I know just where I stand a boy trapped in the body of a man and

OK, so, theferrett writes about sex a lot. Its one of the things that draws people into reading him. Sex sells, as they say, even in the world of internet blogging where there's nothing actually for sale.

He riffed a little bit today, based on a conversation he was apparently having with a friend, and wrote several of the most true things about sex I have ever read in my goddamn life. And I don't get the sense that this was the result of prolonged meditation on the subject. This is just offhand thought. But you should read it anyway. In my opinion its good stuff, and true as Hell.

My thinking about sex is pretty thoroughly weird, and largely informed by the likes of Dan Savage, who not everyone agrees has his head screwed on straight about many, many things. That being said, I am only too happy to add theferrett to the list of people who shares my way of thinking on this most interesting of topics.

an audiobook of complete world knowledge is all you'll ever need

Behold, the triumphant return of Because Its Wednesday:

In my current temp gig I work for a market research company. The department I work for is concerned primarily with surveys. Clients work with us to design a survey that they believe will tell them something about their customers. We administer the survey and analyze the results. Mostly its relatively mundane stuff, but every so often something interesting turns up.

Today, for instance, I got to thinking about one question in particular. Its part of a block of questions of the type you've probably seen before. The kind where you rate a series of statements on a numerical scale, with a low number meaning you don't agree with the statement and a high number meaning you do. Incidentally, in case you didn't know, the scale is usually intentionally more finely calibrated than it actually needs to be. For example if its a 5 point scale (that is to say rated from 1 to 5) then whether you answer a 4 or a 5 doesn't actually matter. They both count as the "top 2 boxes," a phrase I heard used in Sorkin banter but never connected to anything until now.

Its possible this is rudimentary statistical and demographic knowledge, but I'm bad at math, so I didn't know.

Anyway, what got me thinking was a single statement that's part of a larger block of statements about purchasing behaviors. How you decide what brand you're going to buy, and how much you're willing to pay, and how long you spend thinking about it, that sort of thing. And the statement in question reads as follows:

I would pay more for products consistent with an image I like.

Now maybe I'm just cynical (and its highly possible that I am) but as far as I'm concerned anyone who doesn't answer that they agree with that statement is a total fucking liar. Don't get me wrong: I'm not particularly image-conscious. If I stop and consider it then I would say that I try and base my purchasing decisions on utility rather than style. I buy clothes that are comfortable, food I like the taste of, etc. And I'm relatively thrifty, so I generally try and get the best product for the least amount of money possible.

Which is all well and good, except I own an iPod. And yeah, the first iPod I owned was bought for me as a Christmas gift. But I still wanted that gift, and actively asked for it by name. Despite the fact that there were and are any number of equivalent or even superior products on the market, several in significantly less expensive price ranges. I can justify the decision in my head, rationalize and make statements about compatibility and such, but the fact of the matter is that part of why I wanted it was because it was cool.

Which isn't the point I'm trying to make, really, its just meant to be an illustrative example. The fact of the matter is that everyone, whether consciously or not, has certain things they are willing to spend more money on because they have in some way been influenced by the advertising or image of a product. Which is why you get hippies who will thoughtlessly pay more for food with the word "organic" on the packaging without necessarily stopping to check for truth in advertising. Or geeks who buy "special edition" DVD boxed sets that don't bring much to the table in the way of bonus material -- we'll complain loudly about that lack, but we'll still shell out and buy it. Or pretty much the entire success of the American Eagle clothing brand, just to name one shameless ripoff succesful brand imitation.

The results for the survey in question showed that fewer than half of the respondents felt that they agreed strongly that they'd willingly pay more for image. Its one of those things we as consumers are resistant to aditting. We don't want to believe its true, at least not of us. 'Other people allow themselves to be unduly influenced by such trivial things,' we say to ourselves, 'but I'm smarter than that.' Well I for one say "bullshit." On some level I'm influenced by image, even when that influence impacts my wallet, and I'm not ashamed.