objectively speaking

there are two sides, b and c, they have been at war with each other for ages. the reasons have changed like the climates on the playing field but the constant is that they are at war with each other.

b doesnt like c and vis versa. b kills, rapes, maims, captures c's people and c likewise does the same intermittently using b's children to kill, maim, etc...

d walks in and takes a look around. he does not belong to side b or c, he is d, an independent, there out of his own needs and desires to further himself in the land of d. the conflict of b and c is not important to him. he is there to fulfill his own needs and this is not his fight. is d a bad man, an unconscionable being, heartless, or is d simply an innocent, a bystander, looking beyond the war to opportunity and supplying his world's demand?

can b or c blame d for being there? their land has what his needs and neither of them are capitalising on its full potential. he is a willing buyer and they, willing sellers. why is he to blame for their conflict, why is it his duty to fix their problems, why should he get involved?

when r b or c going to look around and ask what are we doing to each other rather than why is d here?

online sex anyone?

the language herein may offend but truth must be told so...
it has become alarmingly prevalent the amount of smut in my 2G inbox catered for courtesy of hotmail. i have for obvious reasons made a switch a long time ago to a similar service provider who relieves me of the strain of sifting this trash through careful and successful filtering.

this has me blissfully ignorant of the 'fuck budies' that i could encounter online or the 'fuck friends' who may be wanting some online company and the rest of the charming 'wanting to get to know me's' that hotmail feels it necessary to sell/give my details to. apparently i even have friends now with the name c*ntf@%Ku that wonder into my inbox for a friendly hi how the hell r u...

so much for internet nannies...

strip it

i am bored of stripping paint i want to paint now. i understand why most simply paint over the above layer it all makes more sense. i am happy with the level of stripping that i have managed. i dont see the moving on to the painting stage as a failed attempt to strip but rather a more conclusive study on which method is better or prefered...

some see this as skipping ahead, feeling bored with laying the foundation and onwards to brick laying my house on top of sand... pish posch semantics!

substantive equality

can there every really be such a thing in the quarell that is ones right to have or not to have an abortion? where exactly in this highly controversial 'choice' does the man's right to choose slot in or is it merely slipped under the dirty carpet and forgotten?

u sit there on the sidelines watching and waiting in anticipation as someone else decides whether or not you will become a father. u participated in the conception of the microdot that may or may not become a being, yet are sidelined in what is termed 'a choice'...

if we continue to ignore the man for a minute - its not as if we haven't been ignoring him since the beginning of conception so a few more seconds ain't gonna matter - woman wake up the morning after being knocked up with a choice to make, keep it or bin it.

she can deliberate the pro's and cons, the moral options, the 'right' path, where she is at that given moment and then she delivers her decision to the man. she puts it to him that he is either, going to become a dad or he isn't. this line of thinking takes into account that she bothered during her decision making process to involve the man in the fact that she neglected to drop her egg this month...

the former leads to two further consequences. he becomes liable for maintenance and the upbringing of a kid. if they get hitched he'll have what they hope is an active role in its upbringing or, if singledom is their destiny, he's lucky if he is awarded some visitation rights. the latter option, dependent on his persuasion, leaves both 'free' of the shackles that come with child rearing, free to wonder and sow seeds in another pastures, or he has the chance of fatherdom ripped from his thoughts...

so where is the man in this dual income partnership? a silent partner? can he demand that she keep it? of course not that would infringe on a persons freedom of autonomy, their right to dignity, privacy and i am sure a host of others can be thought up... can he force the hand to dissolve his problem and future maintenance obligations? again of course not for similar reasons outlined above. can he accept her decision and contractually stipulate that his choice in the matter is not to have it but if she chooses to exercise her right he reserves his rights and stipulates that he denies liability towards or obligations which are consequences of her decision? could he sue her for special damages, pain and suffering?

i suspect that again for no particular reason other than the apparent sympathy towards the previously dominated sex the man is going to get shafted...