fat bachelor revolutionizes reality tv by putting insecure overweight people in front of the camera for a change

a professor once told me, "you only read a good book once. after that, it reads you."

later, i was asked to give a statement as a character witness, when that professor was accused of making offensive remarks in front of his class.

such was the education of dave...

but keeping that statement in mind, fox president of alternative programing, mike darnell, seems concerned that there is no good tv on these days (no! you think?), and he wants us to know he's on our side. darnell, who created fox's new reality show, more to love, which i will insensitively be referring to as the fat bachelor because, well, because that's exactly what it is, had this to say about his new project:

“Why don’t real women -- the women who watch these shows, for the most part -- have a chance to find love, too?”

you hear that, fat white women? don't go moping around the house all alone, stuffing bon bons down your face, wearing a hole in the ass of your muumuu, and yelling, "go girl!" at the screen during the suze orman show. mike darnell says, you too can pretend to find love in order to pursue cash prizes.

why did i specify fat white women, when darnell specifically said, "real women"? because the preview for this show offers a look at the dais of contestants, and they are all fat white women.

so, really what mike darnell wants you to know is, if you've been watching reality tv, he thinks you are a fat, blubbering (no pun intended), white person, who is unsuccessful at love, and could use some fast cash. your chance has arrived!

here comes fat bachelor, a show that sells itself as following, "a single average guy with a big waist and an even bigger heart as he romances several confident and secure plus-size women" in one breath, and a chance for, "real women...to find love" in the next.

i'm lost. is this a show for "real people", or just cashing in on america's expanding waist line, by pandering to fat people? don't feel like i hate "plus-sized" people, people. i just want to know, isn't there a difference between being "real" and being fat? i suspect there is, and i suspect fox knows this. i suspect this because they are also lying about the women being "confident and secure". in the preview for fat bachelor, many of the female contestants are crying and whining about how they just wish they felt beautiful, or how they wish they could find a man who would see past their body and love them for who they are. these are not the ravings of a confident and secure woman.

hey, listen, i wish they felt beautiful, too. everyone deserves that feeling, and some of them probably are beautiful. i particularly find things like charity, confidence, and happiness to be extremely attractive characteristics in a woman, and while you can see those things in a person's physicality, you can't determine them from their measurements. i also wish they could find a man who loved them for who they are, but, among other things wrong with this scene, confident people don't end up on reality tv shows, reducing themselves to door prizes for some game show contestant, nor does reimbursing people for "falling in love" breed genuine love.

what's more, i think middle america deserves some honesty. look, everyone between the coastal states, we out here on the ocean sides throw around an attitude that most people from your neighborhood are fat, fried twinkie eatin', state fairin', nascarin', bible thumpin', casserolin', american flag print hammer pantsin', hillbillies. i'm sorry you had to find out this way. we don't mean any harm by it, and we don't really believe it. it's just kind of a funny thought. you know. like every one from california is a pot smoking hippie, or everyone from boston pronounces their vowels like they are getting a purple nurple. but here's the thing, tv programing is mostly produced to pander to everyone between california and new york, or at least to the stereotype of what that population is like.

did you know that when looking for news casters and voice talent, most networks and local stations look for people who sound like they are from "nowhere"? what's strange about this is that sounding like you are from "nowhere" means that you speak "general american", which, itself, means that your accent is a broad conglomeration of midwest accents, more desirably, nebraska, iowa, and illinois (not including the distinctive chicaaago accent).

what's more, tv is never created for the people it depicts. a show like sex and the city, for example, is not targeting the 40-50 something sex crazed cougar demographic, it's targeting the unmarried 20-30 something audience. why? because people don't watch tv because it's just like their lives, they watch it because they want to know what their lives should be like. tv doesn't respect you as a person, it respects you as either a commodity or a consumer (your consumerism is their commodity). they just want to sell you an image.

take king of queens. for a long time, and i'm sure, for years to come, the "sexy girl meets goofy schlub" formula has been key to sitcom tv. they did it in the honeymooners, and they still do it today. king of queens, however is a perfect example of my point, because fox has described the bachelor from fat bachelor, as being "a kevin james type, an average guy, large, but lovable". i find that to be an askew comparison to the fat bachelor, since kevin james' real wife, steffiana de la cruz, and his fake wife, carrie heffernan (leah remini), are both thin, confidant, "tv pretty" women. and in real life, kevin james is rolling in cash and fame, and on tv he can be married to jenna jameson, cinderella, or hilary clinton, for all he is concerned. he produces and writes the show, he can be married to all three if he likes.

meanwhile, that one fat woman who was on tv that one time, rosanne bar, was depicted as being married to john freakin' goodman, yet another fragile, simple minded, working class schlub.

so fat bachelor offers plus sized lonely women a chance to "love" a fat lonely man (men don't get the luxury of the term plus-sized. not my decision), and that's what's real, now? what's the lesson here? because the actual bachelor depicts desirable men as being beach muscled, fake tanned, economically successful, fratty, broesque douchbags. so obviously men are getting mixed messages about what our lives are supposed to be like. women on the other hand, are getting equally mixed messages, in that they have been told forever that they have to fit that air headed dependent supermodel mold, yet still be confidant, witty, and independent if they want prince charming to ride in on his white horse, and now they are being told that overweight, and desperate for love (men and women) is real?

let's break it down: unmarried men, playing the field: must be tv pretty, cookie cutter, prince charmings, education/intelligence optional. unmarried women: must be female equivalent of same. married men: out of shape, dimwitted, lazy, working class, scheming shmoes (i guess we get to let ourselves go once we've tied ourselves to that hot chick). married women: physically identical to unmarried women, only must be able to be main breadwinner, and exude confidence of intelligent, independent woman (despite the fact that you must be a helpless, ditzy, damsel in distress to land that prince in the first place. keep in mind he will turn into a toad, says tv, when you give him that "i do" kiss). which explains why marriage seems to be such a big deal to most of america. women can finally turn their brains back on, and men can turn their dignity off. everybody wins!

right?

so fat bachelor seeks to bring hope to all those people who can't seem to maintain that single person, tv pretty body. but does that mean that these contestants are real? reality doesn't rise and set on images you see on glowing boxes. the reality of a person comes from their heart and soul, their mind, their experience, and their ambitions.

so this time, your homework definitely doesn't involve watching any tv or movies, and it doesn't involve reading books, even though the point of this post is that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.

your homework (this includes fat readers, skinny readers, readers that climb on rocks... even readers with chicken pox) is to find out who the real you is. go stand in front of a mirror (i'm not going to ask you to do it naked. this isn't fried green tomatoes. besides, the point of this exercise is to prove that you aren't your body. so go naked if that's your thing, but don't feel obligated) and don't look at your body, or your face, or any of those nagging little imperfections that only you know about. look yourself right in the eyes, and read yourself.

i bet you fall in love all over again.

and that's real.

they just don't do fear mongering like they used to...

-In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine... law of the iroquois

                               *****************************

so, armageddon, who's up for it?

its been all the rage lately. take history channel's life without people, or ABC's earth 2100. both shows deal with armageddon situations in which it is basically the end of days for humans.

life without assumes that, all of a sudden, humans have disappeared off the face of the earth, not far in the future, not due to some sort of plague or catastrophic event that might also affect the world outside of human life. humans all just disappear. no corpse left behind, and the world evolves beyond us. natural cycles dissolve the remnants of our existence, and animals evolve to live in the wasteland we have left in our wake.

bad news for small dog owners, life without suggests that those animals will be the first species to go. what's more is that zoo animals will somehow escape their holding pens, find plenty of food and a suitable environment, and fertile mates abound, and they will breed at an uncontrollable rate, until their depleted populations are thriving once again.

hold your horse penises.

you're telling me that those pandas, who wouldn't breed if we put on barry white, lit scented candles, and actually, manually inserted the male's penis for him, are suddenly going to rip through the lexan walls of their pens and have an orgy?

ok, sure.

life without also suggests that some animals will quickly adapt new and awesome traits. most awesomely, flying house cats that hunt the skies from the hollowed out canyons of new york skyscrapers.

ok, that's pretty awesome. but what's the scientific basis for this? nothing. these people are merely postulating the possibilities and allowing history channel to sell it as the impending future. most likely the zoo animals will die of starvation without human intervention, and anything left trapped in a skyscraper will do the same. small dogs will probably go extinct after not too long, though. i'm with that.

but if this kind of crystal balling blows your skirt up, try reading the world without us, its the same basic principle, except it keeps it within the boundaries of actual science, and when you get to the parts about the Pacific Garbage Patch, or the radioactive waste burial ground in colorado, it'll really shake you. as cool as flying house cats are, i have my own imagination to ride into a fantasy scenario where humans are all dead and the robot unicorns and flying sharks battle for alpha species stature. and i don't know about you, but i'm kind of partial to delving into all the awesome species that have died off. i mean, sloths the size of elephants, wolves the size of horses, elk with horns bigger than their bodies, and those things really walked the earth. how cool is that? now i just sound like that kid with the bowl cut and the wolves airbrushed on his shirt.

now take earth 2100. forget the annoying style in which it's presented. that whole terribly animated story-line, that came off as a cross between grapes of wrath, are you there god, it's me, margaret, and the joy luck club. 2100 deals with a malthusian catastrophe, which is a situation in which humans have consumed so much of the planet's resources that we are forced to return to basic subsistence living, using only renewable resources, growing our own food, and harvesting for each meal, dealing with populations in a microcosmic manner so as to address only the most immediate needs of those we interact with personally. in essence, taking care of ourselves, for once.

2100 suggests that all us pot smoking queers and beaners in the west will fall into a dystopian, lawless, borderless, wild west thunderdome amidst the hellscape of the largest desert in the world: the new, improved, neo-mexican, death valley. as the timeline progresses from 2009 to 2100, our hero, lucy (get it, like the skeleton of the "first" human? i know transparency is key to the obama administration, but your metaphors don't have to be) road trips across america in what seems to be an suv from the 80's (very green of you, lucy) she finds that, the closer she gets to the midwest and the bible belt, the more progressive the people become (that makes sense). they've begun building utopias of clean energy, subsistence farming, living in space-age jetsons houses, and are single handedly saving the world (except for the lawless west, which i guess is left to eat itself alive) meanwhile al gore's at home in his undies, eating cheetos and jerking off to the nightly news. ultimately, she comes upon new york, which, in 2070 has become the most amazing, technologically advanced, peaceful, hard working, green, self-sufficient city in the history of the universe, perhaps the history of everything. are you surprised? new york is super cool. in fact one of the "experts" points out that new york has been geographically favored since the beginning of time. never mind that it's impossible to estimate what new york was like when it was a part of pangea (i hear the shopping was fabulous), and he goes on to tick off the ways it has been geographically favored, including its economy. i'm no expert, but is economy a feature of geography?

this show often talks to jared diamond, the writer of the book, and host of the documentary series guns, germs, and steel. if you want to dip into his brilliant mind, try reading or watching that, instead. in guns diamond explores the entirety of known history, and the ways in which weapons, disease, and metallurgy have shaped the way we live today. fascinating stuff, it is. in 2100 he is basically asked to validate the wild claims of the show by making one statement early on "the future is up for grabs" then they proceed to cut and paste his vast knowledge of human behavior throughout history into quotes that support the plot of ABC's not so distant future.

on a more realistic note, 2100 covers the "summit" that actually took place to deal with the hypothetical future, and how the world's leaders would handle the dawn of this dystopia. one major concern of many countries was that their way of life can no longer be an option. most especially the american way of life, but more generally, the western world (that means the US, canada, australia, and western europe. the developed anglo world). they pointed out that humans have to stop eating meat. it is far too stressful for the environment to sustain a carnivorous species with a population as sprawling as ours. we also have to face our materialism. no more can we say things like, "but i really like my '68 mustang!" no longer can we insist on the importance of a wide screen, flat screen, high def tv viewing experience (in case your confused, those tvs use on average 125% of the energy that a regular boob tube uses, and that little red or blue light that never goes off? that's because your tv never really goes off. unless you unplug it, it is drawing energy 24 hours a day, whether or not the little people are running around on the screen), as for the eastern world (which is not to say the rest of the world, but rather the major asian economies that are growing, and quickly, unlike the western economies, which are already slowly dying) they need to understand that, even though the western economies boomed with filthy industrial habits 100 years ago, the east must be conscious of their consumption and waste as their economies grow and they eventually become our malevolent overlords. a brief synopsis of this debate:

east: but you guys got to do it! no fair!

west: shut up, stupid!

east: well then you have to pay for it.

west: no way, why should we pay to make you our masters?

east: can you at least provide us with the technology? (a reasonable request)

west: uh... yeah. the thing about that is, those technologies belong to private companies. so, we're not gonna be doing that.

planet earth: KA-BOOOOM!

my brain: KA-BLOOEY!

what i find so interesting about all this doomsday fear mongering is how close to that dirty little secret they are willing to get without ever just admitting it: humans are a dysfunctional animal with no proper place in the natural equilibrium, unless our place is as the next major catastrophic event that extincts the majority of the species in a cleansing of the planet. if we are not the harbingers of the end of a life cycle we are one of nature's rare mistakes. now, some of the fear mongers have suggested that if we don't change our ways we will in fact be the next ice age, if you will. but most aren't as ready to get this close to an admission. some try to turn it around and suggest a positive purpose for human life. so often that purpose is "protector".

HUMANS: EARTH'S KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR, RIDES IN ON GOLDEN FLYING STEED AND SLAYS THOSE WHO WOULD DO HER HARM!

funny thing about that. if humans weren't around to protect the planet, there wouldn't be anything to protect it from. we can only protect the planet from ourselves. 

um... i mean, go humans! you valiant protectors! oh how dreamy it was when you saved mother earth from the dodo bird plague!

the truth is, humans are consumers. we consume more than we give back, and we breed faster than we die.

while we're on the subject, take death. when we die, what do we do with ourselves? we might bury our bodies. when you get to that part of the world without us you'll be equally shocked. the manner in which we prepare our graves makes them the thing that will last longer than almost any other human structure. an exhumed body centuries from now will yield a concrete or lead box insulating a treated hardwood box which is itself insulating a metal box which holds inside...human soup. it is so impossible for the natural decay of the human body to occur inside a modern grave that essentially the enzymes and acids within our bodies digest us until we are nothing more than a pile of our own waste.

that's not how i roll, you say, i plan on being cremated. good choice. our entire body of nutrients and worm food and compost gets burned up to nothing but salty ash, then we dump it out somewhere where it will stifle the growth of whatever lives there, and the smoke from our burning body floats off into the ether and adds to the fun nastiness that the heartbeats we left behind get to inhale.

i think i got the black lung, pop.

nah, that's just nana, we all keep a little part of her right here, next to our heart, and more specifically, in our lungs, along with everyone else's nana and popo.

and what about death? we keep finding ways to put it off, but we don't seem to be able to wrangle our birth rate. there is an inherent problem with this in that, even if we find a way, as individuals, to live (we call it carbon neutral these days, but we have to think BIGGER) neutrally within the life cycle, as long as our population keeps growing faster than it dies, we are consuming more than we give back.

this malthusian catastrophe (now this is fear mongering) is inevitable unless we find a way to live, as individuals and as a population, neutrally, and within the harmony of natural equilibrium. but as much as i like overblown scary phrases like malthusian catastrophe, i think it's more appropriate to just call it what it is, a sharp turn toward forced common sense and harmonious living/the extinction of humans in a short but theatrically sweeeeeet implosion of humanity (its really fielder's choice on which one we get, or as diamond says, "the future is up for grabs").

you may point out that there are many species that don't seem necessary to the world, so why pick on humans? because, for one, those other species have found a way to live within the natural equilibrium, and for another, humans are the only species that engages in intercourse for pleasure (read: uncontrollable/unpredictable birthrate), wages war and violence on a large scale with its own kind (read: unstable psychology/unsound logic), uses currency to offset lack of subsistence skills (read: unfit for survival), has no natural predator or prey (read: existing outside the life cycle and food chain), uses tools for unnecessary tasks (read: has no greater cause with which to fill our days, nor an ability to enjoy free time without help), uses very explicit vocabulary and written language (read: can't sufficiently communicate within the boundaries of basic natural emotions), and consumes resources in a fashion that creates unnatural results that cannot be metabolized by any living thing currently sharing the planet with us.

now, sure, other animals exhibit some of these behaviors, but none, other than humans, exhibits all of them at once. and don't get me wrong, some of these behaviors i am all for.

sex for pleasure: yes. just wrap it up. we've come to far with medical science to have unwanted, or unplanned pregnancy, and an uncontrollable birthrate, and please, think of the future before you decide to have a gaggle of children, and think of all those children available for adoption before you decide they all have to come out of you.

war and violence: i'm out.

currency: i want out, but it keeps pulling me back in. so i do the best i can; i try to pursue a knowledge of as many necessary life skills as i can. yea for libraries, the world's nerdy, loser friend!

no natural predator or prey: where's the fun in that? i don't want to be a predator, really. i don't have the stomach or physical traits to take down a zebra with my teeth, but i'm always down for a good test of my fight or flight instincts.

unnecessary tools: i take them on a tool by tool basis. musical instruments i can appreciate. the bouncer at the carlos club? that's a tool i could do without.

explicit language: of course (i'm writing this aren't i?). but from time to time we need to make sure we are using it to express those basic human emotions, and not just how cool it is that i've "got lamborghini doors on my escalade low-pros so low look like i'm ridin on blades", or confusing sentiments of love with warnings "to the bitch that said i shot some shit up out of my dick, now she sick: she better lay low" (i'm not anti rap, don't worry, i actually like both of those songs, and hagar belting out "i can't drive 55" or spencer from the hills boasting "i don't volunteer, bitches, i get paid!" don't exactly tug at my heartstrings, either).

consuming without giving back: i'm out. we need to consume, obviously. all species do, really. but we need to do it in moderation, and in equilibrium with the rest of the planet, and we need to make sure that we give back only things that the planet can deal with. it's not something that i already do, and maybe it won't be something i can achieve before i die (especially if that mountain lion on my porch finally catches me. i'm still too quick for him. or perhaps allowing him to catch me would an instant switch to perfect equilibrium), but it certainly can't hurt if we all tried to achieve that goal in our lifetime, because if we try for perfection, there's a pretty good chance that we will make, at the very least, some good, noticeable progress.

i'm sure your kids will really appreciate it if they didn't have to live in a world where everyone is still sucking new york's dick, and the west has turned into the barren futurescape from the nuclear holocaust scene in terminator 2. and i bet we can do a pretty good job of not handing that down to them if we all just stop listening to the fear mongers (like me) and tried a little harder to

...live neutrally.

suggested reading:

1) the world without us alan weisman

2) guns, germs, and steel jared diamond

3) utopia thomas more

4) the great law of the iroquois

5) the road cormac mccarthy

suggested watching:

1) guns, germs, and steel

2) life without people

3) planet earth

4) earth 2100

5) the mad max series

6) the terminator series

7) wall-E (twice in a row, i guess you really have to watch it, now)

suggested participation:

1) public transportation/critical mass/riding or walking as a way to get from A to B

2) beach/park clean ups

3) dump the super duper crystal clear flat screen (they have heinous problems with gentle color gradations, anyway, you just don't notice yet, because they haven't found a way to fix it, at which point they will sell you a new tv that doesn't have that problem)

4) CFLs (efficient light bulbs. they are selling for 4 for a dollar at some places these days, pretty damn affordable), and why not try just keeping your lights off until the sky goes dark? no need to keep the wires buzzing simply for dusk, or while you're in the bathroom in the morning.

5) public libraries (they've got so many interesting books on so many topics, and its free, just stay away from my libraries, i hate when they don't have the book i want)