This is racy

Feel like reading something racy?

I have a recommendation for you: Business F1, “Formula One’s Business Magazine.”

No, this is not a pun. Ok, it is sort of, but there’s some real raciness here.

For proof of this, check out the exhibits attached to a defamation lawsuit filed in Florida on behalf of a marketing executive who claims she was defamed in articles in Business F1. The exhibits are the part you need to read.

They include an article headlined “A vixen who infiltrated Williams.” It includes this passage:

“Dark haired, displaying a vixen like attractiveness, combined with extreme confidence, she uses her feminine wiles to get a foot through the door and when she has any man in her sights, they had better look out because, when in charm mode, she has an irresistible aura. Any man would have problems resisting those charms … .”

You can’t get this kind of journalism just anywhere.

You may want to subscribe. You’ll learn about all kinds of scandalous stuff.

Like the war over chocolate.

The most recent issue of Business F1 has a piece called “Komatsu bans chocolate from Haas motorhome” in which, among other things, we learn of a team owner who wants to ban chocolate from every part of his business. But it turns out that F1 has announced a partnership with KitKat.

“Both brands are dedicated to elevating the fan experience by combining the excitement of world-class racing with the renowned sense of humor of KitKat and tradition of sharing breaks.”

It’s the crossover we’ve all been waiting for.

ALGEBRA. Equality may sound like a simple concept, but it’s not. High school equations should have taught us that.

Case in point: a class action filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of men frightened of men.

OK, it doesn’t exactly describe itself that way, but that’s what it amounts to. The suit is against Uber and the named plaintiffs are two men who each say they have been “denied equal access to defendant’s safety rideshare program solely on the basis of sex; more specifically, because he was a male rider and not a female rider.”

The new Uber program allows women to request female drivers. “This practice,” they said in the suit, “constitutes discrimination against male riders and undermines equal access to safe rides for male patrons.”

OK, let’s suppose the plaintiffs here win. What happens next?

Women drivers sue because they’ll say that Uber knows they are more likely to be attacked by male riders.

Also, male Uber drivers sue because they’re not getting equal access to passengers who want safe rides.

Let’s suppose they win.

Women passengers sue next because, they’ll say, Uber knows they are less safe with male drivers. What’s the point of requesting a safe ride if some guy shows up?

And then men sue for being treated like they’re all dangerous animals when most of them are not.

This is why we’re looking at a future with robot taxis.