Vampires. I’m a huge fan of horror movies, but I’ve really began to loathe vampires.

To be clear, there are some great vampire films out there spanning decades, and occasionally a really good new one will appear.

So what’s my beef with undead blood suckers? It’s really my disgust with how all things “Vampire” have evolved in pop culture over the last thirty or so years, but especially over the last twenty.

Vampires are a great classic monster. Almost every culture has at least one creepy vampire myth, and the film and literature versions were mostly scary, until 1976 when “Interview With the Vampire” was published. Now, by that time vampires probably needed a dose of originality to keep them frightening for newer audiences, but keeping them as monsters would’ve been preferable to turning them into bisexual immortal super heroes, which is how Anne Rice’s vampires have always struck me.

I’m not the hugest Stephen King fan, but 1975’s “Salem’s Lot” managed to keep the vampires a lot spookier than Lestat and company. If a dead blood sucker isn’t at least spooky then something has been lost along the way.

Yes, the movie vampires have almost always had powers of seduction. It is part of the myth’s appeal, but when the undead begin to resemble gothic club pickup artists more than hell-spawned creatures of darkness, that’s going to get in the way of my enjoyment.

About that gothic club thing…

I’ve been around the gothic music scene since the 80’s, and while I don’t presently claim any sort of membership in the gothic subculture, I am fond of some of the music and associated culture. I own an old Cadillac hearse, I collect horror movie props, my house looks like a horror museum of sorts, and my old bands played gothic and industrial music clubs all over a North America. I have some considerable experience around that scene.

The gothic subculture is a lively one strangely enough, and has mutated and continues to mutate as the years roll on. One of the weirder developments in that subculture was the introduction of vampire role playing games into the mix. Way back in 1991, the “Vampire the Masquerade” game was released, and fangtards everywhere were suddenly born. People that probably never would’ve set foot inside a gothic dance club before were donning leather trench coats and top hats, and snapping in a set of fake fangs for a night out on the town.

This was not a good development in preserving the inherent scariness of vampires. Encountering goofy vinyl wrapped fanboys and girls wearing fake teeth and in some cases expecting others to take their vampirism seriously made vampires seem dumber than ever before.

Yeah, a few of these costumed nerds actually expected the rest of us to believe that they were REALLY vampires. Made me want to drive a fucking stake through the lot of them.

Look, I fully support anyone’s right to shape their reality in any way they see fit, but don’t expect me to believe your patently absurd bullshit. There are even a few of these nouveau vamps that see their fake undead status as a “religion” of sorts, and who see it as some sort of energy transfer..

I would be fine with people absorbing certain aspects of Vampirism into their state of being, but so much of this stuff just looks like a sad cry for attention. Someone who actually possessed certain vampiric qualities probably wouldn’t need to go to some “Vampire Night” at the local goth club wearing a fricking cape.

So there has been a silly convergence of comic book and role playing game style fandom, combined with gothic club culture and vampire fiction.

Somehow this combining of elements has managed to make all of those things worse. Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, some stuff just doesn’t go well together, and gothic culture and vampire wannabes are one of those things.

The Internet has created and organized all sorts of subcultures, and in the case of “real vampires” this has drawn more people to “embrace” the goofiness.

Probably as an attempt to market to these types of vampire fans, a new generation of shitty vampire movies came into being. Films like the “Underworld” series, or the “Blade” films look like they’re tailor made for the fake fang and top hat crowd. Unfortunately, this “Clubification” of the vampire myth has made them less scary. Now they’re just sexually seductive anti-heroes, and might as well be a new kind of super hero. That’s fucking stupid to me.

Let’s review:

Vampires are supposed to be dead, and the real myths are fairly gruesome, not sexy. Most film and book depictions up until Anne Rice shat all over the myth preserved the central monstrosity of vampires even when they were shown to have powers of seduction.

Somewhere along the line, a specific kind of nerd fan base was born, and when vampire role playing games came along, many of those folks started integrating some sort of fake vampirism into their public life.

Movies inevitably came along, and suck followed. Not blood sucking either, just sucking in general. I guess it goes without saying that that I’m not a fan of these types of films, and would like to see the vampire preserved as a scary monster, not the greasy dude wearing ill-fitting vinyl pants in the corner of some dance club, trying to pick up chicks.

Oh yes, the role playing connection has also created an equally stupid “werewolf” subculture. It’s like the vampires except hairier. Also like the vampires, some of these folks expect you to believe their status as a magical being, despite them being unable to demonstrate any supernatural powers at all.

I’ll leave you with this image. Once, many years ago, my roommate and I were working at a comic book convention as part of our job. We accidentally walked through the wrong door into a huge banquet hall filled with mostly obese “werewolf” people in the middle of some sort of live action role playing game. They were all howling in unison, as if the Ramada Inn had been transformed into a Transylvanian Forest.

Roommate and I exchanged a glance and backed the fuck out of that place.

Somewhere in there is a pimply guy wearing fangs, clutching a copy of “Interview With a Vampire”, and his boner.

Basically a bible for blood sucking nerds.

I work as the manager of a grocery store meat department. This was not some life passion I pursued. I fell into it out of a mix of desperation and luck, and it pays my bills.

My vocation also gives me ample opportunities to consider the weird attitudes that people have about the foods they choose to eat, but that weirdness is particularly remarkable when it comes to their choice to eat meat. I regularly encounter folks that want to eat the “best” meat they can. They throw around words like “grass-fed” and “organic”, but most of them don’t really know what that stuff means. They just know it’s supposed to be “better” in some vague fashion.

Occasionally some customer will ask me how fresh a cut is, and I tell them the “Kill Date,” since that would be the most accurate gauge of freshness. They’ll act repulsed or even sad, because they are so far removed from what meat actually is that they don’t want to think of it having been a living creature at one point. That’s my guess anyway. It’s easier for them to look at the pink and red carefully trimmed cuts, which don’t necessarily look like they were from a creature that was living and breathing a week previously. I don’t mention the kill date to be an asshole, but so they know what meat is. People shouldn’t forget the reality of what they eat.

Meat may be delicious, but people that eat it are eating the flesh of a corpse, so the idea of “quality” and “freshness” do give me a little dark laugh.

Weird thing about meat is how polarizing the question of eating it is. I would guess that a majority of Americans are omniivores, and it’s amazing to me that so many of them will ridicule or harass vegetarians, as if that’s an insane lifestyle choice. I know people that would criticize a person for showing intolerance of any kind, but who still take weird jabs at vegetarians, for choosing to not eat meat.

Or they’ll act as if the concept of not eating dead animals is completely crazy and abhorrent to their sensibilities. Some of them will throw examples of the worst, most offensive vegans they can find as “proof” that people are crazy unless they eat meat. This is about the same ill-conceived argument as the people that act as if the majority of feminists are ugly man-hating lesbians. Both are bad examples attempting to sway opinions by vilifying the opposing point of view.

I think I understand both camps for the most part. Nobody enjoys being told that the lifestyle choices they’ve made are wrong. I don’t blame them. Especially when it comes to something as personal as what they choose to eat.

My own feeling is not that eating meat is necessarily evil, but the way most Americans get that meat sure is. The factory farm system that allows people in this country to eat meat with every meal is seriously fucked up. It’s cruel, and not healthy for the animals that it produces, or the people that eat them.

But here’s the thing.

People in the USA are almost entirely insulated from the reality behind the goods they’re eating. That applies to almost all food, but is especially troubling when it comes to the meat industry. Almost no one raises livestock to kill and eat anymore. To the average urban dweller, meat is just something they pop out of a package to cook and eat. Most of them wouldn’t eat meat if they had to actually kill some creature to get it. I base that conclusion on the hypocritical repulsion so many voracious carnivores that fancy themselves somehow “enlightened” become whenever the concept of topic comes up. And let’s face it, even if they are OK with hunting on some basic level, very few of them are prepared to leave the cocoon of their comfortable homes with giant televisions and the Internet, to tromp on down to some wooded area and hope they get a good shot at some sort of edible creature. It’s just not likely to ever happen. Too much work.

What’s not much work is buying a bunch of hamburger from the grocery store, and never asking how that blob of ground creature got to them.

I am a hypocrite myself. I’m an animal lover, I have five dogs. Love them all. I DO think about the reality of what meat really is on a daily basis, since my job makes that impossible to avoid. And yet I still eat meat. It’s an addiction of sorts, and I don’t use that term as an excuse. But in this culture, most of us are raised eating meat. People that don’t are treated like freaks, and it seems like that’s the standard.

I realize that not everyone is going to become a vegetarian, but is it really such a crazy thing to consider? I love my dogs. All dogs really. Cats, too. I feel like they’re easily as sentient as I am, they seem to show forms of emotion, especially affection, and have distinct personalities. They would be on the menu in some parts of the world.

How can I reconcile that love for my pets with the weirdly taught desire to eat other animals? How can I work at the vocation I do? It’s hard to be forced to consider these kinds of questions daily, but I do. I think most people simply avoid considering them, or they have tried and true rationalizations for why they show affection to some animals, and will allow others to be raised in an immoral and abusive factory farm system, so they can enjoy eating them.

And for the record, I’m not against people that choose to eat meat. But if they’re going to make that choice, then they should at least try to do it in a way that’s not contributing to widespread systemic abusive practices.

Yeah, bacon tastes great. Human baby probably does too. We draw the line there though. Shouldn’t more of us draw the line at eating the meat produced from a system that makes animals suffer from birth until they are slaughtered for our consumption?

Quick! Throw them in the pot! They’ll be delicious!

The bacon is most flavorful when it comes from the most innocent animals.

“Dinner” in some parts of the world.

A typical gun owner enjoying his collection.

Mass shootings and gun rights have been in the news and the court of public opinion for quite a while now, but it seems like the arguments surrounding these events have really heated up recently.

People I normally like (on both sides of the issue) turn into raving assholes whenever the question of America and guns comes up. I tend to play Devil’s advocate a lot, and to also try to look at any issue from as many angles as possible, so I tend to draw a lot of fire (clever gun funny there) from people on both sides.

Many of my passionately anti-gun friends seem to think that the only solution to violence in America is a total ban on all firearms. Meanwhile, people I know that like guns for one reason or another seem to loathe any suggestion that maybe there are some problems with gun culture that should be dealt with.

Like most controversial issues, the people on the farthest extremes are not likely to change their minds no matter how persuasive the argument, or how compelling the evidence given. They’re extremists, whether they want to cop to it or not. The dude living in a concrete bunker with 200 guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo is not going to change his mind about his need for all of those guns. He’s already invested too much of his life to a rather extreme lifestyle.

The anti-gun person, who thinks the good ‘ol U.S. Of A can and should adopt a total gun ban as soon as possible, regardless of the millions of guns already out there, is not going to be swayed by evidence that gun violence as a whole is actually declining in this country. They also have invested too much emotion into their position.

It’s a sad bit of human nature, but we tend to distrust anyone and anything that is different than ourselves and our own experience.

Me? I have mixed feelings on guns and their place in this country. Guns are as much a part of the culture of the USA as muscle cars and baseball. The history of the gun is inextricable from the history of this country.

I grew up around guns, but no one in my family was the stereotypical “gun nut.” I lived on a farm for a few years, and a rifle under my mom’s bed was just another tool, and one us kids never touched. We didn’t hunt, so that wasn’t part of my background, although I had friends that did. Weirdly enough, I don’t remember guns being as divisive an issue as they seem to be now.

Mass shootings certainly aren’t new. You can still see a few bullet holes from Charles Whitman’s psychopathic 1966 U.T. Tower rampage on the buildings along Guadalupe Street here in Austin, if you know where to look. And mass shootings in America weren’t new even then. School shootings weren’t either.

So why does it seem like these mass shootings are occurring more and more often?

The Washington Post and other researching entities have found that there’s been no major increase in the frequency of mass shootings since 1980 or so. So what’s happening?

This is just my opinion, but I think there are several factors at play here.  The population keeps increasing, we have almost instant media coverage, and with the Internet people on all sides of the issue can howl endlessly at one another. It gives the appearance that these events take place more and more often, when in fact they are probably just more widely reported and given more media attention than was possible in earlier generations.

That doesn’t mean that mass shootings shouldn’t be an issue that we as a country try to address, but it does help to have some perspective.

The thing is, the right to bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution, and it’s not going anywhere soon. The Supreme Court has pretty consistently supported the interpretation of that Second Amendment as meaning that a person has the right to own guns and defend themselves with them.

The hardcore gun people are not going to give up that right simply because a lot of people don’t like the fact that they can own them. They’re not likely to give up that right simply because others think it would make society a safer environment for all. Many of the gun rights people equate being allowed to keep guns as FREEDOM (in all caps), and any infringement on those rights is seen as a draconian overstep of the government’s power. Quite a few of them extend this opinion to the point of thinking that they could somehow keep the government at bay in case it veered towards totalitarianism.

This is of course absurd, as a handful of clowns armed with AR15’s could be almost instantly vaporized by the might of the U.S. Military.

It seems to me that there are plenty of people with stupid ideas and faulty logic on both sides of the issue, and more concentrated towards both extremes.

But guns aren’t going anywhere in this country. They’re just not. Unless they can be magically “poofed” away in a cloud of “never existed”, there are so many guns in circulation already that it would probably be hundreds of years before they were all discovered and rendered inoperable. Also, guns are old technology. Most people with simple tools could probably build one if they wanted to.

There’s also vastly different attitudes towards guns depending on location. People living in rural environments tend to have a different view of guns compared to folks living in densely populated  cities.

People tend to simplifying views and vilify people that live differently than themselves. The old stereotypes of evil southern rednecks and out of touch liberal pussies isn’t accurate, but it sure gives both sides of this debate people to hate on. Viewing people as cartoon characters accomplishes nothing.

So what CAN change?

I honestly don’t know. Attempts at making the laws stricter seem to consistently fail, so I don’t see that working. I think the root of the problem isn’t so much the guns themselves, but problems and attitudes within our culture.

I think it’s odd that so many people equate freedom with their right to own guns. Not because I don’t think they shouldn’t have that right, but because freedom conditional on having a gun doesn’t seem that free to me. My own brother was an avid gun collector, and seemed to harbor a mild case of that sort of “Come and take it” mentality. He died at home alone of natural causes. All those guns did nothing to help save his life or freedom.

Why are so many people so paranoid?

Sure, there are times when a person’s paranoia is justified, but if I had to own an arsenal just to feel safe or secure, I sure wouldn’t feel too good about that.

For the record, I DO own a few guns, including the scary “assault rifles” that the anti-gun folks focus so much attention on (“assault rifles” are used in a tiny percentage of crimes, compared to handguns, but seem to get the most attention), but I don’t go through my daily life in fear of…I don’t know…criminals?

I just think that living like that wouldn’t be much of a life.

But we’re also bombarded with violent movies and video games these days. I happen to like those things. I wish someone would invent a modern video game where the player is a clown driving around in a van murdering people, but that hasn’t come out yet.

I can separate myself from the fantasy violence, and I don’t look at that stuff as a reflection of reality. You’ll never see me arguing for censorship of any kind. Ever. But it probably wouldn’t be a bad thing for society if more people could step away, and realize that Grand Theft Auto isn’t a realistic depiction of inner city life. At least violent media probably shouldn’t be routinely enjoyed by little kids.

I just don’t feel like it’s all that likely that I’ll be attacked by some random criminal at this point in my life. If I was, I’m pretty sure it would happen so fast I wouldn’t be able to react anyway.

That wouldn’t stop me from carrying a gun if I thought it necessary, I just think the fantasy of repelling an attack is a lot more unrealistic than a lot of people think.

Another part of the problem is that guns are cool in this culture. I don’t know how many young guys I’ve known that immediately went out to buy a hand gun as soon as they were old enough. Not because they “needed” one, but they wanted one because of the cool factor.

And that’s pretty dumb when you think about it.

So perhaps, if the perception that guns aren’t all that cool was to grow, we’d see a lot less in the hands of people that probably shouldn’t have them. I don’t know.

What I do know is that this issue isn’t going away. Both extremes should probably relax a little, and at least try to understand each other a bit more. In the cases of people that have been personally affected by gun violence, or who have used a gun to thwart an attack, neither side will ever give an inch. But there are a lot of people that might be open to some sort of compromise if they could just listen to each other without all the screaming.

I think the country would be a better place if fewer people chose to own guns, and we treated criminals that used them more harshly.  That’s my opinion, not something I wish to impose on everyone.

Now someone go make that Killer Clown in a Van game for me please….

I grew up going to big rock shows at an arena in Houston called The Summit. In fact, the very first big rock show I ever went to was held there – Billy Squier on the “Emotions in Motion” tour with Fastway opening. My mom took me and my brother. I was 11 or 12.

For years after, any big rock or metal shows in Houston were held there. I saw everyone from AC/DC to Iron Maiden, Judas Priest to Motörhead at that huge venue. It was big, loud, and not particularly comfortable, but it was the scene of a lot of great shows over the years.

It’s still the scene of a big show of sorts. It’s currently the headquarters of Joel Osteen Ministries and his enormous Lakewood Church. I suppose that certain Christians would find this turn of events to be some sort of victory for their religion – God’s Army occupying a former stronghold of Satan’s music of choice. Judging from a quick perusal on the Internet, lots of Christians still think that Satan is in control, as Joel Osteen is not universally popular among the ranks of the faithful.

Despite that, he IS incredibly popular with millions of other Christians, so why is this guy so polarizing?

Well, he’s one of the more successful proponents of the “Prosperity Gospel” or “Word of Faith” movement, a relatively recent religious theory that claims that God wants his flock to become wealthy and successful. In fact, faith can be measured by the devout’s worldly successes if one buys into this line of superstition.

Despite never having stumbled across anything in the Bible that backs this weirdly magical connection between wealth and faith, it’s a very popular idea. That popularity makes sense if you look at basic human nature, as most of us do want to become successful and financially secure, and most people seem to have a basic need to feel like they’re good people. For those with an inclination towards religion, it must be comforting to think that God wants us to be successful and comfortable, and in fact will reward those that are devout enough.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing that really backs that idea anywhere in scripture that I can think of, and Jesus in particular seemed to have a dim view of those that coveted money too much. It seems that the canonical references to wealth are used as cautionary tales, not an enticement to greater depths of faith.

But charismatic modern preachers have carved out very successful careers for themselves, promising their followers that God wants them all to be prosperous. Not just spiritually, but also financially.

Some of these mega-preachers are outwardly so slimy that it’s difficult to understand how much of anyone could be taken in by their obvious quest for personal riches. One of the techniques they claim garners the Lord’s favor is (of course) by their followers filling their churches coffers through donations. Pretty much all churches ask for donations, but hucksters like Oral (The Lord will call me home if you don’t donate enough $$$) Roberts, or Robert (speaking in tongues) Tilton took this greedy form of faith up several notches by telling their followers that God expected them to plant “seeds” of faith in the form of money sent to their ministries. These financial “seeds” would then in turn bloom, rewarding the faithful with worldly and other worldly successes.

As a general rule, it’s probably prudent to not trust multimillionaire ministers. But people continue to do so, despite the almost inevitable scandals that reveal their character.

The Prosperity Gospel has a decidedly dark side, and not just because it breaks from what the Bible actually says. It’s extremely popular with lower income folks and minorities, people that probably can’t afford to endlessly plant financial “seeds” to prove their faith to God. If their seeds don’t result in greater success (and they won’t) then those people just end up further down the hole, perhaps spending money on the outward signs of success (Since God’s favor is tied so closely to worldly successes), when they could be spending that money more wisely.

For religiously-inclined people that are financially secure, the message must be a popular and comforting one. God favors them, and has shown his approval of their lives by rewarding them with financial success. Who cares if some of them might be awful people? God doesn’t think so. It might be less convenient for them to remember that Satan is supposed to be “lord of this World”, and the dude more fitting to ask for money.

Joel Osteen seems like a nice guy. Why would I pick on him? He’s not so obviously insincere and sleazy as people like Benny Hinn or other wealthy televised purveyors of faith. Heck, Osteen might actually believe the crap he’s spewing. It’s not based in anything I get from the Bible, and sounds more like something out of a self help book, but why should I feel so strongly about him?

Well, he’s from Houston, and he’s set up shop in a place I used to enjoy going to. I guess that’s part of it. Maybe I just work for the Devil, and live to knock down incredibly rich televangelists. Or maybe I just don’t like smarmy rich fucks that take advantage of people looking for a positive message. I don’t know.

I like to think that maybe I just don’t buy into hogwash and bullshit that easily, and don’t like to see others taken in by it either.

From a purely selfish angle, I just don’t like the idea of millions of people walking around perhaps thinking that they can act like creeps as long as they follow the Prosperity Gospel “rules” and are rewarded by God.

In any case, I say it again. If you’re looking for someone to follow, perhaps a multimillionaire religious figure is not the person you should be considering. Something about a camel and the eye of a needle.

Joel ” I’m a soulless money Demon” Osteen

I was at this show.

KISS played The Summit on the Love. Gun tour

The Who played the too.

Lately, I’ve become aware of sexism and misogyny in the most unexpected of place – geek fandom culture.

I admit that I was largely unaware of this phenomenon simply because I’m not really some uber fan of much geeky stuff in the modern sense. I grew up reading super hero comic books, and even worked in a comic shop and at a comic distribution center at one point, but I don’t read super hero comics, and haven’t in almost thirty years.

I like technology and video games, but I hate online playing (of anything) and I don’t hang out on Internet forums discussing those things. I suppose that the geeky stuff I DO like is enjoyed in a solitary way these days. I don’t generally feel motivated to hang out with other fans, nor do I generally go to places where other fans congregate.

So you’ll have to excuse me for thinking that fandom stuff was still primarily the territory of awkward, but mostly benevolent, too-fat or too-skinny nerds that are persecuted for their interests. See, that’s the thing. I grew up as one of those people, and most of my friends were into the same role playing games, comic books, and horror movies that I was. Some of them were also early computer nerds, so fascinated by the possibilities of the extremely primitive home computers they had at the time, that they were willing to spend more time practicing old timey programming languages instead of hanging out with the cool kids at school.

And that wasn’t going to be happening in most cases, even if they’d wanted it to. The cool kids weren’t exactly embracing many of the terminally nerdy back then. People like that were generally outcasts among the majority of their peer group, and without the benefit of the Internet, being a nerd was often a lonely existence.

Finding friends, or anyone really, that would accept that you were into entertainment and activities that marked you as a weirdo to everyone else, felt special way back when I was a youngster. That’s why I find it troubling that misogyny and sexism seems to have exploded along with the mainstreaming of fandom.

I know I’m late to this party. This phenomenon has been getting a lot of press for awhile, with women being mistreated for being “fake geeks” and treated poorly if they are brave enough to stumble into the shitacular, still mostly male-dominated world of online video game play.

It makes me sad that hobbies which once marked a person as a weirdo, but were generally open and welcoming to almost anyone willing to pursue them, have attracted a hateful minority of men that think women are only valuable to be humiliated or as a sexual reward to losers like themselves. What the fuck, guys? That’s the kind of shitty behavior that many of us old school nerds witnessed from our jock tormentors. Why indulge in that shit?

Maybe part of the answer to that is the fact that geek culture has become a lot more “acceptable.” This mainstreaming of traditionally outsider activities has made those activities open to the types of males that might not have once been attracted to them. Being a computer nerd these days is seen as cool, it’s not the life sentence to “Never gets laid” island that it might have seemed to be in the early 80’s. Playing video games is popular with all sorts of people now, and I see more asshole “bros” talking about their passion for games as commonly or more so than “nerds” these days.

A lot of those dipshit bros are the types of guys that probably think taking a woman to the movies means they’re entitled to a blowjob at the end of the night, so it’s not surprising that online game play with jackasses like that might get nasty quick. And since adolescent boys are almost universally into video games these days, it’s also not surprising that an age group not often noted for its sensitivity might make online play or certain types of enthusiast online forums abusive places for a woman to venture into.

I recently encountered a manturd that was apparently an online gamer, who admitted to making “rape jokes” and being pretty shitty online. His defense was that there is no longer a line of any kind as far as humor goes, and that his online persona did not reflect who he was in “real life.”

What this brainless shitfuck failed to grok is that while there may not be an uncrossable line in regards to jokes anymore, consistently mean-spirited or abusive “humor” marks the person making those jokes as a complete asshole. He didn’t seem to get the fact that, yes, the way a person acts online IS a reflection of who they really are in “real life.”

In the end, I was left with the disquieting feeling that maybe the Internet has really poisoned the well of geekdom, and that some good old fashioned ass beatings might actually make some of these fuckheads a little more sensitive to the feelings of others.

But, online abuse and rape culture aside, is there some other force at work that makes a lot of these geek men so antagonistic towards women?

I don’t know. Even twenty years ago, when I helped run a comic book store, I noticed a lot of misogyny. There were guys that ate up the hypersexualized depictions of women in comics and other media, but who seemed distrustful or hateful towards real women. One regular customer of ours even suggested that the comic shop should be off limits to women, and open to men only, sort of a Taliban outpost of stinky man nerds that probably masturbated to She Hulk comics. He was sadly not alone in that sort of extreme opinion.

I personally feel that the typical classic comic mythologies are partially to blame. Most of the Silver Age comics that still seem to steer comic fandom’s boat started out as wish fulfillment fantasies for powerless teenaged boys. There’s a deeply rooted idea that a formerly weak and ostracized protagonist can earn the romantic attention of the girl he wants if he just is heroic enough, in essence “earning” her affection.

The problem is, real women and real romance doesn’t work like that. It’s why being a woman’s close friend doesn’t ensure that the friendship will ever blossom into romance. I think a lot of men have a serious problem understanding that, and accepting that scenario when they encounter it.

Instead, they complain about being permanently “friend zoned”, and I think that the comic book myth of being the helpful supportive male in a woman’s life being enough to “earn” her as a romantic partner is at least partially to blame.

Also, it’s been noted by others that male nerds were often told that all the abuse they were enduring as kids would eventually be worth it. Their tormentors would be reduced to horrible menial jobs while they would be rewarded great gigs as computer programmers, and the attractive females that weren’t interested in them in high school would be lining up for their favors later in life.

I suppose that, for some of them, that DID come to pass, but to expect some sort of almost karmic force to punish ones enemies and to reward a nerd with a hot romantic/sexual partner, seems pretty messed up to me. It fosters certain expectations with those guys, and a woman that doesn’t play into those expectations is likely to be treated like she’s a “bitch.” Maybe she’s just not interested in a guy only because he has a good job and seems nice.

There’s a sense of entitlement I see with a lot of these guys. Perhaps it’s an extension of Internet culture, where porn fantasies are readily available, but no one is entitled to a woman as if she is a “prize” or product. I see a weird attitude with males of a certain age, as if they can look like a bag of fail, but somehow deserve a hot sexual partner on demand.

The idea that a guy can “earn” a woman’s affection in some predictable fashion is ridiculous. Women are individuals, and it’s insulting to assume they’ll all like the same thing or respond to a male’s actions in the same way. Spider-Man be damned, maybe it works occasionally, but a guy can’t count on winning a woman over by pretending to be her best friend or being there whenever she needs something.

Comic books and other fandom pursuits rely to a certain degree on wish fulfillment. If a guy believes that shit enough, it’s not surprising that he might think that a woman who spurns him is a “cunt.” It’s also not surprising that he, and others like him, might make geek culture very unfriendly towards women that don’t fill the role they want them to, or who don’t think rape jokes are funny because “anything goes for a laugh” or whatever it is these creeps are telling themselves.

Any dude that tries to project comic book reality into real life interactions with females, then who gets angry and bitter when they don’t play along? That guy deserves to get his ass kicked a few times. He deserves to be called out and humiliated for being such a prick.

There’s no excuse for treating women as either bitches for not being interested, or as a sexual prize for a worthy male nerd. Fuck that, women and people in general are a lot more complicated than that.

So asshole male geeks, shape up. More people are onto you and your bullshit. That stuff isn’t going to be tolerated indefinitely.

If you want a compliant female that will fawn over you and submit to your sexual desires without question, build yourself that long promised “girl robot.” Make her look like She Hulk if you want. Whatever. Just quit treating the real women out there like they don’t belong in fandom if they expect to be taken as equals.

Don’t bring back systematic bullying of male nerds. It could happen. Let’s not pull that trigger.

This REALLYIS what a sizable percentage of comic book fans look like. Naturally, they’re entitled to sex with super models.

The comic book work camp I was sentenced to labor at years ago.

I’ve watched many major cable channels make a turn away from real, documentary-style programming towards the supernatural and the weird over the last several years. The History Channel once was dominated by World War II and Vietnam documentaries, to the point that it was often referred to as “The Hitler Channel.” Now, it seems to be almost entirely broadcasting weird reality shows like “Pawn Stars,” “Ax Men,” “American Pickers,” and “Swamp People,” begging many questions – what do those shows have to do with history, and why do so many Americans seem enthralled by the shenanigans of often angry working class dudes with unconventional jobs? I work as a meat cutter, if I want to see some dumb ass screaming at another at work, that’s common enough. It’s not what I want to view in my off time.

Most of the other more serious channels are following that trend, too. They’re all turning their backs on the types of shows they once aired in favor of the more popular reality shows, which we all know are pretty much fake, so that’s really strange. If one of these cable channels does broadcast programs about real events like WWII, you can almost bet it’s going to be “The Secret Nazi UFO Connection” or a show about the supernatural. Why? Because that stuff is more interesting to the average boob tube viewer than history or reality. The real reality, not the scripted stuff.

And I understand the appeal. I’ve watched plenty of those shows over the years. I’m into weird stuff, I’ve studied the paranormal and the occult. I’m down with Bigfoot and the Mothman, those things are fun.

But there are a few shows that I really can’t stand, and the ones that irritate me the most are the currently popular ghost hunting series.

“Ghost Adventures” seems to be the most popular, but there are a couple more. They all seem to have essentially the same basic format. A group of ghost hunters go to a reportedly haunted locale and proceed to do “tests” that prove otherworldly beings are present. On “Ghost Adventures,” this is also accomplished by the ridiculously-dressed leader Zac Bagans, who runs around like a drunk frat boy yelling and trying to goad restless spirits into proving they’re present.

Who knew that the only things a person needed to do to stir the departed into action was an Affliction t-shirt, a bad hair cut, and some gauges to measure electrical activity?

Oh yes, about that scientific approach they use (before all of the yelling starts). Since the vast majority of hauntings these clowns investigate are inside occupied buildings of one kind of another, it would seem that finding areas with electrical activity would be pretty common almost everywhere. Same thing about temperature fluctuations. Besides, at what point did people prove that any of that stuff indicates the presence of ghosts? It’s like a bunch of folks collectively decided to believe that we can measure paranormal activity with devices that were never intended for that purpose.

They also use sound recordings to capture the voices of spirits, although in nearly every example I’ve heard, it all sounds like total crap amid a sea of static.

As for all of the running around and loud taunting of spirits that occurs in every episode of a Ghost Adventures – what the fuck, guys? I’d like to believe that ghosts really do exist, and maybe they DO. I don’t know.

I do know that if I was a ghost and had any power in the material world at all, I’d love to snatch Zac Bagans and feed him to Satan’s demonic hoards, just because screaming dorks wearing bad fashions and over-gelled hairdos irritate me. Sadly, I have my doubts that the afterlife works in such ways.

Occasionally, these groups of ghost-annoyers bring along a psychic or two, who almost always proceed to cold read people that have witnessed ghost activity at the site. Again, maybe there are real psychics out there, but these cable spirit-hunters definitely seem to have a flair for the dramatic that borders on acting. Another show (whose name escapes me) consists of a group of college-aged kids, and they generally have an “occult expert” among their dopey ranks. This expert seems to dish out pseudo-Wiccan expertise and uses such brilliant techniques as using the cross to scare off malevolent spirits. Mind blowing.

In any case, I get the appeal of these shows. The production costs involved with following around a few overly dramatic clowns while they psych each other out and run around screaming in the dark HAVE to be about as low as they get, and people love these dumb shows.

And that’s fine, I think lots of silly stuff can be fun to watch from time to time. I just wonder how many viewers actually believe the stuff they’re watching is real. It’s appealing to see “proof” that ghosts are real, because that would verify that death is not the end, and that’s a very appealing idea for most people.