So Birmingham was recently voted the worst city in the country for men by Men’s Health Magazine. Men’s Health being, I believe, a gay porno magazine judging by the covers of shirtless men parading around on the cover. [And also because they picked The People’s Republic of San Francisco as the best city for men.]
But I’m not sure how scientific the whole thing is. They only used factors like violent crime, heart disease, cancer, obesity, general health, commute times, ratio of men to women…and, well, pretty much everything. Damn, maybe B-ham (even its nickname is reminiscent of a ham sandwich) is bad for your health. Who would have thought that a city with 50% barbecue restaurants wouldn’t be a healthy place to live?
I can’t help but think that the singles scene (or lack of it) in Birmingham might also be partly to blame. Not to mention Southern women, a great concept that never really pays off in execution. [You try dating a “born again virgin” for six months without getting laid and then see how “awesome” Southern belles are.]
I’m really saying that I grudgingly accept Men’s Health and their findings that Birmingham is the worst city in the country for men. And I might even believe that a couple cities in Drugofornia are decent for men to live in. After all, if half the men are gay, then odds have gotta be pretty good for rednecks to find a mate, right? It can’t be any worse than living in a small town with 3 men for every woman that’s nearest big city (the hope for men looking for an unfair ratio) is…Birmingham.