If you thought the bestselling "Go The F***k To Sleep" wasn't appropriate for children – you haven't seen anything yet! Combining real Bible verses with whimsical illustrations, "Awkward Moments (Not Found In Your Average) Children's Bible" offers much more than an irreverent gag gift for the coffee table. "The goal of the project,"” says author Horus Gilgamesh, "is to challenge readers from all walks of life to gain a better understanding of the content of the Bible and its context in modern day culture. The fact that our fans report shooting milk out their noses from laughter is just an added bonus."
With the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot by Michael Bay coming out this weekend, Vulture takes a look at the history of the famous pizza-loving, weapon-wielding reptiles, from their inception in 1983.
Guys, sometimes it’s hard to tell if a woman is into you or not. Trust me, I know; I’m a woman. It’s called sending mixed signals, and we do it so we can entrap men with false rape allegations and extort money out of them. All women do it, and it would be considered a massive problem if it weren’t for our brilliant use of feminism to mask our elaborate scheme to enslave men.
But, I figured I’d throw you guys a bone and give you some tips to help you figure out when a woman _actually_ wants to fuck, because we all know that no means no, and now sometimes even yes means no. Here’s the things you should look out for.
1. She Gives You “The Look”
Pupils dilated. Upper lids fully retracted, while the bottom lids push up. The eyes will dart back and forth rapidly as she flicks her tongue from side to side and bears her teeth. This means that she’s ready to mate, and it’s a clear go ahead.
2. She Pounds On Her Chest
Usually, this behavior was only seen in males, but thanks to the ‘pussification’ process in the war on boys, women have stolen chest pounding to indicate a desire for sexual conquest. Now, when a woman pounds on her chest, she’s not just mocking men or announcing her lesbianhood, she’s actually trying to have sex with men and show her dominance over the other heterosexual females. Go talk to her, see what she has to say or grunt about.
3. She Flashes Her Genitals At You
This is one of the key signs. A woman who is interested in you will often lift up her skirt or dress to reveal her vagina to you from across the bar. Unfortunately, because of feminism, women are no longer allowed to wear skirts. They have to wear a man’s pair of pants and they’re not allowed to be housewives or enjoy cooking. Thus, sometimes genital display isn’t available, and a woman will use the sides of her palms to pound on her vagina area DX “suck it” style to let you know that she wants to start a family with you.
4. She Lets Out A Bit Of Urine Near The Entrance Of Your House
Feminism is a work in progress, and it’s still not customary for women with money to purchase a husband as a fancy accessory like a race car or a gun or yacht. Unfortunately, if a woman tries to buy a man a bunch of nice things in order to win him as a trophy husband, the man will often feel intimidated. That’s why despite work to remove gender roles, it’s sometimes best to just revert back to our animal instincts. When a girl likes a guy, she’ll follow him home and urinate around the entrance to his nest. The urine pheromones will lead the man back to her place, where intercourse will take place.
5. She Gets Wet
I’m not just talking about the pussy here. A sexual aroused human female will also drool at the sight of a man she is trying to copulate with. While men also do this, often as a part of the illegal rapist act of catcalling in which they turn into cartoon wolves, the reason for female drooling during courting is much different. As most human pairing has taken place in bars in recent history, women evolved a defense mechanism of drooling very visibly when they know they will leave with a man that night; that way, in the event she attempts to file false rape accusations later, there will be plenty of witnesses that will have observed her incapacitated droolier state earlier at the bar.
One of the ongoing complaints I see amongst my readers and in society in general is sex. Most people aren’t getting laid enough… and they don’t know what to do about it. Whether it’s a case of chasing after numbers, finding a no-strings-attached hook-up , a lack of nookie in a committed relationship or even just managing to lose one’s virginity, it often seems like sexual fulfillment is something that happens to other people.
It’s a constant source of frustration, angst, even self-harm in men. It’s led men to drink, drugs, and dodgy sub-reddits.
But no longer.
Today, I’m going to do something that nobody else has done: I’m going to give you the secret to getting all of the sex you can handle… and I’m giving it away for free (So many jokes…). No sales pitch. No “free-sample-now-pay-for-the-rest.” No dodgy links. Everything’s on the up and up.
I warn you now: it’s not going to be easy. But I think you’ll agree with me that it’s worth it.
Ready?
The Single Biggest Impediment To Sex
You want to know the main reason why sex seems so damned difficult to come by unless you’re one of the blessed few who seem to have an intrinsic grasp of social dynamics?
It’s women. Kinda.
More specifically: it’s the way that society has treated and socialized women for literally hundreds and thousands of years. Over generations, society has placed barrier after barrier between women and their own sexuality. In fact, the dominant narrative for the last two hundred years has been that women are inherently the “purer” sex, the ones who are biologically inclined to monogamy, who are the less lustful of the species.
Women — and society — have been taught that sex is a masculine trait; men are satyrs who can barely control themselves while women are tasked with having to guard not only their own virtue but regulate men’s sexuality as well, because Lord knows men can’t, bless their hearts.
In fact, until relatively recently, female sexuality was an oxymoron. The idea that women even wanted sex was a heretical thought.
Women As Non-Sexual Beings
It wasn’t always thus. In fact, in the western Classical Age, women’s sexuality was considered to be in many ways superior to men’s. In Ovid’s Metamorphosis, Tiresias is called upon to settle a bet between Zeus and Hera: who gets more out of sex, men or women? (And thus the first opinion opener was created, showing that this trope is, in fact, older than dirt.) After spending years transformed by the gods into a woman — never let it be said that the Greeks didn’t believe in rigorous study — Tiresias had an answer: a woman’s pleasure from sex was nine times more intense than a man’s.
Medicine and fertility treatments of the time — well up until the Middle Ages — focused on the importance, even necessity of women’s sexual pleasure in order to ensure conception… the female orgasm was considered to be as important, if not more so, than the man’s.
Not, mind you, that this meant that women’s sexuality was embraced or approved of. The madonna/whore dichotomy was well and truly in place early on. In the Talmud, Adam’s first wife Lilith is expelled from Eden for trying to take the superior role in sex — riding her husband rather than laying back and thinking of Babylon; after her expulsion she goes on to lay with the wild beasts of the desert and becomes the mother of demons. Eve’s sin — giving in to temptation — is the burden of all women. The Malleus Maleficarum — the official witch-hunter’s guidebook of the early modern Catholic Church — tells stories of lustful witches who steal men’s seed, stamina and even their genitals through sex.
The idea of woman-as-insatiable-temptress lasted right up until the 19th century when suddenly the narrative shifted. Now it was no longer that women were lustful and needed to be controlled; now the story — especially promoted by proto-feminist movements and Protestant Christianity and eagerly adopted by Victorian England — was that women were the purer gender.
This idea would go on to shape not just the perception of women, but the understanding of human sexuality.
Science, Evo-Psych and The Power of the Cultural Narrative
We like to think that we’re a logical species — that we see the world with gimlet-eyed clarity and a belief in science and evidence above all else. After all, we’ve tamed the deserts, charted the oceans, harnessed the atom and conquered outer space… clearly we are a people of lucid cognition who see only what is real, untainted by superstition or cultural prejudice.
Except this isn’t true. We let confirmation bias control much of what we believe, even down to our science. Much of our belief about human sexuality — the importance and universality of monogamy, for example — stem from the Flintsonization of primitive cultures. Darwin was a notorious prude and this directly influenced his interpretations of evolution, as well as the interpretations of those who came after him. We ascribe modern morality and concepts to our paleolithic ancestors because we believe that it was always thus.
This is never more evident than in evolutionary psychology. The goal of evo-psych is to show that our modern behavior is inborn, that everything from whom we’re attracted to, to social dynamics, is born out of evolution instead of societal change. Women, for example, are built for monogamy and are less interested in sex in general — so the theory goes — because sperm is metaphorically cheap while eggs are expensive; there is less metabolic cost to men for producing sperm, while women not only generate the ovum, but place their health and safety at risk by bearing the child. It follows, then, that men are naturally not inclined to monogamy because their lizard-brains tell them that they need to spread their cheap sperm far and wide to better maximize their potential for offspring. Women, on the other hand, hold back sex in exchange for status, protection and resources; they want to maximize their individual offspring’s chances to survive… and sexual access is the currency they have to offer.
It’s a lovely theory, one that just feels right. We all know men are hornier than women, after all…
Except it’s not true. Not only are women not less sexually inclined than men, but neither are they naturally monogamous. Female primates don’t actually trade sex for protection and support; in fact, it’s more beneficial for the female to mate with many males because of the way it obscures paternity and helps prevent the threat infanticide from males who might want to make her fertile again. Humans in particular are built for multiple partners; male genitalia and sexual response are designed to flush out the sperm of other males.
The “eggs are cheap” theory falls into a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc — “after this, therefor because of this.” It’s backfilling the origins of modern sexual behavior by establishing a seemingly logical “reason” for its existence. But we’ve seen over and over again that, in fact, human sexuality has far less to do with reproduction than evo-psych would have us believe.
We let the cultural narrative control how we see the world and that belief affects everything else. Scientists have long said that males of almost every species are the sexual aggressors, because we’ve long believed that males are the universally dominant gender. But because we believe this, we overlook evidence to the contrary. When we study animal reproduction, we often focus on the actual mating… but not on the behavior that leads up to it.
In his book What Do Women Want? Daniel Bergner interviews scientists who study sexual behavior in animals — and the results are interesting. Even in species as diverse as rats and rhesus monkeys, the female does the majority of the initiation for sex; rather than letting the pheromones produced by estrus do all of the work for her, she must entice the male into mating. More often than not, the male’s contribution to sex involves being a passive actor, only coming to action when called upon.
This blindness persists even into human sexuality. One of the biggest “discoveries” trumpeted around the Internet in 2009 was the stunning revelation that the human clitoris is actually much, much larger than previously thought – extending far into the body and actually bifurcating into branches and wrapping around the vagina like a pair wings.
Except… this wasn’t really news. In fact, this had been discovered and published in medical journals more than 11 years earlier when Dr. Helen O’Connoll studied the clitoris in an MRI. And yet, this fact was ignored in medical textbooks and anatomical illustrations until recently. For reference, the penis was mapped via MRI in the 1970s. The clitoris was treated as a vestigal organ at best. While thousands upon thousands of pages have been written about penile surgery — especially about restoring or enhancing sensation, the majority of medical information regarding the clitoris and clitoral hood consisted of dermatology.
Why? Because the clitoris’ only purpose is sexual pleasure. And we, as a culture, continue to be incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of female sexuality or women having sexual agency.
Good Girls Go To Heaven/Bad Girls Go Everywhere
To be a woman in the modern world is to be placed at odds with one’s own sexual desires.
In the opening chapters of his book, Daniel Berenger talks about an eye-opening study regarding the differences between female and male sexuality. Dr. Meredith Chivers, a professor of Clinical Psychology at Queen’s University conducted a study of the sexual response in men and women, comparing one’s subjective arousal to the actual arousal as measured by blood flow to the genitals. Subjects — men and women of various sexual orientations — would watch an assortment of videos of 90 seconds each: heterosexual and homosexual couples having sex, nude men, nude women, men and women masturbating and a pair of bonobos mating. Between each clip, they would be shown a video of a nature scene to return their arousal level back to baseline normal. Each subject had a keypad on which they would rate their feelings of arousal. As a result, Chivers had records of each participant’s subjective and objective arousal.
Male response tracked closely to their reported sexual identity; gay men were aroused by gay porn and nude men while straight men were aroused by the hetero couples and the women in them; their subjective and objective arousal levels matched. Women’s… did not.
In fact, the records showed that women were far more aroused than men by a wider variety of images. Regardless of sexual identity, the female subjects were aroused by the sexual activity; the lesbian subjects were aroused by the male homosexual porn and the hetero subjects were aroused by the sapphic lovers and scenes of women masturbating. And yet the levels of subjective arousal reported by the participants varied. Again, the men’s self-reported arousal levels matched their recorded blood-flow… but the women’s were often contradicted by their own bodies.
There have been other studies that strongly suggest that the cause for the discordant results is that women are socialized to be disconnected from their own sexuality — that men are allowed to sexually in tune with their own wants and lusts while women are not.
Considering the way that society responds to any suggestion that women are sexual creatures, this is hardly surprising. In the 1940s and 50s, Alfred Kinsey conducted the first comprehensive study of human sexuality and published his findings in two books. The first, Sexual Behavior In the Human Male was a runaway success, turning Dr. Kinsey into an overnight celebrity; quite the unexpected reception for a dry tome full of charts and statistical data, written for the academic and scientific community. The second book however, Sexual Behavior In The Human Female did not get the same response. In fact, public outcry against his findings – that women masturbated, that most women had pre-marital sex, that a surprising number were lesbians or bisexual and had same-sex experiences – was so intense that there was a Congressional inquiry into his finances. He lost his grants and his job and died in poverty. The backlash against his findings and his study was so great that it hampered future research into human sexuality for decades.
Society, in effect, attempted to bury the Kinsey reports because they didn’t like the way it disrupted the social narrative about female sexuality.
Even as social mores changed with rise of feminism and the Sexual Revolution in the 60s, women who were overtly sexual were portrayed as having something wrong with them; they clearly had been abused, or psychological problems or were otherwise just “damaged goods.” The idea that they might have sex for pleasure’s sake was anathema. Women, we are told over and over again, require emotional inspiration for sex; even the classic “Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex (But Were Afraid To Ask)” insisted that “before a woman could have sexual intercourse, she must have social intercourse.” The infamous 1989 Clark/Hatfield study continues to be held up as “evidence” that women don’t like sex the way that men do despite the problems with its methodology and the subsequent studies that refute it.
Even today, society pushes back hard against women owning their sexual interests… even as women are encouraged to take active control of every other aspect of their lives. Every few months it seems, somebody notices that the sexual culture has been changing, especially on college campuses. It seems that not a month can go by without another article tut-tutting and pearl-clutching over the rise of “hook-up culture” and the “dangers” it’s presenting to young women.
Even the New York Times couldn’t get away from the slut-shaming; while the first few stories talked about young women who were engaging in sex because they felt like it, the second half was equal parts finger-wag and tragedy porn, a mélange of regrets, tales of woe and rape. The message was unmistakable: these poor girls, ruining their lives because they were fucking like men.
The point was driven home later by Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown in an MSNBC roundtable discussion:
I found this tragic because it basically says that these girls are completely editing out tenderness, intimacy, excitement, somebody respecting them…
Yes. Women deciding that they wanted no-strings attached sex meant that they were cutting themselves off from intimacy and permanently marking themselves with a scarlet “S” that would forever prevent some man from considering them a viable future spouse. In 2013.
Of course, it certainly doesn’t help when you have politician after politician actively punishing women for having sex for any reason outside of missionary-position-and-strictly-for-procreation. First it was the conservative outcry over — get this — birth control pills, something that hasn’t been controversial since Griswold Vs. Connecticut (1965) made it legal for married couples and Eisenstadt v. Baird(1971) made it legal for everyone else. Rick Perry decided to lead the nationwide charge against women’s sex lives by mandating getting a stick shoved up one’s hoo-hah as an unavoidable prerequisite to getting an abortion and then closed 99% of the abortion clinics in Texas. And as goes Texas, so goes the rest of the nation; Virginia, Wisconsin and Michigan were quick to follow with their own version of the trans-vaginal ultrasound laws as a way to punish all those sluts for their sluttish ways.
But where would all of the slut-shaming be without a generous dose of hypocrisy to go with it?
Women are allowed to be sexual… but only in prescribed ways. Their sexuality is to be a performance, something done in order to please men, not for themselves. The nude women that bedeck the scenery of Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” are decorative, not empowered; their sexiness is there to affirm Thicke’s desirability and virility. The Daily Mail — a UK tabloid that is, frankly so shitty that wrapping fish in it would be an insult to the ocean — takes great glee in drawing attention to nip-slips, muffin-tops and the occasional oops-no-panties moment for female celebrities. It loves nothing more than criticizing them for their shamelessness “lack of decency,” as well as not keeping their bodies to the desired standards of Daily Mail’s readers and editorial board.
…and few celebs are willing or able to slap back as effectively or awesomely as Amanda Palmer did. Warning, veryNSFW
Geek culture similarly has a love/hate relationship with women’s sexuality; they may love the sexy cosplayers but only in as much as they gratify men’s interests… and even then they’re suspect. Adrienne Curry gets held up as an “attention whore” (there’s that word again) and “fake” geek girl whenever she attends San Diego Comic-Con in skimpy costumes. Cosplayers who portray sexy characters, Rule 69 versions, or otherwise show “too much” skin are simultaneously lusted after – witness the number of “hottest cosplayer” photo galleries — and accused of only being there to bolster their number of Facebook and Instagram followers. As though someone who’s “only in it for the attention” is willing to shell out the hundreds of bucks for a SDCC pass, fight through the Thunderdome that is the Comic-Con hotel-reservation system (FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND NERDS ENTER! ONE RESERVATION LEAVES!) and spend countless hours and dollars creating costumes just “for the attention” rather than a way of embodying and expressing their love for the characters they adore….
It isn’t helped any when men themselves are socially resistant to sexually aggressive women. A large part of why women aren’t willing to approach men they’re interested in is because men react badly to such a violation of the social narrative. When women make the first move, they’re often seen as being slutty or overly-aggressive. Those men who don’t respond with immediate distaste tend to overestimate the women’s interest in them and react accordingly… which is to say, trying to spelunk her tonsils with any portion of his anatomy he thinks she might take.
Small wonder then, that women — even in this day and age, when more and more young women are discarding traditional definitions of “feminine behavior” and forgoing dating for casual relationships in college — are still uncomfortable with the idea of fucking as care-free as men do; not only do they bear the majority of the physical risk but the social risk as well.
The Secret To Getting More Sex
So now that you’ve stuck around this long, let’s talk about what all this means to you.
If you’re looking for more casual sex, whether it’s a fuck-buddy relationship, a same-night hook-up, or just no-strings attached sex, you’re going to have your work cut out for you. The level of cultural conditioning that we’ve received — women and men – is difficult to unravel and work through… even when you know it’s there. There are a large number of women who want a casual hook-up but feel uncomfortable pursuing one because of social opprobrium, even today. Women are continually subject to messages of denial and shame when they step out of the traditional gender roles of sexuality and this directly affects their relationships… and yours.
(As the official NerdLove Celebrity Patronus Dan Savage has said many times, part of why American culture’s so screwed up over sex is that “Canada got the French, Australia got the convicts and America got the Puritans.)
So what can you do about it?
Understand That Women Want Sex Too
As far as advice goes, this seems like a “duh, George” moment if ever there was one. But one common sticking point I’ve seen over and over again is accepting the idea that women are as much sexual beings as men are. All too often, guys have a hard time expressing their desires or even wanting to admit that they have them. They often see their own sexuality as problematic and assume that women are naturally going to be offended by it because they’re so much less animalistic or base than men, or that they have different needs. Except it’s not true; women want to get laid just as much as men do and for the same reasons. Sometimes they want emotional intimacy or to feel desired. Sometimes they’re bored and it’s something to do. Sometimes it’s a way of proving something to themselves or to others. And sometimes they’re just horny and want to fuck.
Accepting that women are sexual beings, just as men are, is an important part of being able to relate to them sexually and to be able to communicate with them. It’s not a negotiation or trade of value for value, it’s a collaboration; you’re both interested in something that’s fun and feels good, here’s what you both bring to the table, are you interested?
Be Non-Judgmental
A major impediment to women’s sexual interest is social. A woman who expresses herself sexually is branded as a slut or a whore; a woman who has too much sex – for suitably random values of ‘too much’ — is seen as worth less or “damaged.” All too often, if a woman is overtly sexual, society is quick to assume that there’s something wrong with her or that she’s doing damage to herself; almost every hand-wringing article about “hook-up culture” in colleges worries about how these women are ruining their future potential. Strippers and escorts, so goes the common assumption, are only doing their job because “daddy touched them” or they have unspecified “issues.” Amanda Knox’s sex life (*Gasp* she bought a vibrator! She had one night stands!) was used as “proof” that she was mentally unhinged and thus a murderess; even after her acquittal, she’s forced to justify her sexuality to the media. Even women who simply approach men rather than waiting for men to make the first move are shamed for aggressively pursuing what they want.
One of the sexiest aspects of a modern man is someone who can accept a woman as she is without judgement. It’s fine for her to be the aggressor; it feels good to be desired. Whether she likes to be overtly sexy or not doesn’t speak to the quality of her character, nor does it imply anything other than “she likes to feel sexy.” It doesn’t matter if she’s had one partner or many; it’s only important that she’s into you.
Fight Back Against Rape Culture
I’m a big believer in enlightened self-interest. It’s good to do the right thing just because it’s right… but sometimes it’s worth noting that doing the right thing is good for you as well. Case in point: Want to get laid more? One of the key reasons why women aren’t as receptive to casual sex as men are is because of the risk to their physical safety. Part of the solution then, is to help build a world where women can feel safe. When harassment is brushed off as “he’s paying you a compliment” or “boys will be boys,” when a rape victim is almost always automatically blamed for her own assault and someone drinking, hanging around with men or is dressed provocatively is seen as “asking for it,” we’re fighting against our own interests. The tolerance, acceptance and even normalization of rape and rape culture all contributes to a world where women are in danger just by virtue of being women. Speaking up when someone is being harassed, calling out rape jokes and bad behavior, supporting women even in the face of being dismissed as a “white knight,” even something as simple as practicing and encouraging enthusiastic consent are all ways of pushing back against rape culture.
Be An Ally
Yes, I’m advocating being a feminist ally because it’ll help you get laid. Remember what I said about enlightened self-interest? It applies just as much here.
Guys get caught up in the myths of feminism and the idea that it’s about taking something away from men — as though privilege is a zero-sum game. Feminism isn’t about hating men or putting men into a submissive role or taking over the world. It is — as the famous quote goes — about “the radical idea that women are people too” and treating them accordingly… and that helps men as well.
There’s a phrase in feminism: “The Patriarchy hurts everyone.” Every time a man laments that women won’t make the first move, he is lamenting the gender roles that the patriarchal system enforces. Every time he wonders why women aren’t as interested in sex as men are, he’s staring down at behavior enforced by the entrenched structure. Every time a guy is given shit for acting queer, called a fag or is told he’s being a little bitch, he’s being punished for acting outside of the strict definition of “MAN.”
These are all things that feminism is trying to change. Fighting back against the “traditional” definitions and restrictions of gendered behavior frees women and men.
And it helps both men and women sexually. One of the most important victories won by feminism was the right for women to control their reproduction. The introduction of hormonal birth control was a critical factor of the sexual revolution; when women were able to have sex without the risk of pregnancy, it opened up the world to them. Not only were they able to embrace education and careers without concern about their lives being interrupted by pregnancy, but it also enabled them to pursue relationships — casual and otherwise — with a freedom that they didn’t have before. The conservative push to roll back all of those hard-won victories will directly affect men just as much as women.
The adage that a rising tide lifts all boats applies to equality as much as it does to finance. Helping work towards equality and social change is in your own best interest.
El gobierno local recomienda el uso de la avenida de Lugo para los desplazamientos de norte a sur del casco urbano y para reducir la presión sobre la calle reformada
Twitter user @QuantumPirate shared this picture of all of the Mambo No. 5 names on Coke bottles.
"A little bit of Monica in my life /
A little bit of Erica by my side /
A little bit of Rita is all I need /
A little bit of Tina is what I see /
A little bit of Sandra in the sun /
A little bit of Mary all night long /
A little bit of Jessica, here I am..."
Una de las primeras preguntas que suele hacerse a alguien que acabamos de conocer es “¿a qué te dedicas?”. El trabajo nos define. El trabajo no hace felices. El trabajo nos da sentido. Pocos responden lo que dice Tyler Durden a tal pregunta: ¿para qué? ¿Para fingir que te interesa?
Sin embargo, no siempre fue así. Aristóteles sostenía que era incompatible hacer algo que nos realizara y completara y, a la vez, nos pagaran por ello. Trabajar por dinero era algo así como prostituirse. Sin una renta base y una vida de tiempo libre era imposible disfrutar, a juicio de Aristóteles, de los más elevados placeres que proporcionaban la filosofía y la música.Los primeros cristianos añadieron la doctrina de que el trabajo era un castigo bíblico. Incluso Leonardo y Miguel Ángel, que adoraban el trabajo práctico, también se limitaban a trabajos creativos.
No fue hasta que llegaron Diderot y d´Alembert, con su Enciclopedia, que se empezó a describir el trabajo cotidiano como hornear el pan o plantar espárragos como actividades gratificantes, formadoras, e incluso inspiradoras. El propio Diderot aducía:
Las artes liberales han cantado su propia alabanza durante suficiente tiempo; ahora deberían alzar su voz para alabar las artes mecánicas. Las artes liberales deben rescatar a las artes mecánicas de la degradación en la que se han mantenido durante tanto tiempo por prejuicio.
Viva el trabajo remunerado
De repente, las tornas cambiaron por completo, hasta el punto de que el trabajo que se realizaba sin una finalidad económica ya no era un trabajo, ya no pertenecía al ámbito laboral, sino al ámbito de las aficiones, tal y como explica el filósofo Alain de Botton en su libro Miserias y esplendores del trabajo:
a las tareas sin retribución económica se las despojaba de todo significado y se las relegaba a la atención caprichosa de decadentes diletantes. Entonces pareció tan imposible que se pudiera ser feliz e improductivo como antes había parecido inverosímil que se pudiera trabajar y ser humano.
El trabajo asalariado se convirtió en el verdadero trabajo. Si tu actividad no era remunerada, entonces no tenía valor (confundiéndose aquí términos tan distintos como “valor” y “coste”). Una idea que quedó tan arraigada que aún hoy es la idea rectora de cualquier argumentación en contra de la cultura libre, las actividades por amor al arte, las copias de creaciones ajenas sin que medie recompensa crematística.
Es definitiva, la idea de que si no cobras dinero por lo que haces, entonces eres idiota, o lo que haces en realidad no merece cobrarse (o peor aún: lo haces gratis para robar clientes al que lo hace de forma remunerada, devaluando así todo el sector).
La vida sin trabajo, el trabajo sin dinero
Sin embargo, esta idea está volviendo a perder su lustre, hasta el punto de que parecemos encaminados a regresar a la idea primigenia, la que un día defendió Aristóteles: que trabajar cobrando es estar al nivel de los animales o los esclavos. Que el verdadero trabajo, el que realmente te hace feliz, el que realmente produce cosas importantes para los demás, puede y hasta debe surgir sin que medien emolumentos.
Wikipedia, por ejemplo, nos ha acercado a un poco más a esa idea primigenia. Y Wikipedia es solo la punta del iceberg, como os expliqué en otro artículo de Xataka Ciencia. También podéis leer otro artículo en Mètode, de la Universidad de Valencia, sobre la divulgación científica aplicada a este tipo de arquitectura.
En ese sentido, parece que el dinero es un buen incentivo para que trabajemos, pero no el único incentivo, ni tampoco el mejor incentivo. De hecho, se nos paga precisamente para que hagamos algo que generalmente no nos apetece hacer.
En contraposición, cada vez tenemos más tiempo libre (no porque trabajemos menos horas, que también, sino porque nuestras actividades ya no se limitan al consumo pasivo, sino a la interacción con los demás, o incluso a poner un simple comentario en un vídeo de Youtube), lo que permite que, cada vez más, la gente genere contenido (porcentualmente bazofia, pero cuando se genera tanta cantidad de contenido, solo que el 1 % sea interesante es suficiente), que la gente colabore entre sí para hacer cosas que antes eran impensables, que se organicen micromecenazgos para llevar a cabo obras que realmente necesita el consumidor.
Las comunidades de makers, la impresión 3D, las redes sociales, la inteligencia emergente, la democracia líquida, incluso herramientas tan polémicas como uber, están destruyendo el tejido laboral a una velocidad inimaginable (a la vez que crea nuevos tejidos laborales también a una velocidad endiablada: imaginad todos los trabajos paralelos que ha creado la existencia de Facebook).
Pero según algunos soñadores como Jeremy Rifkin, en El fin del trabajo, quizá antes de lo esperado podamos disponer, gracias a la tecnología, del sustento básico para vivir: nos podremos imprimir lo que necesitamos a un coste marginal próximo a cero, colaboraremos con los demás para obtener más cosas y mejores, y, al final, trabajar por un sueldo será una cuestión minoritaria. De los que se aburren con sus aficiones, o los que necesitan tener más objetos mercables que el vecino (porque en este contexto, no dudo que seguirá existiendo la competencia entre personas, pero ya no se basará tanto en lo económico, como en la reputación y la visibilidad, a la que se llegará a través de lo que hagas, no de lo que cobres por lo que haces).
Así que, al final, como las cosas cambian de sentido, podríamos readoptar el sentido original de “idiota”. Entonces, sí, el que no cobra por su trabajo sería un idiota de los pies a la cabeza. Un idiota orgulloso de serlo. Porque idiota, en el sentido anteniense de la palabra, significa “no participar en las cuestiones del gobierno”. El verdadero idiota no quiere pasar por el aro. El verdadero idiota mira al futuro, mira al pasado, y dice: quizá va siendo hora de que dejemos de trabajar para comer.
Arrancamos nuestra trilogía dedicada al mundo de la seducción científica, una disciplina que tienes que conocer para poder creerla. En esta primera entrega nos ocupamos de los campamentos de verano/talleres para fabricar seductores natos y analizamos un caso práctico.
Este mes (o el siguiente, o el otro, que con las fechas de portada americanas nunca se sabe en que mes estas) es el las portadas Selfies en DC. Creo que no hace falta explicar que es eso... esta bien, hacerse una foto uno mismo con su móvil, aunque supongo que con cámara también vale, pero claro, no es tan cool... A lo que ibamos, que es el mes selfies y ahí unas cuantas que no han salido como debieran, y es que claro, los dibujantes de DC son personas ya bastante adultas que no saben subirse al carro de las modas de los jovencitos. Vamos a ver las que estan mal y porqué.
Esto no es una pipa, ni tampoco un selfie, es la foto de una persona haciendose un selfie, así que no es tecnicamente correcto. Ademas, tiene el teléfono pegado a su cara y sin embargo vemos gran parte de su cintura. No tiene sentido.
A ver, esta claro que este selfie es vertical y Catwoman esta sosteniendo el teléfono en horizontal, mal. Además, si esta tan alto, deberiamos tener una perspectiva más privilegiada de sus pechos, así que fatal.
¿Batman sonriendo? ¡Y qué más! Antes le mete los dedos a Superman por el...
A mi aquí me faltan manos, vamos, a no ser que este sujetando la barra con la p...
Demostración de artista que se quedó atrapado en los 80.
O voceiro do Bloque non critica que catro alcaldes do BNG asinaran o manifesto que reclama candidaturas unitarias de toda a esquerda elixidas pola cidadanía e non pola militancia.
I don’t have a baby yet, but if and when I do, I imagine I’d be reassured if some of the geniuses from Google and Apple were helping me keep Cox Jr. healthy. Wearable baby tech might sound disconcerting (I may still be traumatized from the electro-shock workout bracelet) but as this ad for the adorably-named Sproutling shows, it could actually be an invaluable asset for new parents.
The Sproutling works by monitoring the internal variables of its wearer such as heart rate and movement, as well as external factors like room temperature or light levels. The device–designed by ex-Apple and Google employees–then sends all that information to your smartphone, which crunches the stats into easily-understandable updates, letting you know if your baby is running a temperature, sleeping on their back, or dreaming sweet, sweet modern-baby dreams.
We spotted each other at WORD. I don't think you followed me but we ended up in the park afterward. You sat next to me on a bench as the sun was beginning to set. You were reading Willa Cather and I was reading Edward St. Aubyn.
Our knees touched once and then 5 minutes later touched again and quietly stayed that way. It was the most romantic thing I'd ever felt. I knew we were both too shy to ever say anything to one another and I regret it badly now. I kept straining my eyes to the right side of my head to see if you were doing the same to the left.
When my friend I was meeting for dinner found me at the bench I died because I knew I couldn't work myself up to tell you how much I'd love a million more days in the park like that one with you. I came back an hour later but you were gone. Find me. Please.
OOF. Awful. And any and all words connoting soul-crushing despair. In a post on Reddit, a woman who goes by the handle whatanasssss recounts how she found out her husband of six years is a “really fucking nasty” troll who preys on people on Reddit and Tumblr. And that’s just the start. Warning for some foul (troll-like) language below.
The revelation came about when Mr. Troll left his browser window open after going to work. “He leaves horribly mean comments to all kinds of people,” wrote the woman.
“They’re filled with racist slurs, awful insults, he tears into fat people, ugly people, etc. He loves to troll around places like /r/progresspics to discourage people, etc. He’s sent PMs to people to call them names, calls women who post on /r/gonewild sluts and whores and cunts, etc.
I was horrified. Completely horrified. My husband is a nice, gentle man who is supportive and kind. In our 9-year relationship, we’ve fought three times total. I never thought this is a behavior he would take part in.
But this is something else. It made me wonder what else he did on the internet, so I looked at the browser history to find him also harassing teenagers on tumblr. Telling them to kill themselves, calling cute girls ugly and fat and stupid, etc. It horrified me to think this was the man who could be raising our daughter with me in a few months.
Ready to feel even worse for the woman and about the state of the world? Here we go.
In an update she says she “very tamely” confronted her husband, asking him “flat out, if he was harassing and bullying people online. He said yes, and immediately withdrew. After telling him that I needed to know why — really why, not just ‘I don’t know’, he said he needed time to think about it.”
This had better be good, asshole.
When he finally gave me his answer, I was disappointed. He said he trolled/bullied people because it was an outlet for him to relieve stress. He said he didn’t view the people as real, or what he was doing as anything other than a joke, and if it hurt feelings, “those people have bigger problems and it’s not my fault.”
Worse.
I told him that it wasn’t an acceptable behavior of an adult, and that he needed to stop it and find another way to express his frustrations that didn’t involve hurting strangers. He said he would think about it.
Worse.
Unfortunately, he’s still doing it. I saw it happening a few mornings back, and after he left, looked again to see more comments and posts. I was disappointed. This was not the man I married. Or so I thought. But I guess it is.
Still worse. But wait! There’s more.
Upon finding out her husband is the literal scum of the earth, she made an extremely reasonable demand that they either go to therapy or split up, because “OH MY HOLY GOD, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!” (I’m only guessing at her exact phrasing.) “I told him that I couldn’t trust him to help raise a child if he speaks to strangers, children included, the way he does online,” she continued. “I let him know that I thought it was cowardly, pathetic, and that I have lost a lot of respect for him.”
And now, at last, for the sprinkles on this garbage sundae. Prepare yourselves:
Unfortunately, he told me that he wouldn’t be going to counseling, because there’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing, and he deserved to have his “me time” and release his emotions.
Christ on a cracker. Everything about this is completely horrible. As Jezebel points out, this could be a hoax, but even if it is, there are trolls harassing people online, and many of them have spouses who have no idea what they get up to and children whom they’re supposed to be raising into decent human beings. The myth of the troll who lives in their parents’ basement and types out insults with fingers stained with Cheetos dust is just that—a myth. Sure, those trolls do exist, but so do otherwise respectable-seeming people who see no problem with harassing complete strangers… as long as it’s on the Internet. Because no one on the Internet is an actual person, right?
And what’s with this “stress relief” bullcrap? Acceptable forms of stress release include:
Exercise
Punching a pillow
Playing video games
Acceptable methods do not include:
Punching puppies.
Getting drunk and picking fights with people at a bar.
TELLING PEOPLE TO KILL THEMSELVES.
If she’s real, our hearts goes out to the woman who discovered the person she was going to spend the rest of her life with would rather keep harassing people on the Internet than stay with her. And if this is a hoax (ya never know on the Internet, but it doesn’t seem particularly far-fetched), our hearts go out to all the other people who find themselves in that situation.
Antes de que su tiempo se consuma por completo, y coincidiendo con la luna llena del próximo 10 de agosto y la lluvia de estrellas conocida como las Perseidas, Esperanza Aguirre debe encontrar el cuerpo de una mujer joven y pura para vaciarlo de toda sangre y vida y depositar en él su alma...... Leer […]
We shall never tire of analyzing Bong Joon-Ho's Snowpiercer . And now, Nerdwriter has compiled a video breakdown of the film's visual allegories. Watch how the director uses camera angles and colors to perpetuate (or challenge) the driving force of this film. Did you catch all these different layers on your first screening?
"Most of the roasted coffee bean, about two thirds of the bean's mass, is insoluble cellulose. The other third is dissolvable in water. Of that soluble third, most of it is the good stuff, particularly various organic acids and sugars. The rest are longer-chain molecules that we associate with astringent and bitter tastes. Where we find the happy balance is at the 19-20% point, that is, if you extract the first 19-20% of the mass of the coffee, we tend to find the best flavor balance. More than that and you'll find those astringent and bitter flavors start to dominate. Less than that and you'll find the resulting flavors thin and unbalanced, and with lighter roasted coffees, unusually sour. Timing really is what makes or breaks your coffee brew."
"A French press is often treated like Jason Segal's character in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. He's actually the one you want, but people tend to flock blindly to the flashy, temperamental types like coffee-siphon-somethings or Russell Brands. The French press is definitely a potential coffee happily-ever-after, but as with all things coffee, it ain't rocket science… but it is science! Let's delve a little deeper into how the French press works, and how you can make the best cup of coffee using this tool."
We tend to idealize the past. We file off a lot of the rough edges, imagine everybody having better teeth, and generally tone down a lot of the ugliness. This can be problematic — especially when we soften the depiction of past atrocities. And science fiction and fantasy contribute to this.
Espectáculos Lito (promotor de Panorama, Combo, París de Noia e doutras 80 orquestras) cancelou un concerto en Monforte porque o Concello concedeulle a outra empresa, nun concurso público, o resto de eventos das súas festas. Falamos co seu alcalde, Severino Rodríguez.
Los tres, de edades entre los 18 y 21 años, han sido detenidos. Los agresores, por un presunto delito de robo con violencia y, el vendedor, por otro contra la salud pública
O conselleiro de Economía cre que "a responsabilidade chama a que non se poña en marcha" malia as múltiples promesas que a Xunta e o PP fixeron sobre a infraestrutura nos últimos anos.
Sin haber tenido acceso a la primera entrega que Astiberri publicaba allá por enero de 2011, pero motivado por la natural curiosidad que siempre despiertan aquellas propuestas del noveno arte que parecen alejarse de la cotidianidad, decidí acercarme a esta segunda parte de ‘Psiquiátrico’ con el temor de darme de bruces con una historia que fuera obvia continuación de las páginas editadas hace tres años. Afortunadamente no ha sido así, y mucho hay en este ‘Psiquiátrico 2. Crazy Seventies’ que poder recomendar a aquellos lectores que vayan buscando algo diferente en las viñetas.
Para empezar, la calidad gráfica del trabajo de Lisa Mandel consigue que la aproximación a la lectura sea agradable y sencilla: con pocos tonos de color y prescindiendo casi en su totalidad de lo que podríamos denominar “viñeta” en el sentido estricto de la palabra, la artista francesa hace gala de una elocuencia gráfica espléndida a la hora de conectar con el lector y hacerlo cómplice de estos mini-relatos con los que la autora sigue acercándose a la figura de su madre, una enfermera de hospital mental en la Francia de hace cuatro décadas.
Tanto es así y tanta es la naturalidad con la que el que está a este lado de la página percibe los mismos, que las vivencias de la protagonista en el microuniverso de “locos” que es el hospital en el que trabaja se devoran con fruición, dejando a su conclusión cierto poso de reflexión derivado, qué duda cabe, de la voluntad crítica de Mandel hacia el estado francés y la situación de caos a la que el gobierno del país abocó en cierto modo a las instituciones mentales. Educativa y muy, muy divertida, ‘Psiquiátrico 2. Crazy Seventies’ es más que recomendable.
Si alguna vez has soñado con poder pasearte por las calles del Londres victoriano resolviendo los crímenes que conmocionan la ciudad con capacidad de deducción como única ayuda, estás de enhorabuena. Sherlock Holmes: Detective Asesor nos pone en la piel de los Irregulares de Baker Street, el grupo de mendigos y ladronzuelos que prestaban sus ojos y oídos al ilustre detective a cambio de una guinea. Un juego que, con más de 30 años a sus espaldas, llega a nuestro país en una nueva edición de Edge Entertainment absolutamente imprescindible para los fans del misterio en general y Arthur Conan Doyle en particular.
Aquí no interviene la suerte o el azar, no hay dados ni tablero, tan solo tu lógica y una serie de instrumentos para transportarte a la capital inglesa a través de la espesa niebla que la envuelve: el libro de casos con los diez retos a los que nos enfrentaremos, el periódico del día de cada uno de ellos, una guía de Londres con la dirección de cada testigo, sospechoso o lugar relevante y un plano de la ciudad. El libro de reglas y la tarjeta de visita de Holmes completan el contenido de la caja.
El magnate de armamentos, El viejo soldado, La huérfana encarcelada, Los misterios de Londres, El muerto misterioso, La maldición de la momia, La cuenta del banquero, Los crímenes del Támesis, El procurador abnegado y Los cuadros robados. Diez casos que resolver con un giro de tuerca a las novelas de Elige tu propia aventura.
Una partida a Sherlock Holmes: Detective Asesor arranca leyendo la narrativa introducción del misterio que decidamos abordar con las primeras pistas a seguir. ¿Comenzaremos recorriendo la escena del crimen o haciéndole una visita al inspector Lestrade? Tal vez sea mejor comprobar la coartada de la viuda o consultar al forense. La Guía de Londres nos ofrece las direcciones que necesitamos, el código para localizar en el Libro de Casos la descripción de lo que ocurre cuando vamos a un sitio u otro.
Escudriñar el Times para ponernos en contexto de lo ocurrido ese día también aporta valiosas pistas y en ocasiones el plano de la ciudad jugará un papel no menos importante para ayudarnos a confirmar nuestras sospechas. ¿Cómo pudo ser visto el hermano de la víctima en un pub próximo al lugar de los hechos si este asegura haber pasado la noche en su oficina al otro lado de la ciudad?
Como he mencionado, la mecánica recuerda a las novelas de Elige tu propia aventura, aunque a diferencia de estas no nos encontramos ante una narración lineal con caminos que se van bifurcando hasta el final, sino con un montón de localizaciones diferentes que podemos visitar sin importar el orden, para encontrarnos con los variopintos personajes que dan vida a la trama. Con cada visita leemos un texto en concreto en el que, con suerte, encontraremos la pista que nos acerque un poco más a la verdad.
Cuando atemos todos los cabos y nos sintamos preparados, nos dirigiremos a la última página del caso para responder una serie de preguntas sobre el mismo que cubren desde la identidad del culpable a sus motivaciones o el arma usada. Dar en el clavo proporciona una satisfacción sin igual, pero el verdadero objetivo del juego es superar al mismísimo Holmes logrando resolver el caso en el menor número de pasos posibles.
Y atentos, porque en mi opinión esta carrera es el aspecto que más falla en el juego. Competir contra la perspicacia del famoso detective es todo un reto, a veces una misión imposible incluso, pero el verdadero problema es que haciéndolo, reduciendo al mínimo el número de localizaciones a visitar, no solo nos perderemos toda la riqueza de la trama sino que aun en caso de fallar en nuestras conclusiones, el caso será difícilmente rejugable.
Sherlock Holmes: Detective Asesor es un gran juego que invita a sacar lustre a nuestra imaginación, pero el mejor modo de jugarlo es en mi opinión sin prisas o puntuaciones, disfrutando de cada caso como si de una pequeña novela se tratase por cuyas páginas podemos navegar con toda libertad.
Dentro de la caja
Sherlock Holmes: Detective Asesor (2013)
Autores: Gary Grady, Suzanne Goldberg y Raymond Edwards (Reescrito por Yannick Mescarn y Cyril Demaegd)
Ilustraciones: Arnaud Dermaegd y Neriac
Editorial: Edge
Edad: 14+
Duración: 60-120 minutos
Jugadores: 1-8
Precio: 39,95 euros
Lo bueno
Probablemente el mejor juego de deducción ahí fuera.
Sumergirte en la atmósfera del Londres victoriano mientras resuelves los casos.
Jugarlo en solitario o rodeado de amigos sentados cómodamente en el sofá. La ginebra y el tabaco en pipa son opcionales.
El nuevo trabajo de Paul Pope era muy esperado. El artista que nos habí dado ‘Heavy Liquid’ y una visión tan fresca como interesante del Cruzado Enmascarado en ‘Batman Año 100′ tenía a los lectores expectantes con su nueva obra. Ya la tenemos aquí (bueno, de hecho, hace meses) de manos de Debolsillo, y su continuación se anuncia ya para el último trimestre del año: ‘Battliing Boy’.
En el universo de ‘Battling Boy’, los monstruos vagan a sus anchas y se llevan a los niños a su sombrío inframundo, dejando un rastro de destrucción. Solo un hombre puede ayudarlos: el justiciero Haggard West. Pero éste ya no puede desfacer ningún entuerto. Suerte que la salvación llega bajo la forma de un semidiós de doce años, nadie está más sorprendido que el propio «chico batallador»: así llaman a Battling Boy.
Paul Pope es sin duda un maestro del dibujo: su estilo fuera del canon comercial, roto, deforme cuando lo necesita, épico, sin duda es el ingrediente principal de la obra. Otra cosa es el argumento. Se trata de la historia típica de “jovencito tiene que aprender a valerse por sí mismo, contará con la ayuda de algún mentor, y se tendrá que enfrentar a un especie de archienemigo”. Juntamos algunos elementos de la mitología y, voilá, ya tenemos ‘Battling Boy’, que responde a una caracterización de la historia muy prototípica.
battling boy
Es innegable la influencia del manga en esta obra de Paul Pope. Como sabéis, uno de sus primeros trabajos fue para Kodansha, y se nota que el autor asimiló la manera fluida del manga para contar una historia, con viñetas grandes, y secuencias muy cinematográficas. En una obra como ‘Battling Boy’, esa influencia del manga es más visible que nunca. ‘Battling Boy’ es un manga, en realidad. Y un manga (si obviamos la calidad del dibujo de Pope) bastante regular. Si nos hubieran presentado la misma historia, pero escrita y dibujada por cualquier otro autor o mangaka ignoto, no le habríamos otorgado la más mínima atención. Los personajes son prototípicos, la trama es previsible. La acción tampoco te incita a saber qué va a pasar en la siguiente entrega.
Obviamente, tiene puntos a favor (los he comentado ya, y casi todos giran en torno al diseño de los personajes, o la admirable pericia de Pope a los lápices), pero no bastan para interesar a un lector que exigía más a Pope. OJO: también puede tener algo que ver el que se haya clasificado esta obra como cómic juvenil, y uno iba buscando algo más.
En siguientes entregas de esta serie, Paul Pope ha reclutado para el dibujo a nuestro extraordinario David Rubín, con quien comparte algunos rasgos característicos de dibujo. No es extraña esta unión, por mucho que algunos mal pensados hayan afirmado que el dibujo del español es una copia del del estadounidense. Quzá en esa entrega, ‘The Rise of Aurora West’, los autores puedan reconciliarse con una obra que podia haber dado mucho más de sí.
The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is like a cooperative RPG, with stacks of cards instead of a DM. Explore forgotten ruins and haunted towers, battle weird undead cultists and hordes of goblins, and collect magical treasure, building your character's abilities for the challenges ahead.
Good news for Arrested Development fans: You can count on Netflix to make a fifth season happen. While addressing some of the streaming network's plans for the next few years, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos threw out a small mention of the possibility of another Arrested Development season and had this to say:
Sarandos is also "positive" that another season of Arrested Development is in the offing: "It's just a matter of when," he says, adding that sorting out actors' schedules is a concern: It was "a fair criticism" of last year's revival of the cult comedy "that the cast didn't appear on screen often enough together."
Arrested Development's highly anticipated fourth season received mixed reviews due to said scheduling conflicts, which played out through each episode focusing on a different main character. In any case, Mitch Hurwitz said last year that he plans to make the Arrested Development movie before another new season on Netflix, so hopefully the next place we'll see the Bluths together is on the big screen.
Una de las primeras preguntas que suele hacerse a alguien que acabamos de conocer es “¿a qué te dedicas?”. El trabajo nos define. El trabajo no hace felices. El trabajo nos da sentido. Pocos responden lo que dice Tyler Durden a tal pregunta: ¿para qué? ¿Para fingir que te interesa?
Sin embargo, esta idea está volviendo a perder su lustre, hasta el punto de que parecemos encaminados a regresar a la idea primigenia, la que un día defendió Aristóteles: que trabajar cobrando es estar al nivel de los animales o los esclavos. Que el verdadero trabajo, el que realmente te hace feliz, el que realmente produce cosas importantes para los demás, puede y hasta debe surgir sin que medien emolumentos. 
El nuevo trabajo de Paul Pope era muy esperado. El artista que nos habí dado ‘Heavy Liquid’ y una visión tan fresca como interesante del Cruzado Enmascarado en ‘Batman Año 100′ tenía a los lectores expectantes con su nueva obra. Ya la tenemos aquí (bueno, de hecho, hace meses) de manos de Debolsillo, y su continuación se anuncia ya para el último trimestre del año: ‘Battliing Boy’.
Good news for Arrested Development fans: You can count on Netflix to make a fifth season happen. While addressing some of the streaming network's plans for the next few years, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos threw out a small mention of the possibility of another Arrested Development season and had this to say: