About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
Categories
- 5×7
- arrogance
- booze
- brands
- communication
- consumption
- creeps
- crime
- easter bunny
- ego
- ethics
- excuses
- expectations
- experience
- faith
- family
- fashion
- finances
- friends
- gum
- halloween
- hipsters
- inequality
- kids
- language
- love
- men
- moderation
- monsters
- music
- optimism
- orthodontics
- pain
- parties
- patience
- perception
- philosophy
- politics
- pop culture
- queens
- santa
- school
- sickness
- snobs
- snuggling
- sports
- standards
- stress
- success
- technology
- television
- tooth fairy
- travel
- Uncategorized
- value
- virginity
- weight
- women
- work
- xenophobia








I … I just …
… I don’t have any words for this.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
Though I am a little disturbed that I got this, in spite of being a guy.
Not sure if I understand this one, but if you happen to know one (pre- or post-) who is horny, tiny, AND naive, she is going to be pretty popular.
I don’t know the ACEG names. Different show?
I wish someone would find new long-lost episodes of Sex & The City.
Brad: They’re the characters from Sex in the City.
Pingback: Suggested reading material for April 20th through May 13th < iamnotdenny
Brilliant :)
Wow! I never noticed the similarities… I guess that means that we are due for a sequel / remake to Sex In The City … in 2034? Called Sex in Retirement?
Golden in the City?
Too much fun !
Bea Arthur may have been manly, but she was also wicked hot.
Best Indexed Ever =)
-applause-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMGhd4jMrtI
this is perfectly true… and makes me feel very old…
and in a weird way: could it be that SATC is a goldengirls prequel?
Pingback: Loganotron » Indexed: Thank You For Being a Friend
This may be the first time I’ve ever ‘guffawed’. This is genius.
Big circle around the whole thing = I = guy hell.
This is my favorite indexed ever!
This is hilarious!
Unfortunately this set-up seems pretty standard for shows with four females as the main characters. You could add a pubescent/Facts of Life section too:
horny/sexualized = Blair
manly = Jo
tiny = Tootie
naive = Natalie
Dave, I think that would be “Sex in Sun City.”
Genius. Pure genius.
Wow. I never thought to think of it like that…I will never see the shows in the same light again.
Excellent! Just perfect.
yup, Menopause is basically the only difference.
Nailed it as usual!
Besides the name relationship, observe the shape. Between the lips you have horny on top tickling your interest, manly going right for the goal, tiny close but not measuring up, and naive wanting to sneak in the back door.
This one was just perfect. I am sending it to everyone I know. I loved GG.
Oh, man. Just to let you know there are people like me, I’ve never seen an entire episode of either of these shows. Just paint an “L” on my forehead and let me out of the cage.
I can’t believe I never noticed that before! I love it!
I would amend this classification: why not classify Miranda and Sophia as “wise”, and then Dorothy and Carrie as “pragmatic”? Tiny and manly are two odd and a tad insulting adjectives, and they don’t speak at all about their attitudes and views. Moreover, Dorothy and Carrie are the central characters in their respective shows, so they have to be classified together.
My friend you are just brilliant!
Sieglinde,
I think she didn’t use “wise” and “pragmatic” because she’s trying to be funny. You see, there’s this thing called “comedy,” and…well, whatever.
Jessica,
Great work, I love the comment about Facts of Life. Can’t think of any other shows with 4 female leads…
For ages, I’ve said that Sex and the City is just a bad rip off of Golden Girls.
Jessica, seriously, best Indexed ever. I’m spreading this one around!!
P.S. Sieglinde…she doesn’t HAVE to do anything. Yes, Dorothy & Carrie are the leads to their shows–that’s one characteristic. They have many, many more. Get a life!
I see someone else watched the marathon last week too …
OK – this is a strecth but how about:
In a circle marked Literary:
Horny – Meg
Manly – Jo
Tiny – Amy
Naive – Beth
PERFECT!
Reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdFvndmM_8I
YES – Mary!!!
I immediately thought of Little Women.
Great job.
Pingback: madeofglass :: tripp millican :: best graph ever
@ Mike
Actually, it’s a combination of The Golden Girls and the gang from Sex and The City. Interesting.
Horny – Suzanne
Manly – Julia
Tiny – Mary Jo
Naive – Charlene
uh, missing here:
Scarlett
Ilsa
Baby Jane
others? buehler?
If this was on a shirt I’d buy it.
LOVE DOESN’T BEGIN TO DESCRIBE THIS! I am new to the site and let just tell you…its my new background lol I loved golden girls and own every season…and of course i love sex and the city!!! ahh i should be writing a paper for college…