Society - Pregnancy

    The "Miracle" of life.

    I must be a jaded old fuck but the idea of women "Creating" life is a horrible misplacement of the Miraculousness of life. In the human condition pregnancy is a parasitic infection. I don't know what the statistics of wanted vs unwanted pregnancies is. A woman doesn't really have much control of what happens after the parasitic infection takes hold. There are shit tonne of demonstrations with women screeching loudly about my body my choice. A woman can't decide to exercise her "Choice" to not be pregnant once she is pregnant. That requires some level of medical assistance.

    This choice that they are banging on about is just ONE of all the choices involved with this particular parasitic infection. The Nuclear option/choice; Abortion. But these women ALSO have the Choice to be more selective about her sexual activity, she has the choice to use the plethora of parasitic infection prevention options. The Pill, condoms, diaphragm, blah blah blah. The list in extensive. And every one of the options has its inherent risks from efficacy to convenience to ick factor. The pill is generally the most simple least icky option. BUT it is a Hormone driven option and as such a fairly risky option health wise as we are suddenly learning. The old standby the condom is a bit on the icky side and doesn't have but something like a 90% efficacy. It does require a stop and apply period of time. The Diaphragm has a bit better efficacy but is WAY high on the ICK factor and requires a a lot  more forethought. Which brings us back to the choice to be a bit more selective with your sexual activity. In the past Girls, young women and adult woman have been the gating factor for sexual activity. Sex and the threat of parasitic infection are much more pertinent to a woman and much more of a threat to her health and well being. But with the a fore mentioned Pill the gates were, for all intents and purposes, thrown wide open. Relegating the condoms and the diaphragms and sponges and and and... to second tier options. It does strike me that the women in these marches and demonstrations are at a much lower risk of this parasitic infection than those without blue and purple hair shaved clean on one side of their head, missing one eyebrow or the other with enough hardware in their faces alone to set off an airport metal detector, boasting the LOUDEST and most Shrill of the voices of the group.

    But a woman does nothing but host this parasite for nine months and when the time comes her body without her choice of time or location expels the parasite in a process called birth. In general this is a Horrifically painful process that can in some extreme instances last for days. And always has all manner of inherent risks associated with it. The list of these risks is two blocks long so I will not be listing them here.

    Because some women are excited by this process they may take 'prenatal' vitamins and involve herself in all manner of activities intended to help this parasite develop in a more positive manner. Vitamins for health, playing Mozart through headphones over her belly to calm, sooth and theoretically improve the parasite's cognition. There loads of different birthing methods. Natural (no drugs  of any kind) partial natural (epidural drugs) C section the list goes on. In general the birthing process goes smoothly. But as it turns out America is way down the list of infant mortality. Which is bad. And unexpected to me anyway.

    After the birthing process starts another plethora of activities involved with the care and upkeep with the birthed parasite. The first thing is the feeding of the new born. Breast feeding has long been regarded as the very best option. Like any parasitic infection this infection causes many changes to occur in the woman's body. Again with out her choosing to allow or disallow these changes. They just happen to her not by her. Breast enlargement, nipple color changes goofy food cravings both before birth and after. 

    And don't get me started on the process that is typically involved with becoming the host of this little parasitic infection. Used to be there weren't that many options for this sort of thing. Now... Wow!

 

 

Society - Sex - Media

     I had a thought this morning. 

    I recently saw a youtube showing a great (great fat guy meaning BIG Fat guy) fat guy with no shirt on. He had rather large, for lack of a better word, breasts. Bigger than many possessed by women. Now His (I lean heavily on HIS for a reason) breasts were not at all attractive in the way a womanly breast might be. But they were easily a D cup if not larger. And they were hair covered. But they were breasts none the less complete with nipples.

    Having said that, I saw a TV show some years ago called "Botched" where in a woman undergone some version of mastectomy for some reason. In this segment of the episode this woman was there on the show for breast reconstruction work. The Botched Guys had done a spectacular job re-manufacturing her some new breasts. All shapely and round. Some might say Award winning breasts. I did. I imagine that the Botched Guys had used the silicone/saline breast insert method. There are so many methods for the mastectomy reconstruction work any more. So the point of this bit is that they showed her bare chest complete with full lovely breasts Sans nipples. The Botched Guys were in the room with the woman examining their handy work. The woman was all the way over joyed by the results. I think there were even tears. The were discussing the next step in the process, Nipple reconstruction. Since this was no regular 'boob job' there there were no actual nipples at hand to put into place. Her now lovely re-manufactured breasts just needed to be topped of with nipples. As I recall they opted to do some light suture work to create a simulated erect nipple then they had a nipple tattoo specialist come in and consult with the Botched Guys and the woman to get an idea of the size, shape, color, location and all that is involved with nipples, They all handled her breasts had her lie down to see where the nipples would be when she was lying down and standing up all that sort of thing. Things I might add most women don't get to choose with their own nipples. So they all finished up made their markings and got on with the next phase of the job. This is where the cut away for a commercial break. Upon the return to the show it was some weeks later the sutures were all out and the tattoos were complete. This time however when the cameras showed the woman's breasts they were for modesty and FCC required blurred out. And not just the nipples. It seems when you out-fit a breast with a nipple it renders the entire breast unfit for public consumption. I thought that was an interesting turn of events. Maybe it was the damned old FCC or maybe it was the woman. The rest of poor slobs will never know. "Is it natural or is it "Clairol" only her hair dresser knows for sure as the tag-line used to go.

    So it seems that the gating factor for showing breasts on the TV is Female nipples. Female nipples real or aftermarket it doesn't seem to matter. Nipples on a woman's body are out as far as public consumption is concerned. Big fat hairy breasts with nipples on a man no issue. I do wish that there was a rule about that though.

    Strippers with pasties and big X's of tape are ok. Women with body pain covering her nipples is ok. There are you-tubes of women fully nude and fully body painted going about in public. There was even a video of a woman fully nude fully body painted with gym attire looking paint. The rest of the gym goers caught on pretty quick because there was a camera guy following her about filming the entire thing. I imagine that the point of this video was to catch the public reaction and to grab up lots of clicks and likes. I think that is the point with most youtube videos any more. But the gym goers alerted the management to the spectacle and tried to have her removed. There was a bit of a kerfuffle, there words exchanged, there were laws cited, the cops were called, she was ejected. Probably to the tune of several million clicks, shit tonne of likes and much commentary. Again just what every youtube video loves. There was a case in Georgia I think where a strip club featured women on stage with clear body paint that was cited for too much nudity for the zoning of the establishment. I don't recall the disposition of that case and I don't much care.

    This isn't a remarkable bit of news to anybody I don't guess. But it does beg the question what about this new crop of self identifying women. Men that self identify or pretend to be women. Or the women who self identify or pretend to be men. How will the FCC deal with this conundrum? 

    I imagine that there is a case simmering somewhere, probably in San Francisco or LA California or New York City just waiting to boil over, waiting to adjudicate this very question. This will be a very interesting case indeed. I hope it makes it to Thee Supreme Court. If biden were still in office I am more that certain that the case would fall down on the side of trans men or is it women, I will never get this straight, (women who insist that they are men) and allow women who self-identifying as men to go around topless in public. They already allow men that self-identify as women to use the woman's restrooms and locker rooms so why stop there? This isn't a giant leap. I wonder if there would be some cup size limitation on the going around topless in public of women. Where do you draw that line? B cup, C cup, G cup? Will there be some sort of length and weight restriction? What about women who want to keep their breasts and want to go about topless can they sign up for a nipple-ectomy to get  passed the laws?

    I say that if biden were still in office. But he isn't. I hear that there is a New Sheriff in town.

    In days gone by I would have been a champion for the law to accommodate women who self-identify as men (who ever that translates word wise with the trans thing) to go about topless. I can just see it. Women with their breasts out on a construction site. Who is going to be whistling at who? (or is that whom) But then there are the poor unfortunate women with the less attractive breasts. As 'men' will they opt to keep their shirts on?  I know in London whistling at a woman, fully dressed, is illegal. Punishable by a fine and some time behind bars.

        Its a brave new world out there. There are so many issues to grapple with when you open up This Particular Pandora's Box.

Government - Media

    Some years ago during an election cycle the media dipped it first toe into the dealings of the government, and thus was born an unholy alliance. Red became blue and Blue became red with the stroke of a pen.

    You see at the time the color red was associated with the Red Menace. The Commies. Maps showing the advancement of the Commies were always drawn with dripping blood Red arrows sweeping down from the north. Infiltrating the peaceful countries of southeast Asia. 

    Some young creative desk jockey artist got it in his head that the color Red was a bad association and he must have been a Democrat because at that time the colors that represented the Democratic party was Red. He must have seen this an affront to his artistic and political sensibilities. So during the election cycle he switched the color scheme of the Democratic party Blue for Red. Thus associating his arch enemy the Republicans with the Commie Red in a news report and the new color scheme stuck and thus Red became Blue and Blue became Red.

    I believed that this color swap happened probably under the watchful eye of the likes of Walter Cronkite or possibly Chet Huntley. But it seems that it was John Chancellor. Maybe.

    Who knows and by now who cares. Its not going to be changed back now.

My Stuff - Motivations

    Why does anybody do what they do? 

    Do they do it because of societal or peer pressure? Do they want to do good because it is the right thing to do, morally speaking? Do they want to do good to be seen as a good person in their community? Do they do good because they want to appease God? Do they do good because they want to please God? And they want to be pleasing to God for the simple fact that it pleases God? Or are they climbing the stairway to heaven be being good in the sight of God.

    No one can really know, I don't think. Even those doing good might be conflicted by this question. I feel that if a person is boastful about his good deeds or goodness that is sort of a tell that they are doing good for the wrong reasons.

    I think this is a question that is between the individual and himself or the individual and God. I don't always know the exact phrasing but there is a scripture that reads something like "Only God can know the heart of a man."

    I can say that I have read the Bible cover to cover, once. But I didn't do it for the right reasons. I know that now. I did it because I was commuting by train 45 minutes each way. I was reading the local paper but found that I was not getting any 'nourishment' from that. So I set it as a goal to read the Bible. I did it I know that I did not get the very most out of such a read as I should or would have had I read it for the 'right' reason. What I did get out of that read was that I do recall many scriptures, perhaps not verbatim, but can come close in a pinch. And in some circles that is impressive enough to have made it all the more worth while for me. The next thing I got out of that read was a feeling of frustration on the part of Jesus. If you read the Gospels back to back to back... you come away feeling that Jesus kept having to repeat himself over and over ad nauseam. It felt like the disciples were just too thick to get it. Something that I did get was a feeling that Judas was an unfortunate company man. He was tasked with possibly the most onerous of tasks that has ever been. He was called upon to betray Jesus. To sell Jesus out to the Romans. None of the disciples did any kind of good by Jesus. They, each and every one of them, was a fuck. Peter who said that he would never sell out Jesus denied him three time in a single night. The rest couldn't even stay awake one crumby night praying with Jesus. Just one fucking night. I have stayed awake for nearly 80 hours for a work project with a ridiculous deadline. And in my opinion that is NOTHING compared to staying awake with your Lord and Savior for just on crumby night. Just one night. But in order for Judas to do his job the rest of the flunkies had to fall asleep or they would have spirited Jesus away from the Garden to some remote place safe from the Romans. And in order for the crucifixion to take place somebody had to turn Jesus over to the Romans. So it fell to Judas. He collected his 30 pieces of silver but later threw himself over a bridge for the guilt that he did feel. I don't believe that it was the 30 pieces that motivated Judas but the knowledge that someone had to do that or there could be no ransom sacrifice and no resurrection and on and on and on.

    Just my understanding. I am no theological so take this with a grain of salt.

My stuff - Observations

    I saw a thing at the Costco the other day. Its that time of the month and I can afford to go to Costco. Plus they were out of eggs when I went the other day so I was back.

    I saw the most unlikely couple that I think I have ever seen. I saw a pasty soft-body ginger boy being loved up by a remarkably hot young Goth Girl.

    In general I love the red hair. I say that, but I love the red hair on women, Not men. I don't know why red hair looks so wrong on men and so hot on women. Just me I suppose.