free counter with statistics Pajiba Love 08/30/07 | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

carrie.jpg

Pajiba Love

Think Carrie Brownstein has just been sitting around with her thumb up her ass watching Oprah since Sleater-Kinney broke up went on hiatus? (Pitchfork)

Because no good deed goes unpunished — Richard Jewell, dead at 44. (Deus Ex Malcontent)

“Full of healthy shit” is always a major selling point when choosing my packaged smoothie products. (The Impulsive Buy)

This is probably why you don’t see phrases like “Excellent raping and plundering skills” on many resumes these days. (QuizLaw)

Before you get all up in Keira Knightley’s shit — I hear she’s just preparing for a role in the upcoming live action motion picture adaption of the old B&W Disney short, “The Skeleton Dance.” So back off, haters. (Yeeeah!)

Hey nerds! Wanna see the trailer for the brand new Star Wars video game? Of course you do — and try not to drool on the keyboard. (Popoholic)

Say what you will, but there’s a reason why you don’t see many successful open marriages — and it’s the very same reason that “Jerry Springer” is so entertaining. (Feministing)

Who’d you rather? Bon Scott v. Brian Johnson edition. (A Special Way of Being Afraid)

Because the sound of his maniacal laughter is music to my ears — I bring you footage of Ricky Gervais sadistically torturing the hell out of his editor, after the jump.

Pajiba Love | August 30, 2007 | Comments (28)


← Rear Window | Death Sentence →



Comments

ahh...Ricky, Ricky. Why can't you come over and cover me up in tape sometime?

And can I just say? I think I am just going to have to start cutting George Lucas a weekly check. He's gotten so much of my (when I say my, I really mean mr.wasapnin's) money so far, I feel like I should just start making weekly payments.

Posted by: wsapnin at August 30, 2007 4:16 PM

I'm torn on Keira Knightley - some days I want to yell at her and make her eat a sandwich, and some days I want to... um...

Never mind.

Posted by: TK at August 30, 2007 4:22 PM

Before I forget..

Someone needs to just hook Keira up to a feeding tube. I don't know in what universe she believes this is pretty. She's been hanging around the trolls, umm.. I mean, Olsen's too long.

Posted by: wsapnin at August 30, 2007 4:23 PM

TK.. if you are that attracted to stop signs, there is a nice one on the corner here. Let me know,I'll see if I can pull it out of the ground so you can take it home to "um..Never mind."

Posted by: wsapnin at August 30, 2007 4:27 PM

Believe it or not, wsapnin, I'm not attracted to that type AT ALL. Seriously. But for some reason, she's the exception to that rule. Maybe it's just due to Bend It Like Beckham.

Posted by: TK at August 30, 2007 4:51 PM

Wasn't she like 14 then? You have bigger problems than I thought. Check into the psychiatric evaluation with Bill Patterson.

Posted by: wsapnin at August 30, 2007 4:57 PM

I'm going to spend the rest of the day forgetting that I read that train wreck of an article on feministing. All it did was make me really sad, but very happy for my stable relationship. Could it be considered post-modern feminism to find what a lot of what is defended under the title of "feminism" to be missing the mark? I wish I could access Yeeeah at work and look at the picture of the skinny freak show to take my mind off of it.

Posted by: katy at August 30, 2007 5:29 PM

I'm so excited to hear news about Carrie. I'm glad she's found something to do until Sleater-Kinney gets back together (please?)
Also, nothing like torturing your editor.

Posted by: Zuzu at August 30, 2007 5:34 PM

Wasn't she like 14 then?

Oh. Shit.

runs off to check IMDB.

She was 17.

Oh. SHIT!

Posted by: TK at August 30, 2007 6:46 PM

I've always found the term "open marriage" to be a bit of an oxymoron. I get open relationships, but - maybe I'm naive - I don't understand why a couple would bother getting married if monogamy isn't for them. The legal and tax benefits? I'm not even sure the legal benefits are that substantial if you're fiscally astute.

Posted by: Daphne at August 30, 2007 6:53 PM

I hate to sound like a hopeless Star Wars geek, but, uhhhhh... Holy shit. I'm fairly certain that Sith apprentice just pulled a damn star destroyer out of the sky with the force.

I wish they went with a better title though. "Force Unleashed" sounds like the name of a new Star Wars-themed flavor of Gushers or something.

Posted by: madamz at August 30, 2007 10:44 PM

Jesus, Keira looks like a bobble-head. Scary. And that smoothie looks like barf.

Posted by: Brie at August 31, 2007 12:27 AM

Daphne,
I have to disagree, I'd think the legal benefits are obvious and have little to do with finance. First example, one of you is seriously injured, in hospital, unconscious, etc., and the spouse can (legally) make decisions for you. Or even just be allowed access to you. And the symbolic meanings are important, too. You're creating a family with a marriage that you don't have with just a Relationship, even with a capital R. Think of the arguments usually presented by proponents of gay marriage. They don't have so much to do with sexual monogamy as with simpler, more mundane and yet vastly important issues.
Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think that marriage means a lot more than "access to only one set of genitalia for the rest of my life."

Also, I'm maybe a leetle drunk right now.

Posted by: isabelle at August 31, 2007 1:29 AM

"She was 17."

And a Brit, so it's actually not as bad as you think. Don't get me wrong, it's still skeezy, just not as skeezy as it could be.

Ricky Gervais is a vile little goblin man and every time I catch myself inadvertantly laughing at something he's said it makes me want to shatter my own skull with a tyre iron.

As for the Feministing article, I don't buy into the whole "One True Love" idea (yick), or even the "Sticking With One Person Forever" idea. I am however a fan of the "One At A Time" concept.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at August 31, 2007 4:41 AM

Hasn't Keira Knightley *always* looked like that? I don't know why people have started complaining about her weight only in the past year or so.

Yeah, she's a spindly bag o' bones.. but somehow, she makes that bag look really REALLY damn hot.

Posted by: monkey_b at August 31, 2007 4:50 AM

Well. My apparently latent tendency towards 17 year olds aside - I absolutely believe in "one true love". I also believe in monogamy and fidelity. For me and my wife. That said, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another. To say that we are "socially programmed to demand fidelity" is just as ridiculous as saying that we are programmed to be in open relationships. Some people choose an open marriage. Some do not. Perhaps some of it's social programming, some of it's evolution, some of it's biology. But no two couples are the same. I've got no problem with people having open relationships. But it's not for me. My wife is mine and I ain't sharing. And vice versa.

Posted by: TK at August 31, 2007 11:25 AM

Was that video from the 1st season or the second? I just recently watched season 2 on DVD and I don't remember it

Posted by: Brian at August 31, 2007 11:41 AM

awww...TK, you do have a soul!

I'm with you 100% buddy. Today's my 16th anniversary with mr.wsapnin. He's a great guy that I have molded into a wonderful husband without him even knowing I was doing it. (bwahaha -- I am a puppet master).

Anytime I have seen an open marriage or relationship it always ends in disaster.

Posted by: wsapnin at August 31, 2007 12:49 PM

What urks my nerves about people who proclaim the benefits of open marriages and open relationships is the tone of superiority they take when referring monogamous folks. They imply that monogamous couples are less socially progressive or emotionally evolved than polyamorous folks.

I don't believe I am lacking in either category by being married and faithful to one man.

I am simply lazy. I bought the cow so I would no longer have to leave my house for milk.

Posted by: Alabamapink at August 31, 2007 1:10 PM

Say what you will, but there's a reason why you don't see many successful open marriages

Yeah, because most people are freaked out by it, so it's kept secret. Swinging and open marriages are much more prevalent than you might guess. Obviously it's not right for some people, but it's foolish and naive to say that it can't work.

Posted by: MDA at August 31, 2007 1:11 PM

Wow. Links to items about Carrie Brownstein AND a star wars game---in the same column? I am overwhelmed with geekitude right now! Thanks Pajiba, as always. This could only be better if you had footage of S-K playing the star wars game, with Bon Scott-led AC/DC playing in the background, I think my brain would simply melt down from nerd overdose. sw33t!

Posted by: Jay at August 31, 2007 1:15 PM

I think I summed it up well the other day when I emailed the Mr. a link to an article about oral sex causing alarmingly large numbers of mouth and throat cancer, stating another reason I'm happy to be in a monogamous relationship. Why would I want to play the single game again to try and get laid by strangers? For the thrill of something new? Well let me tell you jaded single people (not all single people), a marriage that is continually growing in it's level of intimacy, physical and otherwise, leaves plenty of opportunities for renewall in itself. Really. I shit you not.

MDA - There seems to be a clear distinction between being swingers and being in an open marriage, as stated by self-proclaimed swingers on the other blog. Swinging is done as a couple, fucking other people is an individual act. I too have heard that swingers can have very successful marriages, and my guess would be because it's an activity they do together. Kind of like bowling.

Posted by: katy at August 31, 2007 1:34 PM

Kind of like bowling.

Of all the funny shit I've read today, for some reason that might be the funniest.

awww...TK, you do have a soul!

Shut it! Don't tell anyone.

Posted by: TK at August 31, 2007 2:05 PM

Just for the purpose of clarification, I am not, nor have I ever been, in an open relationship of any kind.

Most people I've known in open relationships also do it together. The ones I've seen are more like, "I'm a dude, and this is my main chick, and then there's this other chick we both bang" than "I'm gonna go fuck this broad while you watch the kids. See ya later!" Perhaps there are varying definitions of what an open relationship really is. Or perhaps not. Not being in that lifestyle myself, I can't honestly say I know.

Posted by: MDA at August 31, 2007 2:18 PM

Brian -- that clip was from the first season of "Extras." The second season (which I also just watched) has like a half hour bonus feature of him tormenting Nigel. It just never ends. Incredible.

And TK stated very eloquently my exact feelings about that article. However anyone wants to conduct their marriage is their fucking business. But to suggest that to want monogamy is not "socially progressive" is just ridiculous. Humans aren't the only species that are instinctively monogamous. It's called fucking biology, asshats.

And I'm not saying that people can't have successful open relationships, but from what I've observed it seems like one person in the relationship tends to get hurt. And the author of that article pretty much proved that point herself, albeit unintentionally.

Posted by: litelysalted at August 31, 2007 2:22 PM

Good God that feministing article made me want to puke. I really resent the implication that open-marriages are somehow more progressive and a superior social arrangement (Riiiight, keep telling yourselves that).

Frankly I don't see how having casual sex with multiple partners that you don't love is a mark of social superiority. In fact, that article and most of the commentors, just struck me as a bunch of selfish, shallow, sexual degenerates who want to have their cake and eat it to (I know it is politically incorrect to judge in such a manner but I don't care at the moment). They want to have sex with lots of people but demand the societal respect and benefits of monogamy. Um no. Sorry pervs, not going to happen.

I guess if screwing around gives you and your partner personal fulfillment than that's your own business but I hope these people don't think they are fooling anyone with these aspersions on the dignity and respectfulness of monogamy.

Posted by: Elle at August 31, 2007 3:14 PM

but from what I've observed it seems like one person in the relationship tends to get hurt. And the author of that article pretty much proved that point herself, albeit unintentionally.

I think that's what gave me the gut reaction of sadness above anything else. She is so obviously hurting her husband by this but really doesn't seem to care. And she's smug enough about it to have written a book on how successful their open marriage is. Um, you and your husband don't have an open marriage, you do. Plus, two years of doing this is not long enough to deem it a success. I would bet a large sum of money that five years down the road she'll be eating her words when her husband has left her, and used her sexual escapades as a legal reason as to why he should have custody of their daughter. Not to mention the damaged man that he'll be, who will have a lot of work ahead of him to learn to trust again.

Posted by: katy at August 31, 2007 3:51 PM

First example, one of you is seriously injured, in hospital, unconscious, etc., and the spouse can (legally) make decisions for you. Or even just be allowed access to you. And the symbolic meanings are important, too. You're creating a family with a marriage that you don't have with just a Relationship, even with a capital R. Think of the arguments usually presented by proponents of gay marriage.

I'm not a lawyer (where are you, Samantha T?), but isn't there some sort of legal document, a health care directive or something, in which you can specify who makes health decisions for you? I probably should not have used fiscally astute, as it assumes only financial shrewdness. I'm just saying that there seems to be ways to ensure your interests are protected without necessarily getting married (if that's not your thing). I read a few comments on the site that allude to such benefits.

I don't really see the comparison to gay marriage because in most states, they can't even legally get married.

In any case, it's kind of moot because, as already mentioned, the author doesn't have a true open marriage. She basically cheated on her husband, declared "Mulligan!," and feels free to sex up who she wants while he's feeling uncomfortable. Also, she never even bothered to discuss it with him during their multi-year relationship or pre-nuptials. She's not presenting a valid perspective on "socially progressive" open marriages so much as she comes off like a selfish manipulator. I have to agree with a couple of the guys who commented - if the same scenario occurred with the genders reversed, I'm thinking many wouldn't have jumped on the open marriage bandwagon, at least not in that comment section. Interestingly enough, no one addressed that (at least not as of yesterday).

Posted by: Daphne at August 31, 2007 6:38 PM