Ok, now let's flip the shoe (or heel) and talk about women today. I saw a great tweet, paraphrased, "If you want to see what Jennifer Aniston will look like when she gets old...go see that new movie she's in."

Pretty funny, right? It's also pretty true. Aniston is now 41 years old. And 40-60 doesn't play in Hollywood. Well, at least in the leading lady sense. Don't believe me? Consider Aniston's latest role in this Adam Sandler film. She plays the faux ex-wife meant to make Sandler's legitimate (and much younger) love interest, jealous.

Wait, what about Sandra Bullock? Yes, the beautiful Sandra Bullock is 45. And in her latest acclaimed role, "The Blind Side", she played... a mom.

(quick transition) My wife and I grew up disliking the incomparable Meryl Streep. I know. We were crazy. Why? Because while 60 now, while we were growing up, she was the lone 40-60 year old leading lady in Hollywood. And she typically played mean, ugly or both. What else would she be good for? And now that she's settled into her roles as an older woman, she is blowing my wife and I away, and now we're re-watching her entire catalog, mesmerized by her magnificent acting.

She was simply all alone for 20 years, and it was weird. Yes, there's a few like Diane Keaton (now 64) who have pulled off "leading lady" throughout their entire careers, but in the last 20 years, it's been through either untraditional Hollywood fare or Mom roles where there are multiple love interests in the story.

There is no place for a 41-year old Aniston in Hollywood as it exists. And I believe that you will see her in far less movies for the next 20 years before her resurgence in the early Fall of her life.

What makes a man? More specifically, when you think of a "man", who do you think of? Some may jump to the most famous of men, movie actors, with Brad Pitt and George Clooney instantly coming to mind.

And others may quickly scoff at the notion that those metrosexuals even constitute a man, as they look back at the Clint Eastwood cowboy generation as perfect depictions of the ultimate "man's man". But we're no longer in the old west. And those cowboys aren't really around anymore.

So, who has replaced them? What are our options? Well, let's spin the question around. When you think of the opposite of a woman, what comes to mind? The opposite of femininity must be big, fat, stupid, sloppy and hairy, right?

Is that a man? Or can we accept the next evolution of cowboy's metrosexual downside simply to escape the possibility that our new "men" might have a cave- prefix.

You go to Burger King after work. You're about to buy a Whopper. Then, all of a sudden, you remember seeing something on Facebook earlier that day. That the Burger King 10 minutes away is giving away Whoppers for free tonight, and would save you $2. Do you drive to that Burger King for the free sandwich? Sure.

The next day, you're at IKEA, buying a lamp for $80. When you remember that the Target 10 minutes away has the exact same lamp for $78. Do you drive to Target for the $2 savings. Probably not.

Is this irrational economic behavior? Yes, but only partly. If $2 is really worth the 10 minutes to us, we should always side that way. But, the reality is that the 100% burger savings completely outweighs the 2.5% lamp savings in our minds. It's a comparison issue.

Should it be? No. And remember that the next time you blindly say ok to a hidden $400 fee for your new car purchase.

Tim Ferris' 4-Hour Body has received a lot of press lately. Earned because of his prior revolutionary book the 4-Hour Workweek.

And although these titles may make Ferris sound like the world's laziest man, he's actually an obsessive compulsive about data. While many of his findings on exercise, weight loss and the female orgasm are receiving most of the publicity, he made one passing comment in an interview that should be a huge marketing game changer.

He talked about how good the regular process of giving blood is for your body - specifically in terms of lowering your risks for heart disease.

The long-time Red Cross slogan of "Donate Blood. Save a Life." depends solely on altruism. From a marketing standpoint, do you know what's a more compelling call-to-action than altruism? Anything else.

Donate Blood. Save Your Life. Now that makes me want to sign up.

(Note: I only included the ★ in the Title to see how it looks in Reader. Anyone who subscribes via RSS find this compelling? misleading? annoying?)

I should have blogged about Super Bowl ads yesterday. But it took me a couple days to think this one through. Why don't advertisers make all of their ads like they're being shown at the Super Bowl? Why is it ok to be boring if less people are watching? "Guys, this is the Super Bowl. We can't do the usual boring crap that no one cares about. Let's actually try to be entertaining."

Here's the ironic part of this mindset. The Super Bowl is the ONE time of year that you actually have people engaged in your ads. (Perhaps more so than the game if you happen to be my wife.) You could afford to be LESS compelling in the Super Bowl if you wanted to. As long as your message is awesome. And yet, you know that funny wins. It sticks. It works.

Pretend that every day is the Super Bowl. Be funny. Be engaging. Entertain us with your pitch. To the point where we remember it.

For those of you who watch the Bachelor, do you ever catch yourself yelling something like this at the screen? "Why is that ugly freak still on there?? It doesn't make any sense!!"

Here's what doesn't make sense. The fact that we compare her beauty away. The girls on the show are all beautiful. Our minds are simply trained to compare.

It's why I had a crush on Murphy Brown and Mrs. Cosby growing up. It's not only that I like strong, independent women. It's that my options within those worlds were limited. It was Murphy or Corky. It was Claire or Rudy.

The hideous wretches on the Bachelor aren't hideous wretches. They're simply "last" in that category. Test this next time you cry out against the elephant-faced creatures on prime time TV. Take them out of that world, and put them in your office. Would they instantly become the most attractive person you work with?

Why do you think online retailers offer multiple versions of their products? It's so you choose the one they want you to.The comparison gives it value. They know that. Now, you do too.

What app have you thought it would be cool to have?

Yes, I'm looking to outright steal your ideas to make money off them. But on the plus side, I'll give you the app for free!

Take a minute and think about some broad categories or even specific ideas of apps you would like to have on your phone.

Yes, I watch the Bachelor. I'm not ashamed of it. It's a fascinating sociological experiment.

And a nice girl who got rejected the other night started bawling, gasping for breath and blurted out, "This just makes me question everything!" As if that was inherently a bad thing.

Self esteem is an interesting concept. I remember my older sister and I had this argument when I was 8. She argued that it was vital for people to have high self-esteem. I countered this argument, based on the fact that I didn't like my sister, and assumed her to be wrong about everything. I stand by this argument today, but with slightly better reasoning. For, self-esteem is only good if it's accurate.

American children have the highest self esteem in the world. But the test score don't match this. Now, we must be sure we're separating this concept form self-worth. Having self-worth IS vital. One's inherent value as a child of God is priceless. Yet, esteem about one's life should be subjective based upon the life itself. Otherwise, we will stop evolving.

We shouldn't merely desire to give people self confidence. We should desire for people to transform into an increased "self".

My child will be aware of their potential spouse's genetic proclivities before proposing marriage.

That's my theory. Here's why.

In college, one of my friends dated a girl who had cancer. Several months in, I asked him how the relationship was going. He stated bluntly, "Well, it's tough. Because I don't really want to get attached if she's going to go and die on me."

Yes, he's a horrible person (in general, not just based on that lone event). But that was a real fear based on real evidence. Understanding the reality of the relationship before entering into it caused him to enter with much more caution.

We're currently at the stage where you can have yourself completely genetically tested for less than $10,000. For that price, you can know your precise likelihood of carrying and falling prey to the full spectrum of disease. And that information will change your market value.

"Sure, Jane's not as hot as Donna... but with an 80% less chance of cystic fibrosis, it might be worth it?"

This info-graphic has been getting a lot of attention lately. Based on Census statistics and America's Health Rankings, researcher Jeff Wysaski created this graphic to give each state their deserved credit...for what they're worst at.

Because every single state ranks dead last at something. And the one that jumped out at me is the same one that's jumping out at most people. Utah's "best of the worst" ranking for porn usage.

Utah? With 58% of the state claiming to be Mormon, a devout religious sect, this seems so strange.

But then I considered something. When I was young, and before I could even understand the sexual appeal of a strip club, I remember thinking, "Who would have the guts to be seen going in there?"

This statistic doesn't claim a more sexualized state. It simply claims that the average citizen of Utah, perhaps because of their cultural faith, would be more ashamed than the average American to publicly admit their base desires, their Freudian "id".

I would have to see strip club studies to confirm this. But I think what we're seeing here is the power of assumed anonymity. Utah citizens know what they're supposed to be like. And they act that way...in public.