bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Posted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
bobquasit: (Lo Pan)
Posted over on the New York Times, waiting for approval.
Oh my god, politics, don't read this )
bobquasit: (Default)
I ended up writing a letter to Salon about the "Infinite Debt"/Dateline NBC takes on debt:
There's another article on the same topic which absolutely horrified me recently: "Infinite Debt" by Thomas Geoghegan in Harper's. It lays out in stark detail how the abolition of usury laws in the US (under the tender ministrations of credit-industry lobbyists and our corrupt Congress) allowed the financial sector to produce profits for their investors of 300% or more. With that sort of profit to be had, is it any wonder that investors ran away from the manufacturing industries - industries which would normally produce 3-5% profit?

There's a great deal more in the article, which is well worth reading. Unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers (and by coincidence, I got my subscription to Harper's for renewing my Salon subscription). It's well worth looking up. If you can't afford Harper's, try to see if you can find it in your local library; it's the April 2009 issue.

But I ran into an odd juxtaposition last night: a story on NBC's Dateline about the "Debt Trap". I thought it might shed an interesting sidelight on the insights raised in "Infinite Debt". And it did - but not in the way that I hoped or expected.

Rather than report on the wholesale usury of the financial sector and the complicity of Congress in abolishing age-old protection for the public from financial wolves, Dateline instead focused on some sleazy debt collectors who used "questionable" practices. They - gasp - lied to the people they were calling! Watching these lower-class employees chatting and smoking on secret camera in their parking lot, I couldn't help but be reminded of the "bad apples" like Lyndie England who carried the Bush Administration's torture policies and ended up taking the fall for them.

Dateline thoughtfully announced that everyone filmed by the secret camera had later been fired.

But it was the management of that debt collection company that really must have run up the Dateline dry-cleaning bill. The producers must have ejaculated into their pants about twenty times over when they found that the owners of the company were all black "gangsta"-types. Thugs and criminals, to be sure. But very minor criminals indeed compared to the real criminals: the respected members of Congress, the titans of industry, and the media who all cheered as organized labor was broken and the game was rigged in favor of a financial sector whose sole purpose was to shear the sheep - the public - to the bone.

The maximum interest rate allowed used to be 9% plus a small additional percentage. And now...there IS NO maximum. We have been turned into nothing more than beasts to be slaughtered in the financial stockyard. And the "winners" of society, obscenely wealthy and virtually all-powerful, continue to hold the reins of power firmly in their hands - and by all signs, they always will.

It's a bitter pill to swallow.
bobquasit: (Default)
I ended up writing a letter to Salon about the "Infinite Debt"/Dateline NBC takes on debt:
There's another article on the same topic which absolutely horrified me recently: "Infinite Debt" by Thomas Geoghegan in Harper's. It lays out in stark detail how the abolition of usury laws in the US (under the tender ministrations of credit-industry lobbyists and our corrupt Congress) allowed the financial sector to produce profits for their investors of 300% or more. With that sort of profit to be had, is it any wonder that investors ran away from the manufacturing industries - industries which would normally produce 3-5% profit?

There's a great deal more in the article, which is well worth reading. Unfortunately, it's only available to subscribers (and by coincidence, I got my subscription to Harper's for renewing my Salon subscription). It's well worth looking up. If you can't afford Harper's, try to see if you can find it in your local library; it's the April 2009 issue.

But I ran into an odd juxtaposition last night: a story on NBC's Dateline about the "Debt Trap". I thought it might shed an interesting sidelight on the insights raised in "Infinite Debt". And it did - but not in the way that I hoped or expected.

Rather than report on the wholesale usury of the financial sector and the complicity of Congress in abolishing age-old protection for the public from financial wolves, Dateline instead focused on some sleazy debt collectors who used "questionable" practices. They - gasp - lied to the people they were calling! Watching these lower-class employees chatting and smoking on secret camera in their parking lot, I couldn't help but be reminded of the "bad apples" like Lyndie England who carried the Bush Administration's torture policies and ended up taking the fall for them.

Dateline thoughtfully announced that everyone filmed by the secret camera had later been fired.

But it was the management of that debt collection company that really must have run up the Dateline dry-cleaning bill. The producers must have ejaculated into their pants about twenty times over when they found that the owners of the company were all black "gangsta"-types. Thugs and criminals, to be sure. But very minor criminals indeed compared to the real criminals: the respected members of Congress, the titans of industry, and the media who all cheered as organized labor was broken and the game was rigged in favor of a financial sector whose sole purpose was to shear the sheep - the public - to the bone.

The maximum interest rate allowed used to be 9% plus a small additional percentage. And now...there IS NO maximum. We have been turned into nothing more than beasts to be slaughtered in the financial stockyard. And the "winners" of society, obscenely wealthy and virtually all-powerful, continue to hold the reins of power firmly in their hands - and by all signs, they always will.

It's a bitter pill to swallow.
bobquasit: (Default)
I don't like writing this sort of thing, and I'm going to try to avoid doing so in the future. It started as a reply to a piece by Glenn Greenwald of Salon on the sudden turn-around by Senate Democrats on the issue of torture. Senators Feinstein and Wyden, fierce advocates against torture during the Bush Administration, are suddenly backtracking as fast as they can. Apparently, torture is now okay with them - as long as they don't call it "torture", of course. And only if it's really, really necessary.


I'll say it again: don't be surprised as America continues its long slow slide into fascism in all but name.

Under Obama and the Democrats, torture will continue, and probably increase. Privacy rights will continue to erode. Governmental secrecy will increase, except in meaningless, superficial ways ("Look! This shiny new government website lets you see some documents that mean nothing and look important! Give us your feedback, and we'll send you a form-letter of thanks!").
Read more... )
I would like to believe that after the collapse, there will be some sort of chance for redemption, some way for a better world to come to pass. But if such a possibility exists, I can't see it.
bobquasit: (Default)
I don't like writing this sort of thing, and I'm going to try to avoid doing so in the future. It started as a reply to a piece by Glenn Greenwald of Salon on the sudden turn-around by Senate Democrats on the issue of torture. Senators Feinstein and Wyden, fierce advocates against torture during the Bush Administration, are suddenly backtracking as fast as they can. Apparently, torture is now okay with them - as long as they don't call it "torture", of course. And only if it's really, really necessary.


I'll say it again: don't be surprised as America continues its long slow slide into fascism in all but name.

Under Obama and the Democrats, torture will continue, and probably increase. Privacy rights will continue to erode. Governmental secrecy will increase, except in meaningless, superficial ways ("Look! This shiny new government website lets you see some documents that mean nothing and look important! Give us your feedback, and we'll send you a form-letter of thanks!").
Read more... )
I would like to believe that after the collapse, there will be some sort of chance for redemption, some way for a better world to come to pass. But if such a possibility exists, I can't see it.
bobquasit: (Default)
A response to a rather horrifying editorial in the NYT ("The Jungle, Again"), about the rather remarkable and egregious persecution of workers in a slaughterhouse.


Of course the Bush Administration enjoys persecuting the poor and weak! How can anyone claim to be surprised by this? The overprivileged sociopaths that now rule this nation, virtually unfettered by the slightest taint of opposition by the supine Democrats, like nothing more than torturing the helpless.

George W. Bush himself displayed this tendency clearly, at an early age, with his love for stuffing firecrackers in frogs in order to watch them explode. We have allowed people without consciences to seize this country. How can we pretend to be surprised when they act like the monsters that they are?

Having grown up with people like this, I've seen first-hand that many of them are raised to see the poor and helpless as nothing more than animals: legitimate prey for their amusement.

God help this country.
bobquasit: (Default)
A response to a rather horrifying editorial in the NYT ("The Jungle, Again"), about the rather remarkable and egregious persecution of workers in a slaughterhouse.


Of course the Bush Administration enjoys persecuting the poor and weak! How can anyone claim to be surprised by this? The overprivileged sociopaths that now rule this nation, virtually unfettered by the slightest taint of opposition by the supine Democrats, like nothing more than torturing the helpless.

George W. Bush himself displayed this tendency clearly, at an early age, with his love for stuffing firecrackers in frogs in order to watch them explode. We have allowed people without consciences to seize this country. How can we pretend to be surprised when they act like the monsters that they are?

Having grown up with people like this, I've seen first-hand that many of them are raised to see the poor and helpless as nothing more than animals: legitimate prey for their amusement.

God help this country.
bobquasit: (Default)
Sir,

For the past 3-4 weeks the Franklin #715 train (departing South Station at 4:10pm) has been desperately overcrowded. Not only is every aisle full of standees, but passengers are being forced to ride in the vestibules between the coaches as well. By my estimate there were at least 190 standees yesterday on the five-coach #715.

This is now TYPICAL of the ridership on that train.

It is, of course, forbidden for passengers to ride in the vestibules due to safety concerns - but there is simply no other option.

Conductors are unable to collect fares. Two days ago I stood for half an hour next to a woman who was six-months pregnant; she couldn't get a seat, and had to physically squeeze past standees along half the aisle to get off at her stop.

Given that standees have a much greater likelihood of being injured during an accident, the current state of overcrowding presents a daily hazard to a large and increasing number of riders. This matter is urgent, and needs to be addressed immediately.

MBCR and MBTA management have repeatedly refused to address this issue. Please do not simply forward me to MBTA/MBCR management; they will not take any action. Large numbers of MBTA passengers are being placed in danger on a daily basis, and there is no sign that ridership is going to decrease. Please take meaningful action.


I've also contacted the Boston Globe and Boston Herald - I'll let you know if either follows up with me.
bobquasit: (Default)
Sir,

For the past 3-4 weeks the Franklin #715 train (departing South Station at 4:10pm) has been desperately overcrowded. Not only is every aisle full of standees, but passengers are being forced to ride in the vestibules between the coaches as well. By my estimate there were at least 190 standees yesterday on the five-coach #715.

This is now TYPICAL of the ridership on that train.

It is, of course, forbidden for passengers to ride in the vestibules due to safety concerns - but there is simply no other option.

Conductors are unable to collect fares. Two days ago I stood for half an hour next to a woman who was six-months pregnant; she couldn't get a seat, and had to physically squeeze past standees along half the aisle to get off at her stop.

Given that standees have a much greater likelihood of being injured during an accident, the current state of overcrowding presents a daily hazard to a large and increasing number of riders. This matter is urgent, and needs to be addressed immediately.

MBCR and MBTA management have repeatedly refused to address this issue. Please do not simply forward me to MBTA/MBCR management; they will not take any action. Large numbers of MBTA passengers are being placed in danger on a daily basis, and there is no sign that ridership is going to decrease. Please take meaningful action.


I've also contacted the Boston Globe and Boston Herald - I'll let you know if either follows up with me.

Krofft

Feb. 18th, 2008 10:24 pm
bobquasit: (Default)
A letter to Salon about Narnia in neon, an article about the children's television of Sid and Marty Krofft (subscription or ad-watch required).

I'm part of that odd generation that grew up watching the Krofft shows. I was born in 1964. My wife is a few years younger than me, and she'd never heard of them - although she'd watched more TV than I did, as a kid.

Any time I meet anyone born in 1964, though, I always find that we speak the same language: Krofft. We all dreamed about those shows, and our imaginations were forever changed - twisted? liberated? - by them.

So I bought the complete Pufnstuf and Lidsville series on DVD for my little boy. He's going to have the same bizarre images as I have floating around in MY subconscious. That may seem domineering, but have you looked at modern television for kids? It's either gross-out animation in the spirit of Ren & Stimpy (but without the talent) or the same perky-happy-crappy garbage that has been churned out for defenseless kids practically since the medium began.

Yes, I'm talking about you, Dora the Explorer, Little Einsteins, Hannah Montana, and the atrocity of the Winnie-the-Pooh shows featuring an animated perky AMERICAN GIRL in place of Christopher Robin (who was, damn it all, ENGLISH!). I'm talking about YOU, Disney! Mickey Mouse was NEVER funny!

And every single goddamned show is backed up by millions of dollars worth of focus groups, psychological research, and products to buy, buy, buy.

It's sanitized. It's sterilized. It's televisual pap! And what is that doing to the minds of our children?

Take a look at a random episode of Lidsville. It would never be made or broadcast today. The evil Hoodoo the Magician (Charles Nelson Reilly) having lost his "zap" powers to Raunchy Rabbit (I swear to God I am not making this up) dresses up as a female bunny and seduces the hapless lagomorph out of his powers!

Adults cringe in amazement at the sight of the tutu-wearing girl-bunny-disguised Reilly rolling around on a chaise longue with a little person in a bunny costume. But kids love it.

It feels as if Sid and Marty Krofft got a gang of brilliant maniacs together, said "hey gang, let's put on a show!" and made it happen. They're incredibly lose and amateurish compared to modern shows. There are obvious mistakes; for example, take the opening of Lidsville. Butch Patrick's fall into the giant hat was visibly botched - you can see his foot kind of bouncing there as he hits the padding upside-down at the bottom of the hat.

TV executives today would fire anyone for suggesting that a mistake like that be broadcast. But god forbid that even a smidgen of the creativity and imagination that the Kroffts displayed in almost every episode get on the screen now! Our screens must remain sterile...as sterile as our children's minds. I think that the time will come when we realize that raising our children in an ideologically pure and sterilized environment destroys their mental immune systems, just as raising them without exposure to germs and dirt destroys their resistance to physical disease. Both are a cruel disservice to the next generation.

Pufnstuf and Lidsville were the purest of the divine Kroftt madness, in my book. They give us a window into a brief time when American culture was on the edge of becoming something truly, fundamentally different. Instead, that change was assimilated, digested, and eliminated.

Land of the Lost was a fun show (as a kid I loved it), but didn't have the essential Krofft craziness; that seems to have required giant-headed puppet-costumes. Sigmund & the Sea Monster verged on the weirdness, but somehow never quite reached the same level of strangeness and magic. That was probably, I think, because unlike Pufnstuf and Lidsville the child-protagonists of Sigmund were never taken away to another, magical world; their California world expanded a little to include sea monsters and other creatures, but it retained a link to reality that somehow made everything seem a little flat.

As for the Bugaloos, I didn't watch it much as a kid. And when I tried to watch it as an adult, I just couldn't take it. Yes, it seems to be the true Krofft quill...but maybe you have to have first seen it with the eyes of a child to be able to really enjoy it.

Krofft

Feb. 18th, 2008 10:24 pm
bobquasit: (Default)
A letter to Salon about Narnia in neon, an article about the children's television of Sid and Marty Krofft (subscription or ad-watch required).

I'm part of that odd generation that grew up watching the Krofft shows. I was born in 1964. My wife is a few years younger than me, and she'd never heard of them - although she'd watched more TV than I did, as a kid.

Any time I meet anyone born in 1964, though, I always find that we speak the same language: Krofft. We all dreamed about those shows, and our imaginations were forever changed - twisted? liberated? - by them.

So I bought the complete Pufnstuf and Lidsville series on DVD for my little boy. He's going to have the same bizarre images as I have floating around in MY subconscious. That may seem domineering, but have you looked at modern television for kids? It's either gross-out animation in the spirit of Ren & Stimpy (but without the talent) or the same perky-happy-crappy garbage that has been churned out for defenseless kids practically since the medium began.

Yes, I'm talking about you, Dora the Explorer, Little Einsteins, Hannah Montana, and the atrocity of the Winnie-the-Pooh shows featuring an animated perky AMERICAN GIRL in place of Christopher Robin (who was, damn it all, ENGLISH!). I'm talking about YOU, Disney! Mickey Mouse was NEVER funny!

And every single goddamned show is backed up by millions of dollars worth of focus groups, psychological research, and products to buy, buy, buy.

It's sanitized. It's sterilized. It's televisual pap! And what is that doing to the minds of our children?

Take a look at a random episode of Lidsville. It would never be made or broadcast today. The evil Hoodoo the Magician (Charles Nelson Reilly) having lost his "zap" powers to Raunchy Rabbit (I swear to God I am not making this up) dresses up as a female bunny and seduces the hapless lagomorph out of his powers!

Adults cringe in amazement at the sight of the tutu-wearing girl-bunny-disguised Reilly rolling around on a chaise longue with a little person in a bunny costume. But kids love it.

It feels as if Sid and Marty Krofft got a gang of brilliant maniacs together, said "hey gang, let's put on a show!" and made it happen. They're incredibly lose and amateurish compared to modern shows. There are obvious mistakes; for example, take the opening of Lidsville. Butch Patrick's fall into the giant hat was visibly botched - you can see his foot kind of bouncing there as he hits the padding upside-down at the bottom of the hat.

TV executives today would fire anyone for suggesting that a mistake like that be broadcast. But god forbid that even a smidgen of the creativity and imagination that the Kroffts displayed in almost every episode get on the screen now! Our screens must remain sterile...as sterile as our children's minds. I think that the time will come when we realize that raising our children in an ideologically pure and sterilized environment destroys their mental immune systems, just as raising them without exposure to germs and dirt destroys their resistance to physical disease. Both are a cruel disservice to the next generation.

Pufnstuf and Lidsville were the purest of the divine Kroftt madness, in my book. They give us a window into a brief time when American culture was on the edge of becoming something truly, fundamentally different. Instead, that change was assimilated, digested, and eliminated.

Land of the Lost was a fun show (as a kid I loved it), but didn't have the essential Krofft craziness; that seems to have required giant-headed puppet-costumes. Sigmund & the Sea Monster verged on the weirdness, but somehow never quite reached the same level of strangeness and magic. That was probably, I think, because unlike Pufnstuf and Lidsville the child-protagonists of Sigmund were never taken away to another, magical world; their California world expanded a little to include sea monsters and other creatures, but it retained a link to reality that somehow made everything seem a little flat.

As for the Bugaloos, I didn't watch it much as a kid. And when I tried to watch it as an adult, I just couldn't take it. Yes, it seems to be the true Krofft quill...but maybe you have to have first seen it with the eyes of a child to be able to really enjoy it.
bobquasit: (Default)
For some reason two of my letters in Salon on this topic were selected as "editors choice". Here's the thread. I've replaced various other user names with variations on [user], to protect their privacy - silly though that is, since the posts are public on Salon. This will be quite long, by the way! There's also a bit of repetition, both within the thread and from other stuff I've written here. I do try to improve my points over time, though. For example, I much preferred "fucking" to "sleeping with" - it's funnier. But I can only use "fucking" in places where I know it won't be deleted for it.

Goodbye, Super Tuesday

Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.

If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?

If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.

And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
Read more... )
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.

Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
bobquasit: (Default)
For some reason two of my letters in Salon on this topic were selected as "editors choice". Here's the thread. I've replaced various other user names with variations on [user], to protect their privacy - silly though that is, since the posts are public on Salon. This will be quite long, by the way! There's also a bit of repetition, both within the thread and from other stuff I've written here. I do try to improve my points over time, though. For example, I much preferred "fucking" to "sleeping with" - it's funnier. But I can only use "fucking" in places where I know it won't be deleted for it.

Goodbye, Super Tuesday

Scenario: Confusion
So here's what's puzzling me.

If neither Hillary nor Obama wins sufficient delegates in the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination outright, and the whole thing goes to the Democratic convention, what then? What are the scenarios?

If the superdelegates decide it, but give it to the candidate who came in second in terms of primary/caucus votes OR elected delegates (recognizing that there can be a difference), how will the rank & file take that? And how will ordinary voters take to having the Party hierarchy make the decision for them? I realize that that was how it was done for a long time, but these days the people are used to being the ones to select the nominees. Having the party leadership decide seems ironically anti-democratic.

And given the absolutely miserable record of performance for the vast majority of the Democratic Party leadership, the thought of leaving the choice up to them is one that makes this Democrat uncomfortable.
Read more... )
The thread seems to have died at at point - no one has responded since.

Tomorrow I'll try to post some stuff from Askville - it's much more varied.
bobquasit: (Default)
Last post tonight, I promise!


Point
I'm no genius, but when the original Iraq authorization bill came around it seemed totally obvious to me that it was handing George W. Bush a blank check to do exactly what he desperately wanted and needed to do: get this country into a war that would give the Republicans the whip hand over the Dems.

So, what - am I smarter than Hillary? If so, maybe I should run for President.

Alternatively, if she made the calculation that a "no" vote would cause political damage to her future Presidential campaign, then she cynically sold the lives and health of our soldiers - as well as that of untold Iraqis, our national economy, and the Democratic Party itself - for her own personal gain. In which case she belongs in jail, not the White House.

Much like the current residents, come to think of it.
bobquasit: (Default)
Last post tonight, I promise!


Point
I'm no genius, but when the original Iraq authorization bill came around it seemed totally obvious to me that it was handing George W. Bush a blank check to do exactly what he desperately wanted and needed to do: get this country into a war that would give the Republicans the whip hand over the Dems.

So, what - am I smarter than Hillary? If so, maybe I should run for President.

Alternatively, if she made the calculation that a "no" vote would cause political damage to her future Presidential campaign, then she cynically sold the lives and health of our soldiers - as well as that of untold Iraqis, our national economy, and the Democratic Party itself - for her own personal gain. In which case she belongs in jail, not the White House.

Much like the current residents, come to think of it.
bobquasit: (Default)
The story was run while I was on vacation. I find it interesting that the MBCR spokesman was flat-out misleading in the story; he claimed that a locomotive could only pull so many coaches, which is true, but overlooks the fact that the #715 Franklin train only has six single-level coaches at most - which is almost certainly well below its maximum load.

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/local/2007/07/31/a_year_later_on_the_rails_no_sweat/
bobquasit: (Default)
The story was run while I was on vacation. I find it interesting that the MBCR spokesman was flat-out misleading in the story; he claimed that a locomotive could only pull so many coaches, which is true, but overlooks the fact that the #715 Franklin train only has six single-level coaches at most - which is almost certainly well below its maximum load.

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/local/2007/07/31/a_year_later_on_the_rails_no_sweat/
bobquasit: (Default)
In Salon's advice column today there was a letter from a woman whose boyfriend was visually checking out other women - even when they were together. He was apparently trying to hide it, but I guess he wasn't good at it, because she caught him several times.

My boyfriend is checking out chicks while I'm standing right there!

My sarcasm mode immediately turned on, viz:


Dump the cheating bastard!

How DARE he obey eons of genetic selection for males who are constantly on the watch for potential mates? Doesn't he know that he's not even supposed to notice any other girl in the world, now that he's with his current girlfriend?

Even if he was surrounded by gorgeous naked starlets, it would be his basic moral duty to claw his own eyes out rather than look at him.

Nasty, dirty, filthy man. Doesn't he know that the only reason he has the instinct to appreciate female beauty was to allow him to meet his one destined soulmate? And that now that that function has been fulfilled, he must never find any other woman to be attractive?

He may whine that it's out of his control. NONSENSE! Everyone knows that the male sexual urge is totally volitional in every way.

Oh my god - I just had a horrible thought. What if he sometimes actually fantasizes about having sex with other women? That's the moral equivalent of ADULTERY! His girlfriend must sue him for divorce immediately - right after they get married, that is.

Then she can continue her search for the perfect non-girl-watching boyfriend. I'm sure he's out there somewhere!

In the meantime, I just had another horrible thought. What if her boyfriend ever decides to have a wet dream? Or even multiple wet dreams? Serial adultery - and she could catch an STD from one of those dream-sluts, to boot! She'd better get herself checked by a doctor right away. While she's at it, she could talk to her doctor about some form of medication or surgical procedure for her boyfriend which will eliminate all of those nasty, unacceptable sexual urges.

That may leave her a bit frustrated, of course, so she might also want to invest in a good vibrator. Which she will use only while fantasizing about her now-safe boyfriend, of course.

Problem solved!



What do you think - was I unfair? :D
bobquasit: (Default)
In Salon's advice column today there was a letter from a woman whose boyfriend was visually checking out other women - even when they were together. He was apparently trying to hide it, but I guess he wasn't good at it, because she caught him several times.

My boyfriend is checking out chicks while I'm standing right there!

My sarcasm mode immediately turned on, viz:


Dump the cheating bastard!

How DARE he obey eons of genetic selection for males who are constantly on the watch for potential mates? Doesn't he know that he's not even supposed to notice any other girl in the world, now that he's with his current girlfriend?

Even if he was surrounded by gorgeous naked starlets, it would be his basic moral duty to claw his own eyes out rather than look at him.

Nasty, dirty, filthy man. Doesn't he know that the only reason he has the instinct to appreciate female beauty was to allow him to meet his one destined soulmate? And that now that that function has been fulfilled, he must never find any other woman to be attractive?

He may whine that it's out of his control. NONSENSE! Everyone knows that the male sexual urge is totally volitional in every way.

Oh my god - I just had a horrible thought. What if he sometimes actually fantasizes about having sex with other women? That's the moral equivalent of ADULTERY! His girlfriend must sue him for divorce immediately - right after they get married, that is.

Then she can continue her search for the perfect non-girl-watching boyfriend. I'm sure he's out there somewhere!

In the meantime, I just had another horrible thought. What if her boyfriend ever decides to have a wet dream? Or even multiple wet dreams? Serial adultery - and she could catch an STD from one of those dream-sluts, to boot! She'd better get herself checked by a doctor right away. While she's at it, she could talk to her doctor about some form of medication or surgical procedure for her boyfriend which will eliminate all of those nasty, unacceptable sexual urges.

That may leave her a bit frustrated, of course, so she might also want to invest in a good vibrator. Which she will use only while fantasizing about her now-safe boyfriend, of course.

Problem solved!



What do you think - was I unfair? :D

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617181920 2122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 03:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios