Author Archives: Andy

Sex Is Better When You Can Get Some

Posted on by

You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
– The Bloodhound Gang, “Bad Touch”

Our church just started a new series on sex. Yep, we talk about sex in our church. How hip is our pastor? He quoted the song above during the sermon, which made me want to get up and dance. I remember hearing it on the radio as a horny college student. It made me laugh then. It makes me laugh now.

When this song came out in 1999, sex was a big deal to me for two main reasons: 1) I was 20 years old, and 2) I wasn’t getting any. Not a pleasant combination. When you can’t have something you want, what do you think about? Part of the reason I liked that song, besides its juvenile cleverness, was its honesty toward the subject of sex. It wasn’t ashamed to tell the truth: We Like Sex, and We Want Some From You. Granted, the Bloodhound Gang’s approach might have turned some women away, but at least they knew where the guys stood. (sorry, had to)

Suffering Back in the Day

As an evangelical teenager, I generally believed the formula sexual thoughts = lust = sin. Blah. I didn’t like it, but I believed it. I didn’t like it because it didn’t match 1990s reality in which, as a preteen, my hormones started kicking like Van Damme, but I wouldn’t be getting married until…who knew? My mid-20s? 30? Even later? So basically God was torturing me. By the time I got married (assuming I did someday), I would have spent at least HALF MY LIFE with a sex drive even though God had said no sex until marriage. Double blah. Maybe saving sex for marriage worked OK in Biblical times when people started puberty later and got married younger, but these days…not so much.

Believe it or not, like a small fraction of the population, I was a virgin when Jenny and I got married. I was 24 years old, younger than the author of a great article called Tales of a 25-Year-Old Virgin in Relevant. But don’t put me on a pedestal by any means. Yes, in high school, I tried to be a good and moral person and saw virginity as the right thing to do. It certainly helped that none of my close friends were sexually active. But after high school, it wasn’t any desire to be holy or please God that led me to say no when opportunities arose to turn in my V-card. And it certainly wasn’t lack of interest. It was a single, powerful fear: pregnancy. I just knew that we would be the 1 percent whose birth control failed, leading to some very awkward conversations with our families. Plus, you know, a BABY. In light of how quickly Jenny and I conceived Jonathan, perhaps my fears were not unfounded. My swimmers could get it DONE.

Enough of This

Jenny and I got married in January 2003. Sex finally became something to enjoy rather than the punchline to a joke or something to giggle and whisper about. One of the many great things about being married is the freedom to treat sex as a legitimate part of life rather than a taboo, obsession, source of embarrassment, or guilty pleasure. I can listen to a fun but raunchy song like “Bad Touch” or Ludacris’s “Stand Up” without feeling like I’m filling my mind with impure thoughts about women who aren’t my wife. We can flirt with each other via suggestive texts or emails. If we’re watching a movie together, we don’t need to blush or squirm or make awkward comments if a sex scene appears. Plus we can, you know, actually have sex without feeling guilty or worrying about whether we’ll get caught. We can even discuss sex with our friends. (And blog about it on occasion to boost my web traffic.)

Nothing but Mammals?

Let’s go back to the Discovery Channel song for a minute. My pastor’s point in the song reference was to bemoan our society’s reduction of sex to a simple animalistic act rather than a complex emotional, physical, and spiritual union that needs to be protected by the institution of marriage. It’s a much bigger deal than simply two people having fun. Is he right?

He does have a point. Sex IS a big deal. It can have real consequences. As my friend Kelly said, it’s the only activity in the universe that has the power to create another human being, and it deserves respect. It can also have a huge impact on relationships. Sex prolongs some that really ought to end. Illicit sex with one person can end a relationship with another person. It can make people feel loved or used, beautiful or ugly, pleasantly content or bitterly dissatisfied.

But looking back, I also wonder whether I made it too big of a deal, whether our society in general makes it too big a deal. On this side of the fence, sex is an important and fun part of life, but it’s not the all-consuming, mysterious obsession that it was before I crossed over. I also know plenty of people who had sex before marriage, some with multiple partners, and turned out just fine. What would have happened if I hadn’t said no? Would it really have made a difference?

And I have other questions, such as whether the Bible actually says sex between unmarried people is wrong or whether that’s simply what most churches teach for more practical reasons. And what and when I should tell my boys about sex. Obviously, abstinence is the best form of birth control, but is it realistic to expect it from them when most of their friends will not wait for marriage? But those are questions to ponder some other time.

Right now, I’m just glad I don’t have to wait any longer. And thankful for free music on YouTube.

Winning and Losing from This Weekend

Posted on by

If Charlie Sheen is winning, then someone needs to fix the &^!@*$ scoreboard. – The Charlie Sheen Roast on Comedy Central

We’ve had an interesting weekend. Here are a few winning and losing moments:

  • WINNING – Me! I came in third in my division and 16th overall out of 165 at the 5K yesterday. It was a tough trail 5K with lots of ups and downs and some uneven terrain, but the weather was great.
  • LOSING – The Cowboys. Really, guys?
  • WINNING – The eight-months-pregnant woman who also medaled in the 5k. I assume she didn’t run the whole way if at all, but she got out there and finished it.
  • LOSING – My Baylor Bears. It’s becoming clear that despite our star quarterback’s prodigious talent and video-game-level stats, we can’t be a top-tier team without a significant upgrade to the defense.
  • WINNING – Our new Dyson vacuum came in from WOOT! I’m actually excited about using it. Brenden keeps begging me to set up the new “gack-ume”.
  • WINNING (and then dying repeatedly) – A ridiculously hard and awesome adventure RPG called Dark Souls comes out on Tuesday. It’s a sister game of sorts to one of my all-time favorites, Demon’s Souls.
  • LOSING – We currently use AT&T for both internet and wireless. I got some junk mail from them over the weekend that said something like, “Since you already use AT&T for your internet service, we invite you to try AT&T wireless with this special offer.” Sigh.
  • WINNING – I listened (and sang along with) the entire two-disc recording of Les Miserable, original London cast. And it was glorious.
  • WINNING – When Jonathan sees me after I’ve been asleep or away, he now says “Dada!” and runs over to give me a hug.

How was your weekend?

Smokers Need Not Apply at Baylor

Posted on by

Dallas-area Baylor Health Care System is preparing to implement a new hiring policy: a pre-employment nicotine test. Those who fail are ineligible for hire, just like an illegal drug user would be ineligible at many other businesses.

To my limited knowledge, Baylor is the first employer to openly exclude smokers from consideration. Naturally, many smokers are crying discrimination, and they’re absolutely right. But I agree with the policy 100 percent. As stated in the article,

The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity and increased medical costs.

Why should a business knowingly hire someone who consistently makes poor health choices that will significantly drive up its healthcare costs?

Discrimination in hiring for certain characteristics such as race, gender, age, and national origin is rightfully illegal. A person doesn’t generally choose his or her status on those characteristics. However, smokers chose to start smoking and choose to continue smoking. Yes, once you’re addicted, it’s a very, very hard habit to break. But people quit every day. Every anti-smoking move that governments and businesses make, such as banning smoking in restaurants and other public buildings or refusing to hire smokers, gives nicotine addicts additional reasons to quit.

I have no visibility to the impact of smoking on healthcare costs at my own company, but I do see some of the operational results within my department. In my office, we work an eight-hour shift with no scheduled breaks. We may leave the desk temporarily to attend to “personal physiological needs”. Some of my colleagues smoke, which means that a few times during each shift, they disappear for a while for a smoke break. When they are gone, the people around them must cover their phones and crew messages. Covering for other people can put us in an awkward legal position, plus it’s just annoying when a smoker expects us to do their job plus our own due to their own poor choices.

To me, refusing to hire smokers is a no-brainer. The more interesting question, as mentioned briefly in the article, is whether an employer can legally refuse to hire people who are overweight. Such a ban would affect a much larger percentage of the population, at least in America, and could be considered illegal discrimination in some cases. After all, obesity can result from multiple factors, including genetics, other health disorders, and lifestyle choices. Some people are overweight despite eating well and exercising.

On a related note, the City of Chicago is starting a wellness program for city employees that includes health screenings, accountability, counseling, and support toward goals such as weight loss. Those who choose not to participate will pay $50/month more for their health insurance.

Banning applicants who smoke and charging overweight people more for health insurance does present a slippery-slope problem. How far do we want to go in rewarding and punishing certain types of behavior? What other risky behaviors can a business or government single out for correction? Use of alcohol? Motorcycle riding? Skydiving? Use of tanning booths? Football? Cycling? Eating at McDonald’s? Unprotected sex? Not getting enough sleep at night? What might seem like a simple issue (to skinny nonsmokers, at least) could get really complicated if you try to take it further.

What are your thoughts? Should employers exclude certain candidates because of their lifestyle choices? If so, which choices form an acceptable basis for discrimination in hiring? If not, what can employers do to mitigate the increased healthcare costs that these employees cause and encourage them to make better choices?

Through with Lending

Posted on by

Neither a borrower nor a lender be. – William Shakespeare in Hamlet

In previous posts like this one, I told you about my experiences with Prosper, a website that allows individuals to loan money to each other at an agreed-upon interest rate for a three-year term. Follow the link if you want all the details. It seemed like an innovative concept at the time, both profitable and noble. People applied to borrow money with an eBay-style listing, explaining their situation and why they wanted a loan – small business investment, medical bills, home improvement, rebuilding their shoddy credit, etc. I liked the idea of helping people while also getting a good return on my investment.

However, as you might have predicted, it didn’t quite work out the way I’d planned.

Three years after initiating my final loan on Prosper, all 24 of my notes are wrapped up, and I am closing my account. My borrowers were a mix of low-, medium-, and high-risk individuals according to Prosper’s credit rating system. Of the 24 borrowers, 13 of them defaulted. Let that sink in for a minute. Over half of the people who borrowed money from me did not pay me back in full, either by declaring bankruptcy or simply failing to pay. A collection agency pursued some of them with no success. I lost a total of $123.49.

Who should receive the blame here? The economy? Remember, I initiated these loans in 2007 and 2008, shortly before the economy collapsed. The deadbeats themselves for not doing what it took to fulfill their financial obligations? Me for being naive or greedy enough to loan out the money?

I’ll go with all of the above.

Learning experiences can be painful but are usually worthwhile, and that’s certainly the case here. Learn from my failure: unsecured loans to individuals over the Internet are generally a bad idea.

It’s Here

Posted on by

Yesterday I did my part to stimulate the DFW economy.

After a ton of research and nearly three weeks of waiting for it to arrive after I ordered it, I finally picked up my bike on Saturday. I took it out for a few miles last night, and it rode great – very smooth, fast, and just…fun. It weighs around 24 lbs, 7-8 lbs less than my old bike. With the same effort, I can go 25-35 percent faster. Riding in the park, I have to slow down for curves, dogs, and pedestrians who feel the need to walk slowly next to three of their friends and completely block the trail. Speed is addictive, so those kinds of problems are more irritating now that I’m riding a rocket. So this morning I plan to try a longer ride on the road, taking advantage of the minimal traffic.

The bike shop manager suggested riding out to the Grapevine Krispy Kreme and back. I’m actually going to plot that route and see how far it is. Don’t judge – it takes energy to exercise.

I’m Quite Stimulating

Posted on by

As the sole provider and money manager for our family, I tend to think about money more than I should – are we spending too much, are we spending on the right things, are we saving enough, etc. I can’t manage our money like the government manages its money, nor would I ever want to. But our nation’s economic struggles have gotten me thinking about my own tiny role in our economy and my ability to stimulate it.

Finance and economics are a bit of a paradox to me. What’s good for me and my family financially – things like reducing/eliminating debt, saving for future purchases to pay cash rather than using credit, investing toward the boys’ college and our retirement, not buying stuff we don’t need – is generally bad for the economy as a whole, which depends heavily on consumer spending and debt to thrive. Similarly, when we save thousands of dollars each spring by taking advantage of the many tax credits and deductions that the IRS allows, we deprive the government of tax revenue that it could use in countless ways.

Money is the lifeblood of the economy and must flow from person to person, person to business, and business to business to keep the economy alive. When I give the local donut shop $5 for some donuts, that money might go to the local Sam’s Club where the owner buys her sugar and flour, and then to TXU Energy to keep the lights on at Sam’s, and then to the TXU billing support rep who answers questions about your bill, and then to Southwest Airlines when that rep needs to fly to Houston for a wedding, and then back to me.

The whole process fascinates me.

At times I’ve felt guilty about spending money on stuff for myself or my family, wondering whether we should have saved or given away that money instead. But I’ve come to realize something – spending money is another way to help people. I might not have Buffett-level cash that can jolt stock prices or bail out ailing companies, but the little money I do have to spend can still help to people working and put food on their tables.

I like the sound of that.