216.4

Not sure how that happened after eating my own weight worth of delectables at SATO Brewpub last night, but it is what it is. I've come to accept the imperfections of my scale, and the gravitational warps that exist in the space-time continuum that seem to impact my measurements every Wednesday morning. 

It is, as they say, what it is.

But I'm undeterred. I'm just waiting for soccer to end so I can get back to some semblance of a schedule after work, where I can actually manage gym time, and a healthy, home made meal at a reasonable hour, without having to sacrifice every single event, show, or activity that I would like to partake in.

Bare The Truth

In terms of why I'm working on this "Weigh-In Wednesday" thing, well, I have some goals. Physically, I know I need to be in better shape, and live healthier. I'm at the age now where I know I'm not just going to bounce back from every little thing. It's not an epiphany, but listening to what my body is telling me, and making note of how I feel recently, I realized I am now, possibly, just getting over the ailment that slowed me to a crawl a year and a half ago. It was shortly after we filmed Bumfit for Welcome To Lovejoy. I started to have unusual pain in my joints. It started in my left hip, and knee. It moved to my right hip, and left ankle. A few weeks later it was affecting my ankles, wrists, knees. My feet, and ankles were swelling to the point I couldn't fit in my shoes properly, and I was in agony most days. My doctor couldn't figure it out. Tests revealed nothing. I started making regular visits to my chiropractor, Julie Carroll, and fortunately within a few weeks, the symptoms quickly began to subside. Bumfit was filmed in January. By the end of April I was feeling better, but not 100%. 

Eventually I forgot about the illness, and I haven't considered it as affecting me, but I recently came to realize it most likely has over the past year. I injured my left big toe in March playing volleyball. It took months to heal. That was one indication. 

This past weekend, I practiced with my soccer teams, and ran almost the full practice as a player/coach. It was the most running I've done since that illness, but it left me feeling like I wanted more, not like I wanted to die. I've noticed that I am again, for the first time since that illness, springing up stairs with energy, not trudging from step to step. If I trace it back to that illness, it has been a long time since I've felt I could even do that.

I generally don't complain about aches, and pains. I have plenty. But it's nice to have fewer pains today. So I recognize that is is important, for my health, to live a healthier lifestyle.

Part two of this of course is pure vanity. 

I'm tired of having a physique that doesn't appeal to the opposite gender. Say what you want about "dad bods." I know some women say they dig "dad bods," and I've even addressed this in a previous blog, but when it comes down to it, the vast majority of humans, regardless of gender, or preferences, make their first judgments about a person based on physical appearance. I'm fairly certain, given my experience with women in social situations, very few look at the average "dad bod" sporting guy, and think, "I have to have that." Those expressions are generally reserved for men with a certain...  aesthetic. I would like to get closer to that aesthetic. I have a feeling my partner, although she says I'm attractive, and I'm fine, would appreciate me working toward those goals as well, as long as I don't get bony, and uncomfortable to snuggle with.

This brings me to my next related topic: the sexualization, and objectification of men in society.

Are Women The Only Sexualized Gender?

I would argue vehemently, no. 

Society, and the media sexualizes men, too. It just might be done in different ways. A friend of mine posted this recently in social media:

The point the poster is trying to make by all accounts is women are disinterested in physique, and would rather have a guy who looks like a dad.

Ok, I'll concede given the male standard, and what women face in reality, women would rather have someone who appears as non-threatening, not a hyper-masculine version of a guy they would otherwise find attractive, featuring knives for fingers, and looking like he's about to kill someone. That's not sexualization for the sake of turning on women though. But, dressing Hugh Jackman in a sweater, and having him pose like he's smuggly proud to have just finished changing a fighting toddler's diaper also isn't an attempt at selling magazines by getting women salivating, and fantasizing about him baking a quiche for a Sunday Brunch garden party. 

In the most basic terms, the poster is comparing Good Housekeeping, to Muscle And Fitness. Is there a single person who can debate that these two publications target extremely different demographics, for extremely different purposes, and will obviously have extremely different images? What images would you expect to go along with, "The Joys of Keepsakes Without Clutter," and what would go along with, "Torch Fat + Big Pecs"?

I digress. My point is, if you're going to argue that He-Man isn't male objectification, or sexualization because he is targeted at boys, then you also have to argue Barbie isn't female objectification, or sexualization because she is targeted at girls, which goes against the argument feminists have been making for decades. Are Barbie's unrealistic proportions, and design any more unrealistic than He-Man's?  If we accept Barbie as objectification because of her design, and ultimately the message that design sends to girls, the same can be said for He-Man. It's not necessarily what "men want him to be," but the message we're sending to young men with the image of He-Man: you will be the all powerful, desirable hero if you attain this unrealistic form. No different than what we've heard said about Barbie, and the message behind her unrealistic form. It's all objectification.

Men don't want objects any more than women want objects, but society, and the media has no problem treating people like objects.

As I noted earlier, women are just as influenced by physical, and outside of self factors in finding men attractive. Fictional crushes? Ok, let's take a look at fictional messages. Feminists complain that traditional Disney stories always seem to end with the prince rescuing the princess from whatever situation she got into. From the other side of it, the princes are always depicted as one-dimensional characters, and the only thing you know about most of them is they're ridiculously handsome, and are blessed with wealth, and power. Their only purpose is to "save the princess." Is that not also objectification? Is there any question if you would have asked women five years ago who their fictional crush was, the answer for most of them would have been Christian Grey from 50 Shades of Grey? These sloppily written novels sold over 100-million copies, heavily to a female demographic. Yes, this 27-year old BILLIONAIRE is described as, "tall, lean yet muscular, and broad-shouldered, with dark copper-colored hair and intense, bright gray eyes. He keeps in shape by kickboxing, running, and having sex."

Would the book have sold as well, or the character have had the same panache for women on such a universal level if he was a stout, middle-aged autoworker, with a beer belly, patchy facial hair, and kept in shape planting crops on his 20-acre microfarm in rural Michigan? Of course not! He had to be, as quoted by Anastasia, "...the epitome of male beauty, breathtaking." That's solely an "objectifying description" and women loved it. Otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed to be an abusive asshole masquerading as a kinky dominant.

Hugh Jackman looks great in a sweater. He also looks pretty fantastic shirtless, and in his character. I'm fairly confident a lot of women, knowing both images, will undress him with their eyes, and fantasize about life on the arm of a physically attractive, wealthy actor, who carries enough social sway to be featured on magazine covers by both Muscle And Fitness, and Good Housekeeping. Likewise, his comic book superhero character aimed at the male power fantasy of men who have never talked to women in real life will continue to objectify men by reinforcing the idea that you have to be a shredded, superhero to be anything special in this world beyond who they actually are.

To argue male objectification doesn't exist because women ALSO like to see Hugh Jackman in a sweater is a kick that went WAY wide to the left.

What Has Your Camera Done Today?

Took the family kayaking this past weekend. We rented from Silo City Kayaks. On a gorgeous Saturday afternoon, they had kayaks available (Riverworks had an hour wait), and Silo City has really nice kayaks (Riverworks's are molded plastic pool toys).

Here are some photos so you don't think that all I have today are complaints.