WTF Wednesday

WTF . . .

. . . ever happened to getting keys copied for cheap? Spousehole's keys disappeared (Boy had them last). He replaced the keys for work and church and the house. We copied the keys for the older mommyvan with no problem. But then we wanted to copy the key for my current mommyvan (still old - 2002 - but not as ancient as the last one). "No can do" was the response from "the helpful hardware man." He sent me to my local Ford dealer. They want $75 to copy the damn key for the mommyvan. That's not including a key fob for unlocking the doors, just the key itself! Apparently almost all cars made this century have a computer chip in the key. When you put the key in the ignition, the car's computer must recognize the chip in the key or the car won't start, even if the key is physically correct. Makes is harder for some schmuck valet or auto repair person to copy your key and steal your car. But makes it f*cking expensive to replace your key if your Spousehole and son conspire to lose the damn key! I actually have another Ford fob and can get that programmed to unlock my van doors for less than half the cost of getting a freakin' key made. I also learned that those computer chips in the key can DIE and leave you stranded! My dad's golf buddy drives a Caddy with the "smart" key. He got in his car after a round of golf and the ignition wouldn't budge. It turned out the teeny-tiny little power source in the key died. Fortunately they were golfing in town and the friend's wife drove over with the spare key, which had not yet died. He also discovered the high cost of key replacement (about the same as Ford's ridiculous fee) in the age of "smart" keys. He vowed not to buy another Cadillac, but it is my understanding that these "smart" keys are the norm now, so we are all screwed. If you are like me and plan to drive a car into the ground, you can figure on replacing your keys at that ridiculous rate sooner or later when the key dies. What a scam. To me this makes sense for higher end vehicles that people might actually go to the trouble of copying a key to steal. If there's a ton of people out there stealing 2002 Ford Windstars, I haven't heard about it.

. . . is Dear Abby's problem? (Edited to add: Jeanne Phillips writes Dear Abby. She is the 50-60-ish daughter of the original Dear Abby, Pauline Phillips, who is in her 80s and suffers from Alzheimer's Disease.)

Recent letter and her (Jeanne Phillips') response:

DEAR ABBY: There seems to be an awful lot of women exposing themselves on the Internet in graphic sexual fashion. My wife says that men degrade themselves by looking at them.My question to you is, what is more degrading? Looking at them, or women exposing themselves? -- WONDERING IN PUYALLUP, WASH.

DEAR WONDERING: For a woman to post graphic sexual images for people she doesn't know to view strikes me as more degrading because it indicates that she thinks she has little else to offer.

However, for a married man to view those images could also be considered degrading -- and threatening -- to his wife. Many women have written to me because their husbands spend more time looking at porn on the Internet than having a sex life in their own bedroom. In other words, the practice became an addiction.

So, women who post images of themselves are degrading themselves. Women who are married to men who look at the pictures are degraded. But men, whether they look at the pictures or post their own, are not degrading themselves?

First of all, I take offense at Ms. Philips' (Dear Abby) assumption that all women who post pictures of their bodies on the internet are degrading themselves. Many are celebrating themselves and the sexuality - how is that degrading? Sure, there are people who are desperate for attention and think that their body is all they have to offer. But that doesn't necessarily apply to all or even most women who post pictures on the internet.

If a man's viewing of these pictures becomes a substitute for a healthy sex life with his partner, that is disrespectful to his partner, but likely there are other problems in the relationship. A man isn't forced to look at these images just because they exist. He still makes the choice. He chooses to not have a normal sex life with his partner. But it isn't the fault of the women who post pictures!

Am I overreacting?

. . . is with naming a children's magazine "Playmate"? I know there is a perfectly reasonable use of the term "playmate" in conjunction with children. I use it all the time to refer to my children's playmates. But a magazine of that name just makes me think of Playboy Playmates and nekkid pictures. I laughed upon learning my son would be receiving this magazine and explained to Spousehole why I found the name amusing. He accused me of always thinking about sex (duh!) and being a filthy pervert. I resented that, of course, because I am a clean and well-groomed pervert, thankyouverymuch. I may be a pervert with a dirty mind, but at least I have a sense of humor.