First Think, THEN Ink.

The most controversial part of the Q interview, that I pointed out yesterday, is the element surrounding his good friend, Bill Cosby.

Marchese: We’ve obviously been learning more lately about just how corrosive the entertainment industry can be for women. As someone who’s worked in that business at the highest levels for so many years, do all the recent revelations come as a surprise?

Jones: No, man. Women had to put up with fucked-up shit. Women and brothers — we’re both dealing with the glass ceiling.

Marchese: But what about the alleged behavior of a friend of yours like Bill Cosby? Is it hard to square what he’s been accused of with the person you know?

Jones: It was all of them. Brett Ratner. [Harvey] Weinstein. Weinstein — he’s a jive motherfucker. Wouldn’t return my five calls. A bully.

Marchese: What about Cosby, though?

Jones: What about it?

Marchese: Were the allegations a surprise to you?

Jones: We can’t talk about this in public, man.

In other words, Q knew.

Let's think about that for a minute, then put that in context.

Joe Paterno was the long time football coach for Penn State University. Jerry Sandusky, his assistant, was a serial rapist, continually molesting little boys and teenagers throughout the duration of his tenure at the school.

Paterno was held partially responsible for his assistant's actions, was stripped of the accolades the university had previously bestowed upon him and was sent packing in disgrace, all because he did nothing.

While Quincy Jones is not in the same position with Bill Cosby, in that he didn't hire Cosby for jobs or didn't bring Cosby into circumstances specifically, the way Paterno did with Sandusky, the parallels make one pause. Why wouldn't you blow the whistle on someone, even for their own sake, to get THEM some help, let alone stop them from harming more people? Why would you ignore those actions knowing that these actions are illegal at least, immoral at best?

I'm not certain that anyone is going to come after Q for this, but it definitely made me sad.

Another change from the original... The challenge for this day was "A Song That Makes You Feel Guilty." I was trying to wrap my head around what that actually meant. And after thinking about it for awhile, I decided that a more fun choice would be this one, especially since the original list of challenges left anything that properly fit this as an option, out.

I sometimes label songs like this "Porn Grooves" because, well, do I need to explain? There are quite a few out there. Pretty much the entirety of Prince's Discography would qualify!

There are songs that are specifically about sex, like Berlin's "Sex (I'm a...)" or Ludacris' "Splash Waterfalls". It's a little bit difficult to miss the meaning, there.

Then there are songs that veil it a little, like Britney Spears' "I'm A Slave 4 U" (again, practically referencing Prince with the number and letter at the end of that title) or our Day 11 performer doing a duet: Bjork and Nearly God's performance of "Yoga." They may not have been actually making love during the recording session, but who could prove it, after listening to that track?!

Even instrumentals can qualify, as one sexy rock anthem I remember is "Hocus Pocus" by Focus Maybe I'm the only one who finds this sexy. And there was the old cliche, David Rose's "The Stripper" which, to me, is only sexy in the specific context of a person actually disrobing during it.

And that's the other point. Part of what's sexy is in the ear of the beholder. Back in the day, some found the works of Barry White or Teddy Pendergrass to be "panty dropping music," while others simply weren't interested. There isn't any "universal sexy music," although perhaps there can be some universal sexy indicators that you're trying to reference sex.

I think my pick of the day is clearly in the neighborhood. Part of it is the beat, the pounding repetitiveness of the song really helps with the sexual tension. Part of it is the lyric, that definitely gets in your head. And watching this video, well, it's a classic.

My choice for Day 28 is: Kelis - "Milkshake"

It's kinda funny... when I posted that post over the weekend titled "Quote Thyself!" I used, as my example:

"I think it's pretty clear that men and women don't use their brains in the same way, and in fact may not even have the exact same equipment up there, as they don't down below."

Now, I don't want to say I'm a psychic, but this turned out to be remarkably prophetic, as a couple of days later the world found out that NY Governor Eliot Spitzer was having relations with prostitutes down in old DC.

Actually, I began thinking about this whole concept because TCM ran a couple of films: "The Apartment" from 1960, which starred Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine, and "How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying," from 1967, starring Robert Morse and Michelle Lee a few days ago.

Now, I guess it's easy to think that material from the 1960s is "ancient history," and that it has no real bearing on our lives in the 21st Century. But I'm not so sure. Both of these films have a kind of "beloved" status. "The Apartment" won the Best Picture Oscar that year. Eventually, it became the Burt Bacharach/Hal David musical "Promises, Promises," where it achieved even more accolades. And "How To Succeed" was a smash Broadway show before coming to the big screen where it succeeded again, and was then revived with Matthew Broderick in the lead role in the 1990s.

"Apartment" and "Succeed" are entertaining films, for certain, but they are both filled with sexism. In "Apartment," An elevator operator, played by MacLaine, is constantly "hit on" (today we would use the term "sexually harassed") by the executives in the Insurance firm, and has an affair with one of the top men in the company (played with the appropriately purile disgust and callousness by Fred MacMurray). Of course, the guy is married with kids, but this is the way of the world in 1960. The Old Boys in the Office have their way... they're the breadwinners, so they have their say.

Similarly, in "Succeed," there is a song titled "A Secretary Is Not A Toy," where the men in the office are cautioned:

Her pad is to write in
And not to spend the night in

among other sound advice about the work dynamic.

1967. Really, that's not that long ago.

So that brings me to Spitzer and his resignation. And isn't this just more of the same? Here's a guy who used his power to get things done as Attorney General, to squelch illegal activity on Wall Street and, ironically enough, in areas like prostitution rings. But, when it came to his personal choices, it was all about getting his jollies and family be damned.

As it turns out, career be damned too, but I'm sure he thought he would never be found out. When you have a reputation, no one will suspect that you're doing the very thing that you claim to be railing against. Unless, of course, they look.

I guess the bigger question is what has changed in the world of men and women these past 50 or so years?

In the greater scheme, women set the standard, and have always. Going back to the wild west, the womenfolk needed protection from the creatures of the frontier, be they animal or native. The men had to be strong and/or smart to defend their brides, since ladies were in no position to shoot a rifle or negotiate a treaty. The benevolence of "good men" was what kept the distaff set protected.

But all men have needs, even the "not so good" ones. And that's where the trouble begins. Men who are stronger, more powerful, richer, more wily, always want to have their way, and it's up to women to agree to go along or not. Well, that's oversimplifying it. Many women had no real choice in the matter and had to go along with whatever fate they were handed because they were simply trying to survive.

The compromise of life is one way we might describe it. And isn't this what Mrs. Spitzer demonstrated by standing by her man during these press conferences?

I suppose the other element is that not all guys get away with certain behavior. Some have developed a smoother style that charm women. "Incorrigible" might be an adjective used to describe those guys. Some are just hunks that look so good, anything would be ok. I'm reminded of the joke that Chris Rock made about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. He said, "It's all about looks, you know? Because if Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, this would have never happened!"

Clearly Eliot Spitzer was no Brad Pitt. But this still begs the question... has anything changed when it comes to these issues? We can legislate laws and punish those that break them, but there is still a pull for some men to behave in certain ways with certain people at specific times and even with the risk of being found out, having their lives exposed and ruined and potentially destroying their families and careers, it still happens. It. Still. Happens.

I have the feeling this won't be the last such scandal we will hear about, and it certainly won't be the last such scandal. It happens all the time, with men of every income and job level. Most of them we'll never know, but that doesn't make what happens any less heartbreaking for their families and maybe for themselves.

Ultimately, the issue is with understanding. The commitment of marriage, and what that means to the two participants in that ceremony. I think we're discovering now that many people have different views of what marriage can and should be, and if both are in agreement, then there are definitely different interpretations of how a marriage can go. But if one decides to go off and do something on his or her own before consulting their partner, that's a breach of trust.

But, for some, the thrill is in the sneaking. "Getting away" with the action could be as much of an adrenalin rush as sticking it in is. That's a problem that really can't be addressed without some therapy.

Finally, almost as a footnote to everything above: This is how New York gets its first ever African-American Governor?!