Tuesday, May 31, 2011

What Would GQ Do?

Last week I received my latest issue of GQ, which isn't all that exciting except for the fact that I found this little gem:

Above is a blurb which reads as follows:
Just Say No to Rapper Headphones
Props to Dr. Dre, who recently hit upon the only thing a rapper hadn't yet shilled: headphones. Beats by Dre has been a runaway success, and now 50 Cent and Ludacris are hocking headgear. But c'mon, y'all -- this isn't 1998, when dudes rocked Wallabees to be like Wu-Tang. If you're still chasing rapper-endorsed status symbols in 2011, it's time to quit asking yourself, "What would Jay-Z do?" and start asking, "What would I do?" -Will Welch
Clearly, the only way for me to address this is an open letter to Billy himself...

Dear Mr. Will Welch:

RE: "Just Say No to Rapper Headphones"

I do not disagree with your sentiments that people shouldn't just buy something because someone famous endorses it. But do you not find it even the slightest bit absurd or incongruent** for you, an employee of GQ magazine - a magazine whose sole purpose is to tell men what they should and should not buy and wear - are telling people not to be "followers" in what they wear and buy? If people really were to simply ask themselves "What would I do?" in the area of fashion and accessories, wouldn't you be out of a job?

Why not just call a spade a spade and say, "...If you're still chasing rapper-endorsed status symbols in 2011, it's time to re-up on your GQ subscription and quit asking yourself, 'What would Jay-Z do?' and start asking, 'What would GQ tell me to do?'"?


P.S. - GQ, once my free 1-year subscription to your magazine is up, I will not be renewing. I just want to make that clear upfront, so as not to be accused of sending mixed signals later.

** - Did you know that the definition for "incongruent" is "not congruent". Talk about a useless definition. Thanks Merriam-Webster!

Friday, May 6, 2011

You are great just the way you are... sort of.

Yesterday The 'Cob, CL6, and I were at lunch - Thai Thursday. At one point, the conversation turned to dating and I mentioned that I had signed up for online dating, but that it still seemed weird to me. CL6 commented that he thought within 5 years the stigma of online dating would be gone (CL6 is married, so the dating game isn't something that he worries too much about), but The 'Cob said that he thought the stigma was mostly gone already (the stigma*, of course, being that only weirdos with no social skills resort to online dating).

Fast-forward to this morning. As I was walking to my car to go to work, I checked my mailbox and what did my eyes behold?

GQ Magazine. Which is weird because I don't subscribe to GQ, nor do I want to subscribe to GQ, and I definitely don't want to pay for GQ. So I called and asked why I was sent the magazine. The woman told me it was because I signed up for XYZ dating site and it came with a 1-year subscription to GQ. I asked if I was going to be automatically billed at the end of the year and she said no. So I guess I get GQ now.

However, what does this say about online dating? Sounds to me like this dating site is only reinforcing the above stated stigma... "oh, you are signing-up for our site? hmmm, ok, well, we are going to send you this magazine for a year to help you out. You are great the way you are... sort of... just *ahem* read this and take some hints."

*As a side note, I don't really feel like there is a huge stigma about online dating anymore. It seems that it is becoming more normal and most of the girls that I have talked to through dating sites are normal and cool. But I do think it is funny that they send all the guys GQ... I wonder what the girls get. 

Happy Birthday to The 'Cob!