratosthenes

I’m struggling to remember where I saw this, but somewhere the “woke” kids were ‘fessing up to the real agenda: They want to problematize things. There’s a priority behind making more things problematic and it’s more important than the problematization of each individual thing. They want more problematizing. More conflict, fighting amongst ourselves, more squabbling, more back-and-forth.

Greater instability.

Problematic is a word, but problematize, problematizing, problematization, these all have the tell-tale red squiggly “you misspelled it or else it isn’t a real word” line under them when you type them into a text box or word processor. I’ve said before (somewhere) that this should not be the case; not only are these real words, but right now they’re important words. The words of our times.

Or…that’s the way it has been, up until now. Now they’re problematizing Sydney Sweeney and the American Eagle jeans ad.

I could be the one living in an echo chamber here, but it seems to me like the wet fire log isn’t catching. That’s steam, not smoke. This is a dud…the jeans ad isn’t being made problematic; not only that, but the whole trend is coming to well-deserved ruin. One can hope.

The impression given off is that these are ugly chicks jealous of Sweeney’s beauty. I came across one who insisted this was not the case. But she was fed up with these ad agencies telling us who to find sexy. Being a quiet and reserved gentleman concerned with salvaging what little dignity I have left, I let that one go — oh no I did not. Nope. I set her straight on the spot. How couldn’t I?

Doesn’t matter if Little Miss Indignant is gay or straight, whether she swings that way or not; what matters is that I swing that way, and I most certainly, definitely, emphatically, do not need an ad agency to provide me instructions to think of Ms. Sweeney as sexy, any more than I need instructions to get wet when it’s raining. That there, frankly was just a dumb thing for her to say. In fact, “ad agencies telling us what to find sexy” is exactly what has been happening with the opposite, with the two-ton lardasses waddling around in politically correct Victoria’s Secret ads.

Fit beats fat. But apart from that, there’s a healthy course correction taking place here: Men — remember us, right? — find this-and-that sexy. It’s supposed to be called “male gaze” and it’s supposed to be, well there it is again, problematic. But it isn’t. It is life itself. We are all here, I’ve mentioned a few times before, because of it. If you’re not a test tube baby, you exist because your bio-daddy thought your bio-momma was good looking. Probably not because an ad told him to look at her that way. It’s 100% natural and it is how we propagate the species.

Ads follow the men. Yes that’s right, that’s how it should work. Ads figure out what the men find sexy and the ads follow suit. Ads do not tell men what to find sexy. That whole notion should be buried a.s.a.p., zombie style with eight tons of concrete over the crypt so it never sees the light of day again. That’s another trend we’ve been practicing that just plain stupid. The male libido is a force of nature. Fashion magazines do not program it. They follow it.

Sweeney 1, Wokesters 0.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Problematizing SydneyThursday, July 31st, 2025

Problematizing Sydney
Thursday, July 31st, 2025