Who Has the Highest'DQ?' Would You Believe Howard Stern?

Does that headline shock you? I know there are many readers who believe that radio personality Howard Stern is the devil himself.

But when a friend recently asked me to name someone with a really high Dating Quotient (that is someone who would be extremely marketable in the singles' world), none other than Howard Stern was the first name that popped into my head.

Yes, I know that Howard recently married his longtime girlfriend Beth. But when he was single, Howard Stern's DQ was so high it was practically off the charts. And it is not just because he is wealthy, having signed the largest contract in radio history to move his show to satellite radio; though, of course, being wealthy certainly doesn't lower his DQ.

But even if he were only moderately successful financially, this so-called "Shock Jock" would still have an extremely high DQ for the following reasons:

• 
  Howard is 6 feet 5 inches tall. Regular readers of this column know how important height is when determining a man's DQ.
• 
  Howard is committed to living a healthy lifestyle, working out regularly and almost obsessively watching his diet. Women tend to value a healthy lifestyle far more than men.
  Howard is 56, which is just about the perfect age for a man, as there are such a large number of single and divorced women in the 40s and 50s looking to meet guys.
• 
  Howard is (was) divorced with two grown daughters and one 16-year-old daughter. Most women looking to meet men over 40 do not want to meet men who have never been married or who have young children.
  
• Howard is very funny with a great sense of humor. As I have written before, sense of humor is the number one trait that women ask for in a man. (Most people who are offended by the supposedly racist, sexist, or homophobic bits on his show are people who rarely if ever listen. In practically every case he is actually making fun of racism, sexism and homophobia, exposing their absurdities.)
• 
  For the most part Howard is politically and socially liberal. Overall, women tend to be far more liberal than men, a fact proven by recent election data that indicates that women vote Democratic in far higher numbers than do men. And liberal women greatly prefer meeting liberal men.
• 
  Despite a media image that portrays Howard as someone who spends most of his time leering at strippers, he actually is a loyal family man who was never accused of cheating on his wife, and who has an excellent relationship with his daughters. Unlike many conservative radio personalities, there has never been one whiff of scandal linked to Howard's personal life. He also has an excellent relationship with his parents and doesn't mind saying "I love you Mommy and Daddy" to them on the air.
• 
  Howard also is very sensitive to women and women's issues, and never puts them down, and that includes the strippers and porno stars that regularly appear on his show.
• 
  While many very successful men exude a sense of hubris and never reveal their true selves to anyone, Howard speaks his mind in an unfailingly honest way ...; a feature that often gets him in trouble.
• 
  Howard is half Jewish, and there is a demand among many women of all religions to meet Jewish men, as long as they are funny, and especially if they are tall.
• 
  Howard admits on the air that he regularly sees a therapist and is constantly trying to improve himself psychologically. Far more women than men are into therapy and most women view such a willingness to get in touch with one's feelings as a real positive. Along similar lines, he has also practiced transcendental meditation for more than three decades.
• 
  Women value intelligence and Howard is extremely bright. He has a college degree from Boston University and his favorite hobby is playing chess.
• 
  He is an animal lover, a characteristic that most women adore. He has had dogs for most of his adult life and does a lot of charity work for the North Shore Animal League.

And yes, he has been very successful. The self-proclaimed "King of All Media" has not only had a successful radio career (he is the primary reason why satellite radio exists today), but he has published two books that reached number one on the New York Times best-seller list, developed and starred in a biographical movie and has produced several successful television shows.

Now, before any readers start firing off angry e-mails to me, let's just drop the explosive name "Howard Stern" from this article. I maintain that any moderately successful 56-year-old divorced man with three older children who is 6 foot 5, very bright, an animal and chess lover, with a great sense of humor and who is into self improvement will have an extremely high Dating Quotient.

Even if his name is Howard Stern.
Steve Penner was the owner of the Boston-based dating service LunchDates for nearly 23 years and interviewed and listened to feedback from thousands of singles from all over New England. He welcomes comments and feedback at pennerst@hotmail.com. Penner's book, "The Truth about Dating Revealed; How to Realize and Raise Your Dating Quotient," is available at local bookstores and through his Web site www.thetruthaboutdating.com, where he also blogs about dating and relationships and pop culture.

I Love 'Grimedies'

Last month “Boston Globe” television critic Matthew Gilbert coined a new term for the genre of television shows that over the past few years have quickly become staples of cable television.

The term is “grimedies, and I love them, especially those produced by HBO and Showtime. The quintessential example of such a show is “Nurse Jackie,” which this week concluded its first season. But other grimedy examples are “Californication,” “Weeds,” “The United States of Tara,” “Secret Diary of a Call Girl,” all produced by Showtime and HBO's newest hit, “Hung.”

According to Gilbert, what differentiates “grimedies” from other shows is that they “hinge on darker themes, are more tinged with present-tense despair.” He best describes the new and popular genre by comparing them to what they are not.

That is, they certainly are not traditional sit-coms, with built in laugh tracks and filmed before a live studio audience. And they are not “dramadies,” the term once applied to such David E. Kelley shows as “Ally McBeal” or the more recent “Eli Stone,” which are far more whimsical.
Nor are they comedies with dramatic touches, such as “Scrubs” or dramas with comedic touches, like “The Sopranos.”

But my favorite aspect of grimedies is that their central figures are neither heroes nor villains. They do not portray the world in simplistic black and white or good and evil images. After all George Bush is no longer President, and hopefully we no longer view the world as consisting solely of “good guys and bad guys.” Grimedies make you think, while shocking and awing the viewer from scene to scene and story arc to story arc.

As I said, the recently completed Season 1 of “Nurse Jackie” was a perfect example. Jackie, played brilliantly by former Sopranos star Edie Falco (who if she doesn't win an Emmy should sue someone) is a wonderful, empathetic, intelligent nurse, who at the same time is a drug addict and adulterer. Nurse Jackie often bends the hospital rules to deal with the insanity of today's heath care system.

“Weeds” star Nancy Botwin (Mary Louise Parker) is a suburban housewife who after the death of her husband became a pot dealer to support her family. And “Hung” star Ray Drecker (Thomas Jane) is your average every day basketball coach who has embarked on a career as a male gigolo, also for economic reasons due to his divorce and his uninsured house burning down.
All of these central figures are examples of people just like you and I who are forced into desperate measures by the stark reality of the recent economic downturn.

While most grimedies are 30 minutes in length, there are a few one hour examples, my favorite being Showtime's “Dexter” (Michael C. Hall), a blood spatter expert for the police and a real down to Earth nice guy, who just happens to be a serial killer. Okay, he can't blame his killing-thing on the economy, but if you watch the show regularly I guarantee you will wind up rooting for him. After all, according to the code handed down by his father, Dexter only murders people who have escaped the law and who deserve it.

I would also include my favorite physician, Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie) as another example of a central “hero” of sorts who breaks all the rules and yet is someone viewers wind up laughing at, crying with and overall admiring. I would gladly give up almost any body part to see a television episode in which House and Nurse Jackie join forces to do…well, anything.

Frankly all of these shows depict people living in the angst-riddled, economically-depressed world of today. And somehow I identify with these characters far more than the Kate Gosselins, Octomoms, or “Real Housewives of Orange County” who appear on so-called “reality shows.”

In September many of these grimedies will be returning to your TV set, and if you subscribe to cable, I suggest you check them out, as they are far more interesting, entertaining and thought-provoking than your typical broadcast network insipid pablum.

'Mad Men' Returns!

This Sunday the much acclaimed and award-winning show “Mad Men” returns for its third season.
When I say “award-winning,” that is no exaggeration. The first season of “Mad Men” won awards in almost every category from almost every organization that presents awards to television shows. And season two of “Mad Men” received 16 Emmy nominations.
In fact last year “Mad Men” became the first basic cable show to win the Emmy for Best Drama. Ironically, the week after winning the Emmy, the ratings actually DROPPED, as only 1.6 million people viewed the episode, where 1.9 million people had watched the previous show.
(By comparison, 6.1 million people watched an “America’s Got Talent” recap show this week during television’s “dog days” of August.)
In other words not too many people watch this show, which I find amazing. Now is “Mad Men” one of those “artsy-fartsy” programs viewed only by high brow intellectuals? Not at all; I have watched and thoroughly enjoyed every episode of “Mad Men” since its inception, and I am about as low brow as one can get. (After all I regularly write about “America Idol” and “Jon & Kate Plus 8.”)
Of course a primary reason “Mad Men” receives relatively low ratings is its placement on the AMC network. In fact as I write this, I admit I don’t even know what number AMC is on my cable system. Last year I almost missed watching an episode; I was yelling at the on-screen channel guide while searching for the A&E Network, when my wife calmly reminded me that “Mad Men” was on “one of those networks that shows old movies.” We found it with seconds to spare.
In any case, I implore anyone reading this article to search for “Mad Men” when season 3 premieres this Sunday at 10 p.m. on the AMC network.
What makes this show so good? Well, I am sure everyone has different reasons for watching. Is it sexy? Yes! Are the plots intricately woven together and the writing superb? Absolutely! Is the acting and art direction fantastic? Of course!
For me, though, what I find most fascinating is the way the show depicts a pivotal era in the changing values and gender roles in our society. Over the first two seasons and now into its third, “Mad Men” takes place during the early to mid-60s. When most people think of the 60s decade, they think of Woodstock, hippies, psychedelic drugs, Vietnam, and women burning their bras, etc.
But that 60s decade really did not begin until about 1967. Prior to the “Summer of Love” and Woodstock, the early 60s were not that different from the somewhat traditional, vanilla, Eisenhower 50s.
And the first season of “Mad Men,” gave us a great view of that period. That is most adult were chain smoking and drinking cocktails throughout the day at work. Gender roles were as traditional and frozen as they had been for centuries before.
Married women stayed at home, wearing their aprons over their pleated dresses, doing the grocery shopping, cleaning the house, doing the laundry, taking care of the kids, and preparing dinner for when the “man of the house” returned home from work, fully expecting dinner to be on the table and the kids to be well-behaved and quiet.
If a woman did have a job, it was as a subservient secretary getting coffee for her boss, picking up his dry cleaning, and typing away. In most cases she was single with a primary goal of finding a husband so she could escape her job and become the housewife described in the previous paragraph.
As for the men, like series star Don Draper, they were the strong and silent type, living the lifestyle akin to 16th century royalty, spending their days smoking, drinking and chasing “wenches.”
But about halfway through the first season the “winds of change” began to blow and blow they did throughout the second season. Don’s wife Betty sank into a depression, began to wake up, and finally kicked her philandering husband out of the house. And miraculously, secretary Peggy Olson, who was far more “with it” than her male colleagues, became the first female copy writer at the Sterling Cooper ad agency.
Moreover, and to me this is the best part of the show, the writers began to demonstrate that there were CONSEQUENCES to people’s actions and vices. Agency bigwig Roger Sterling suffered a heart attack, and besides being booted out of his house, Don Draper developed some ominous health problems which no doubt will worsen in the coming season.
The story arcs and sub-plots that have and will develop around the entire cast of characters are revealing the hypocritical standards of the early 60s in other areas, such as religion, birth control, and archaic attitudes towards homosexuality.
Watching “Mad Men” gives viewers the opportunity to begin to understand why the societal changes of the late 60s and beyond happened.
So don’t forget to watch or to set your DVR Sunday night at 10:00 to the AMC network. That is, if you can find it.

Paula leaving ‘Idol?' Say it isn't so!

I managed to survive Lt. Colonel Henry Blake's departure from “M*A*S*H.” And when big brother Adam Cartwright left Bonanza I was just fine. I wasn't thrilled when Chrissy Snow moved out on “Three's Company,” and I have to admit that when Adriana was dragged through the woods and “executed” by Silvio on “The Sopranos” I was a bit shaken.
BUT Paula Abdul leaving “American Idol,” the number one show on television for most of this century? Well that is going to be hard to take.
Look, I fully realize that Paula was (and is) a “whack job.” Don't feed me the line that as the “nurturing mother” of ‘Idol,' the show's heart has been removed. I just read a quote from Season 6 winner Jordin Sparks that “The contestants are going to be so traumatized…There's not going to be anyone to soften the blow.”
Season 6 runner-up Blake Lewis added “Paula leaving ‘American Idol' is like a honeycomb without the honey. She brought a sweetness to the AI that no one can replace.”
Those quotes make me want to gag. Oh, the poor contestants won't have Paula to tell them how wonderful and talented they all are. Poor babies.
But the fact is that my main reason for watching “Idol” was the comedy that ensued in the give and take between her and Simon. Her wide-eyed naiveté played off perfectly against Mr. Cowell's snarkiness. She was the Gracie Allen to his George Burns, the Stan Laurel to his Oliver Hardy.
For me the highlight of the show's first eight seasons was the look on Simon's face when Paula thought a contestant had already sang twice. Or the bedazzled looks on everyone's face trying to figure just what the heck she was trying to say so many times. It was often apparent that when she started speaking a sentence, Paula had no idea how it was going to end. How about last year when Simon drew on her with crayons?
My biggest worry about “Idol” has always been that it would take itself too seriously, but the childish interplay between Paula and Simon always just prevented the show from crossing that line.
The fact is that her “replacement,” Kara DioGuardi, is too normal, too vanilla. She really takes the show too seriously, and her efforts at coming up with “meaningful” comments are just boring.
Will the show still be somewhat entertaining? Sure, but it won't be nearly as easy to make fun of without Ms. Abdul. Want the perfect analogy? Kara is Shemp to Paula's Curly, and while the “Three Stooges” were pretty good with Shemp, it was Curly, and his interactions with Moe, that really and truly made the Stooges absolutely hysterical.
Hopefully this is just a money issue, and Paula's claim to quit the show was just a negotiating ploy. Perhaps someone somewhere can start another “Idol Gives Back” telethon to raise the money to lure Paula back.
I'll certainly kick in 10 bucks! How about you?

The New 'Jon & Kate' Shows

Well, after a brief sabbatical, the show called ‘Jon & Kate Plus Eight’ returned last night with not one but two exciting episodes! The shows probably drew high ratings, as I am sure that many people (including myself) wanted to see what was happening with all the drama behind their separation, the magazine covers, etc.
In fact I read somewhere that only Michael Jackson had a higher “Q Rating” this summer than Jon and Kate. (For those of you not obsessed with popular culture, a “Q Rating” is a gauge of a product or person’s overall fame or popularity based upon appearances on magazine covers, mentions on gossip shows, etc.)
Anyway, the shows certainly let down probably everyone who watched them. That is if you tuned in to see drama and gossip, you certainly were disappointed. And if you are a fan of the “old” John & Kate shows and wanted to watch a cute family with 8 kids struggle to survive the day to day chores of life, you certainly were disappointed.
And, if you were someone drawn to the show to see how a separated couple could manage the travails of raising a family with eight kids, then you definitely were disappointed.
Yes, the new “Jon & Kate” show is neither fish nor fowl. It has merely picked up where it left off, as a combination of an infomercial and “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”
The first episode, titled “Renovations & Vacations” was particularly appalling. In this episode the Gosselins had decided to renovate their kitchen. Supposedly the decision was made before they decided to separate. The most telling comment was made by five year old Joel (standing in the midst of a kitchen probably much more spacious and modern than 99.9% of the viewers’ kitchens) and asking “Why are we getting a new kitchen?”
Silly Joel, didn’t he realize that a kitchen without pullout shelves and under the counter refrigerators is pretty useless?
Then Jon answered on the interview couch that they had already decided to renovate the kitchen, and they didn’t want to basically deprive the kids of a better kitchen, because after all it is the kids’ house, and they love the kids so very much.
Of course left unsaid was that contracts had probably already been signed with the kitchen renovation company, and I am sure this new kitchen was not going to cost the Gosselins a penny (nothing really does), and it would add value to their house, as well as give them a subject for another episode.
And the real reason for going ahead with the kitchen was that it gave Kate the opportunity to take the kids to the beach where she had “secured” a fabulous beach house, and more importantly she could show off her new tanned “bod” in an orange bikini to the world, including the paparazzi. You don’t think she knew those shots of her in the skimpy suit would show up on magazine covers?
Now the rest of this episode will be continued next week, when viewers will get to see the finished kitchen. Wow, what a cliffhanger; can’t wait to see those pullout shelves!
The second show was even more revealing. Yes, except for the opening credits, Jon was totally missing from the “Camping Out” episode. Kate got to show us that she could handle things by herself (of course with the help of several friends and the television crew). Kate and the kids roughed it, camping out in their back yard in a tent that would have made Lawrence of Arabia proud. (The tent even included a battery-powered ceiling fan!)
The roughing it part also included shots of the kids frolicking in their huge in ground swimming pool. These scenes HAD to be included, so we could see shots Kate in her new blue bikini.
There were several mentions of how much better Daddy is at starting fires and putting up tents, but aside from those brief mentions Jon was a no show in this episode. Of course he was probably out gallivanting with his assortment of girl friends shown with him on the cover of all the newsstand gossip magazines.
But the camping trip was a big success. And of course I have to mention the two commercials from Coleman Camping, “the original social networking” people. Gee I wonder how much the Gosselins had to pay for their camping equipment.
Finally, I am left to ponder one question that keeps nagging at me. Whatever happened to their two German shepherd dogs? They must be very well-trained to be so silent during the backyard camping outing.

Reality Check on 'The Bachelor'

First I must admit that in the 18 seasons that “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” have been aired on ABC, I may have watched a TOTAL of 15 minutes of the two shows.
Now it is not because I am one of those snobby people who claim to be too sophisticated to watch “reality television.” In fact I am quite proud to admit that I have watched every episode of all 18 seasons of “Survivor,” so I know how addicting these shows can be once you are hooked.
I have also noted with interest that when checking the “Most Viewed” articles on seascoastonline.com, any article pertaining to “The Bachelor” or “The Bachelorette” almost always ranks near the top. People obviously love the shows and love reading about them.
But as someone who has written a column titled “The Truth About Dating” for over four years, I have always been somewhat perplexed at the very premise of the shows. That is, I presumed that the purpose of both shows was for a bachelor or a bachelorette to select a mate out of a group of women (or men) that were “cast” by the shows’ producers.
And, naturally, the final selection of someone to marry would have to neatly coincide with the scheduled number of episodes for each season. The very premise sounded preposterous to me.
I am someone who ran a dating service for 23 years. I therefore do not believe that one should simply rely on fate to meet the love of one’s life. But the very premise of both shows seems to go much too far in the opposite direction.
How could someone really determine after just a handful of dates (while also dating many other people at the same time) that their final selection was someone they would want to spend the rest of their life with?
It bothered me that this show was once again selling that “Disneyish” fairy tale that you can “spot” your true love in a twinkle of the eye and KNOW that this person is your one true love.
Or so I thought. I decided to do some research on the shows to see, after all these seasons, how these marriages turned out. So I turned to my trusted Internet research tool, Wikipedia. And I found the show’s results fascinating.
I had presumed that all of the bachelors and bachelorettes at the final “Rose Ceremony” would have proposed marriage, AND that they would then in fact be getting married soon thereafter. After all, isn’t that what the shows were supposed to be all about?
I examined the results posted on Wiki, and much to my surprise I saw that of the 13 bachelors, only six were foolhardy enough to actually propose marriage on the season’s final show. And of the six who did, I read the following results:
* Aaron and Helene “broke up after several months”* Andrew and Jen “broke up in December, 2003”* Byron and Mary “are still engaged, but no wedding date planned”* Andy and Tessa “called off the engagement one month after the finale”* Matt and Shayne “broke up in July, 2008”* Jason and Melissa “broke up publicly…during the ‘After the Rose’ finale” (I guess Jason changed his mind and this became a major media controversy)
And what about the bachelorettes? Since women are far more romantic than men (and many have really believed since they were five years old that “Someday My Prince Will Come”) four of the five bachelorettes actually did propose marriage on the final episode. And what happened to those engagements?
* Well, blow me away, Trista and Ryan actually did marry and have two children! How does that saying go, “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while?”
* Meredith and Ian “were engaged at the end of the show but ended their relationship in February 2005.”
* DeAnna and Jesse’s “wedding was set for May 9, 2009, but they broke up in November 2008.”
* Jillian and Edward (on the season that just ended this week) “will be moving to Chicago… and they stated that they would be married in the next 12 months.” Wanna bet?
So, of the 18 supposed marriages that ABC touted were going to result from “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” shows, exactly one actually happened.
Perhaps these shows are not doing the damage that I was afraid they were going to do, misleading viewers into believing that true love can be found on what is basically a game show. Perhaps both shows are just pure entertainment and nothing more.
If that’s the case, then I’ll just emulate Sarah Palin and use a basketball analogy, “no harm, no foul.”