November Odds and Ends

A couple of weeks ago, I ordered a new winter bathrobe -- I had to order it because they didn't have the color I wanted in stock at the store. 3 guesses as to which color I chose. It finally showed up yesterday, and not a moment too soon, either.

Summer has finally packed its bags and left town. Last night dipped into the 20s and tonight is supposed to do the same. I wore the new robe for the first time last night and it did the job -- I was nice and toasty. It's thick enough and sufficiently long that I'll be warm, even if I'm naked underneath.
______________________________________

In the Odd News section, Yahoo noted that an Illinois middle-schooler was given two days of detention for hugging two friends goodbye for the weekend,

School officials defended the detention by citing the school handbook: "Displays of affection should not occur on the school campus at any time. It is in poor taste, reflects poor judgment, and brings discredit to the school and to the persons involved."

Say what? The girl wasn't humping her boyfriend in the halls -- she was showing affection for two platonic friends. I suppose the school would have found it in better taste if she'd given them each the finger instead.

Zero tolerance policies don't allow for the exercise of common sense and are worse than useless, in my opinion.
______________________________________

While browsing the Yahoo news page, I also came upon an article about relationships with the title; "Does a Wandering Eye Mean a Wandering Heart?" This was an article that discussed whether men who look at and note the attractiveness of women other than their wife/partner will take the next step and pursue the ones they found attractive.

My first thought was to rename the article to make it more blunt and to the point: "Does a Wandering Eye Mean a Wandering Cock?". After all, any wandering would be about sex, and not necessarily about love. A man who would wander would not necessarily waver in his love for his wife; it would be all about lust.

Of course, in my own instance, it wouldn't be the looking that would prompt the wandering. I'm already pre-disposed to wandering, so I could have been born a blind man and I'd still be tomcatting. And, of course, it wouldn't be practical for me to pursue every woman I find attractive. There would be enough hours in the day if I did.

Naturally, the author didn't focus on men like me; he focused on the ones who don't wander. He made the point that men who are committed to being monogamous can look and appreciate, without having to follow through; that men are perfectly capable of "window-shopping", but keeping their "wallets" in their pockets.