Burnettiquette

Rich men are better lovers?

According to a new study, the Chinese Family Life Survey, women are sexually aroused to the sweet, sweet, stink of money.

I don't know why this surprises me. It is the excuse I used for being dateless my freshman year of college. Surely I'm not the only guy here who used to reason to his friends back in the day that "she must be stuck up," or "she only wants him 'cause his dad bought him a Mustang 5.0 (we didn't aim high where cars are concerned)," or "she got ticked off when I asked her to get out and push my car, while I steered and popped the clutch so we could get it started again."

Maybe I am the only one.

Anyway, the study says that intimate relations with rich men leave women more satisfied than intimate relations with broke guys. There is a possibility, the study says that women who are prone to frequent satisfaction may seek out guys with fat wallets.

Hardly seems fair to the good-hearted guy who bags groceries for a living.

Ladies - at least those of you who've dated a wide range of salariess - is this true?

I think I can say for all men, tsk tsk, especially since the study also suggests that men are less likely to be swayed in the bedroom by their female partner's assets. What?

Ted Haggard seeks forgetfulness

I read a couple of interviews this morning with Ted Haggard, former Colorado mega-church pastor who preached against homosexuality but resigned two years ago amid a gay sex scandal.

Haggard, now an insurance salesman, has a documentary coming out soon on HBO called The Trials of Ted Haggard.

In the documentary he says that he still finds himself attracted to men sometimes. He says he and his family are going strong. He says God has forgiven him.

He says all the things you'd expect from a man in his position.

But one thing really jumped out at me: In spite of statements in the documentary from religious leaders with whom Haggard used to work that they had forgiven him for the wrecking ball he took to his family and his congregation, Haggard says in the film that he's angry with his former church 'cause it essentially has told him to "go to hell" for his actions.

Haggard was so wrong. I'm not talking about him being gay or temporarily gay or bisexual, or whatever. I don't care, don't care, don't care. My problem is with his hypocrisy in telling his congregation it was damnable behavior while engaging in gay sex himself, the risk he put his wife in by having sex with a prostitute and then going home to her, the danger he put his whole family in doing illicit drugs, etc.

If his church says it forgives him, what else does Haggard want from those folks? Maybe it's just me, but it seems that people like Haggard use "forgiveness," when they really mean "forgetfulness." Along with forgiving their wrongdoing, they want you to automatically restore them to former glory, to their pre-trouble status.

But that's just not practical or natural. I've always thought that whole forgive-and-forget mantra was bogus when it comes to major offenses, 'cause I don't think it's in human nature to just forget.

Let's say Mrs. B hits me in the back of the head with a frying pan, one of those big stainless steel numbers - and she hasn't, but I once covered an attempted murder case where the wife did that 'cause her husband complained about her cooking - once my eyes got uncrossed and the swelling subsided and my speech was no longer slurred, I might forgive her, and we might subsequently live happily ever after. But I guarantee you I'd never forget...unless the blow to the head caused brain damage that made me forget.

Seriously, have you ever literally forgotten the wrong a person did you, even after you forgave that person? You may not dwell on the incident or dream about it or obsess in any way, but it's still in the back of your mind. Haggard says in the documentary that he and his wife are doing well now. Maybe, but I'll bet from time to time she remembers he played dueling wangs with a male prostitute.

There are exceptions to every rule, of course. Sometimes you have to exercise compassion and a sense of humor and treat the person who offended you as though you have forgotten their offense. There's a moral lesson in that sort of compassion too. But save it for when your future president chops down a cherry tree that he shouldn't have, or when you catch your kid with his hand in the cookie jar, or when your spouse snaps at you 'cause she had a bad day at work and you know all the while that she doesn't mean you any harm.

But the Ted Haggards of the world don't warrant that sort of compassion. Give it to them and what you're telling them is that there are no consequences for big bad deeds.

Books, Bonding, or Boob Tube? "Experts" say the answer reflects your happiness.

According to a University of Maryland study, out today, the more you read or spend your leisure time socializing the happier you're likely to be.

Conversely the more leisure time you spend watching TV the less happy you're likely to be, the study says.

Interestingly enough, the study also says that unhappy people are perfectly content or "happy" with the role television plays in their lives.

The study's authors surveyed 30,000 people and examined data collected over a 30-year period.

I don't know how right or wrong they are, but I'll say the study makes sense. If you're spending the bulk of your non-working time sitting in front of a TV - especially if you're sitting there alone, that's kind of sad. So I can see the whole "unhappy" equation.

And while I'm no scientist it also makes sense to me that reading, because it probably requires more brain power, can make you more satisfied, or happier.

And the socializing thing? That's pretty self explanatory. Humans are meant to be social creatures. Fulfilling that instinct has to help your happiness level.

Which category do you fall in? I like to think I'm happy. I mean I do read a lot. Mrs B. and I probably don't go out with friends as often as we should. But we socialize. I admit though I watch way too much TV - at least too much by my standards.

Eh, two out of three isn't bad.

There's love n the air between Democrats & Republicans

I forgot to post sooner the article I had in yesterday's paper.

Tough Love: Jennifer Hudson

By now you probably know that the mother, brother, and nephew of singer and Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Hudson were murdered last week at their Chicago home.

And you probably know that the prime person of interest in police custody is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister, the stepfather of the boy.

I feel sympathy for Hudson and her sister Julia,first and foremost. But beyond that sorry I had to think hard about the blame game in this case.

What prompted my reflection was part of a statement Julia Hudson wrote on her MySpace page about the murders of her mother, brother, and son: "...Now because I chose to do what was natural to me and love someone, it cost me my beautify family my wonderful beautiful loving supporting mother Darnell, my true blue baby brother Jason, I love you Big Baby...And last but never not (sic) least my only son Julian, my innocent baby one that was sheltered from all the evil oin (sic) the world because we loved him so much..."

The logic for her self-flagellation? William Balfour, Julia's estranged husband and the Chicago Police Department's "person of interest," has a lengthy criminal record, peppered with violent behavior, including attempted murder, for which he was convicted and served prison time (from which he may have accidentally been paroled too soon).

I get why Julia Hudson would blame herself. She survived. Her kid and family didn't. Survivor's guilt is a common reaction after this sort of tragedy.

But she's not to blame for the murders. The killer, who hopefully will fry, is to blame.

That being said, let's talk bluntly about relationships. Julia Hudson married this fat head within months of his release from prison. There was no mistaking where he'd been all those years. Reportedly, as their marriage got rocky, Balfour told Julia Hudson repeatedly that while he had girlfriends on the side, if she dated anyone else he'd kill her. Why in the world would she have wanted to hook up with this kind of guy? Again, she's not guilty. If he killed her family, he's guilty. Still, I say my question's a valid one.

A female friend scolded me over this line of thinking earlier this morning, 'cause, she said, Julia Hudson likely had low self esteem.

Ladies, you have to help me understand this self esteem thing. How badly do you have to feel about yourself that when you consider the sort of man you want in your life and your child's life you settle for a violent felon? Why not hold out till a nice guy comes along?

That's all. No more pontification from me. The murders aren't her fault 'cause she didn't commit them, but you can't run away from the fact that this guy didn't have to be in their lives at all.

Peace and prayers to the Hudson family.

The Cowboy Code: Delivering Reallllllly Bad News to an Ex

Have you ever hooked up with someone and then wondered later if you did the wrong thing?

Well, according to ABC News, if you get an email from an ex these days whose subject line starts off "You're too hot to be out of action...," don't delete it. It's probably not spam.

That subject line concludes "..."I got diagnosed with herpes since we played."

Yeah, I know. That's a messed up prank. Except it's really not. Seriously. If you have time, follow the link. ABC News profiles this public health Web site that allows people to send cutesy e-cards to former sex partners they may have infected with a sexually transmitted disease or two. The story says that the site grew out of an effort to use technology to help people keep partners informed and so on.

That part is admirable. Don't keep your crotch diseases secret. I get it. But I can't be the only person who wonders about the lack of civility that comes with informing a former partner through email that you may have infected them with something.

Now, as you may know, the Cowboy Code is generally a guide to male friendships with one another and a guide to understanding male behavior in relation to romance with women. But it is also a guide to good sense and courtesy for both men and women in relationships.

And I don't think I need to tell you that there are very few exceptions to when it's appropriate to share any kind of serious news over the Web or by phone with an ex-romantic partner.

In fact, I think that there are only two exceptions:

1. If you and an ex parted ways on reasonably good terms, geographically you and that ex live far apart these days, and you don't keep in close contact with that ex, then it's OK to tell them through email that your mom is sick, or your old dog died, or (this one's debatable) you're engaged.
2. The second exception would be that you simply write better than you speak. I don't know how many of us can say that. But if that applies to you, and it's not just an excuse to avoid seeing your ex, then at least write it the old-fashioned way - with pen, on paper. Be thoughtful, and include a phone number in the letter, in case your ex, after reading your letter, wants to call you and hash it out further.

Barring those exceptions, all serious news needs to be delivered face-to-face, unless you live so far apart that an in-person meeting just isn't practical.

It's bad enough breaking up with someone over the phone. But this takes the cake. If you kiss or otherwise swap fluids with someone, and they walk away with anything more than a warm fuzzy feeling...that doesn't require a shot of something that ends with "cilin," you owe them a face-to-face explanation.

Otherwise, you are guilty of the worst lack of Burnettiquette and are in clear violation of the Cowboy Code.

Sexual Healing

There's been some buzz online and in a few newscasts this morning about studies at the University of Miami's Touch Research Institute that say touching your significant other is good for your health.

I confess, when I saw the headlines my immediate reaction was that they were talking sex, 'cause you can't touch more closely than that.

But apparently this research is talking about hand-holding, hugging, kisses, and non-sexual massage, PG-13 stuff.

Having read snippets, I have to admit this makes sense. It's all about relaxing, losing tension, and literally feeling good as a result of close contact with that significant other.

Reportedly, when you touch your partner's hand or simply hug your partner, your body is prompted to release a hormone called oxytocin AKA the "happy hormone," known, when interacting with dopamine from the brain, to lower blood pressure and stress, and even suspected of promoting the faster healing of wounds.

So I don't have a brain that operates on the same wavelengths as doctors and other scientists, but I can't help but wonder if simple romantic touching can improve your health and extend your life shouldn't sex make you healthier than a mule and help you live to be 100?

There has to be something to that theory, considering this touch research also acknowledges that women's bodies seem to get more health benefit out of non-sexual touching than men's bodies.

But as much as I want my theory to be true, I'm sure some doctor will shoot it down.

Can't blame me for trying though.

Politics, Palin, Pregnancy

Let's get this part out of the way, right away: The fact that Republican Veep candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's 17-year-old kid is pregnant does not make the kid a fair topic of partisan political discussion or debate.

But I'm not partisan!

Still, while I often have beef with select broadcast pundits for having no shame in their underhanded personal attacks and their use of half truths as weapons, I believe in credit where it's due. And since the news broke about the Palin daughter's pregnancy I haven't heard or heard of one TV pundit who has gone after the girl.

All that being said, I believe there's a little confusion on facts vs. issues.

The pregnancy is a matter of fact. The girl is a minor. That's a matter of fact. The girl is not running for office. That's a matter of fact. The girl intends to keep the baby. That intention is a matter of fact. The girl's decision is in keeping with her family's public pro-life stance. None of those facts needs to be debated or publicly pondered. They are what they are.

But there are related issues that are fair game, and I'm waiting to see if the pundits address those issues in any detail.

For example, there are premarital sex by minors and unsafe sex. I agree with all sides that Palin's daughter is not a political pinball. However, her situation cast in the shadow of her mother's staunch position that the only good sex education is abstinence education, makes that position fair game for debate.

If you've read this blog before, you know my pops is a pastor, who is pro-life. You know that I attended a parochial high school, where we didn't get sex ed. You don't necessarily know that my school, while significantly smaller in size than nearby public schools, experienced several high profile pregnancies during my tenure. I was friends with the parties involved. To a man...and woman, they all said after the fact that in the moment they weren't thinking about anything but the act of sex itself, and getting it right.

So I'm not advocating over-the-top sex ed. In fact, I'm not advocating sex ed at all. If you want your kid to have it, make sure he is in a school where he'll get it. If you don't want your kid to have it, don't let him take the classes. But make sure you teach him about humans and sex at home. I say humans and sex, 'cause that birds and bees nonsense has to stop. I've never learned anything about how to have sex, or have safe sex from fowl or insects.

Anyway, I don't see any problem with the pundits asking whether or not some form of sex ed might have led to the introduction of condoms into the sex life of Palin's daughter and the daughter's boyfriend, and possibly have prevented the pregnancy.

It's not a knock on the kid. It's a question about a policy Palin supports for other American kids, kids who aren't hers.

And hopefully, if the question is raised, Palin's supporters will demand to see evidence that learning about condoms in school compels more teenagers to use them. Don't harp to me that there is data proving it. For every kid who answers sex life surveys in school, there are two or three more who either lie on those surveys or choose not to answer 'em. Let's not forget the wisdom of Mark Twain when it comes to statistics: On the sliding scale of fibbing, there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Frankly, if I had not been such a combo jock/dork/debate club geek/barbershop quartet member/?, I might have had a legitimate shot at sex before age 17. And if I'd had such a shot, I can't guarantee you I'd have remembered a condom in the heat of the moment. I mean I kept them in my car way back then, in the unlikely event that I'd get to use them before becoming a legal adult. But even straight A students can forget things in the heat of the moment....not that I was a straight A student, in no-sex ed or any other subject.

Last and least, since the balance and fairness of media coverage always seems to leach into political debates these days, if Barack Obama's eldest daughter was a few years older and it came out that she was pregnant by a high school boyfriend, would the media react the same way, or would Obama be taken to task for preaching the "gospel" of personal responsibility while his own daughter was engaging in unsafe sex? Would the race baiters come out and argue that Obama's family was contributing to the high rate of black children born to single mothers?

On a related note, Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden has been classified by both partisans and non-partisan "analysts" as a socially liberal politician. If one of his youngest sons had impregnated a girl in high school, would Biden be taken to task now for letting having let his liberal ways cloud his parental judgment and hinder him from keeping his household under control?

As always, don't get mad. I'm just asking questions!

Your opinion, please?

Random snippets of this and that

So I'm done blogging about the major storm that wasn't and back to reporting and blogging my usual stuff.

On that note, this is the time for us to remember the romance! Doesn't that sound like a war cry, like "Remember the Alamo?"

I ask 'cause I got a unintentionally funny email this morning from a colleague in PR, who is promoting National Romance Awareness Month, AKA August.

Who comes up with these months, and why haven't they designated September James Burnett is Cooler than the Other Side of the Pillow Month?

But the funny thing about this particular month to me is one single word: "awareness."

So rather than simply have National Romance Month, a month that by its very title would celebrate romance, we have National Romance Awareness Month, a month that by its title suggests we should make an effort to know that somewhere out there is romance. Whether we choose to pursue it is another story altogether.

Here's my tip for National Romance Awareness Month: Be aware that you need to consistently do nice, thoughtful, sometimes sexy things for your significant other. If you don't, next year this time you'll be celebrating National Wish-I-had-been-Aware of Romance Month.

Moving right along, I was watching the Comedy Central Roast of Bob Saget (the dad from Full House and former host of America's Stupidest Funniest Home Videos) last night. And I think I may have heard the perfect put-down for the first time ever.

Keep in mind that while I don't play the dozens anymore and haven't for nearly 20 years, 'cause I'm grown and its disrespectful, back in the day I was a master at Yo' Momma jokes. I studied put-downs like math whizzes studied theorems. I don't know what to tell you. If I had a shrink he'd probably say it was my strategy to cope with a few dim-witted bullies I went to elementary and middle school with.

So when Comedy Central revived the classic roast a few years ago, I started to watch, curious to see whether any of the comedians charged with skewering the guest of honor could pull it off. They all made me laugh, but I don't think any got a brilliant dig in till the Saget roast.

Bob Saget's roast was hosted by Full House co-star John Stamos, the same John Stamos who was married to super duper model Rebecca Romijn, until he somehow screwed up and lost her. But he didn't just lose her. He lost her and she hooked up with actor Jerry O'Connell. When comedian Greg Giraldo took the stage he turned to Stamos, who'd been giving grief to a few of the other comics, and shook his head incredulously and said "you lost your wife to the fat kid from Stand by Me!"

Priceless. Cold, but priceless.

OK, I'll be back with a more grown-up topic in a couple hours.

What "When" makes are you happy?

Howdy, folks. New day, new topic.

Thanks for weighing in on yesterday's post about workplace favoritism though. We had record traffic in the hallways of Burnettiquette.

Anyway, moving right along, I've been reading parts of a study on happiness from the University of Chicago.

The study looks at 47,000 people, presumably an equal split of men and women, since the focus of the study was whether and when men are happier than women, or women than men.

In a nut shell, the results of the study are that in their 20s, women are typically happier than men. The study's authors say that revelation seems to be tied to the facts that younger men in their 20s tend to have "weak" love lives and pretty crummy first jobs. I agree those two things are enough to make any guy miserable.

However, the study said that into the late 40s the happiness gap closes steadily between men and women. By the late 40s the gap has essentially closed. And older than that men are significantly happier than women.

I can't speak to the older elements of this study, but I like to think I was pretty happy in my early 20s. I had a pretty good job - completely earned if any of my detractors from yesterday are reading, I was in college, I was healthy and had a pretty good physique back then, even if I do say so myself, and I had a few nice girlfriends.

If we're being totally honest though, I admit I was bummed out sometimes that I wasn't better with the ladies back then. In fact, I was terrible! In retrospect, I'm surprised I ever got a date before I turned 25. So that part of the study I believe. But while I was sometimes disappointed with my job back then, it wasn't 'cause I had a bad job. It was because I had a tough, sometimes physically grueling job that often left me tired nearly to the point of tears when I got off work at 7 a.m. and headed to my first college classes of the day. So I think I'm gonna disagree with the job happiness element of the study.

Having studied my folks (married nearly 40 years) and other "successful" couples over the years, I'm gonna take a "wild" leap and speculate on how and why the happiness gap closes between the sexes beyond the 20s: I'll bet there's a direct correlation between men and women in increasing and lowering rates of happiness, respectively, and men and women who are in long-term relationships like marriage, as they age.

I'll bet that there is more happiness parity between men and women who remain single as they inch toward their later years.

My logic is that single people, regardless of age, can spend more of their energy on satisfying themselves. And when people get married or settle down together it seems they sacrifice some of their own happiness for the sake of their partner's happiness and for the sake of compromise - for the happiness of the relationship. I'm not saying they sacrifice grudgingly. I'm sure it's often willing. But everything I've ever read about traditional relationships between men and women suggests that women tend to sacrifice more for their men's happiness than the other way around - giving up things like career dreams to make sure their guy reaches his career goals, taking the lead on raising and nurturing the kids, etc.

I know my mom's happy. But I know she's devoted a lot of her time to making sure my dad, and my sister and I were happy. So inevitably she's focused less of her attention on her own happiness. Then again, maybe doing for us is what's made her happy over the years. And I'm confident Mrs. B is happy, but I know she's sacrificed in order to help me advance my career.

CBS News reporter Cynthia Bowers has an interesting take on this, in which she touches on the family-raising element, and the all-around stress of aging itself.

So what say you? Am I all wet here, or does my theory make sense?