ghosting or cowardice?

The New York Times had an article a few days ago about people who end relationships by "ghosting," the process of abruptly aborting a pairing by refusing to return calls, emails, texts, or any other form of communication. They just erect a wall of utter silence without warning.

We're not talking about casual daters or the day after a first date thing. We're talking about people who have been dating for months and sleeping together regularly. And then, suddenly, for no explanation, crickets.

Unless you're being stalked by the person in question, I think this is cowardly behavior. If you need to end a relationship, tell that person. You needn't do it in person. But you should at least make a call or send an email.

So-called "Dear John" letters and their high-tech progeny may be a lousy thing to receive, but at least it's something. But just sticking your head in the sand is childish.

One woman quoted in the article who ghosted an ex-boyfriend said she did it because "I didn't know how else to extricate from relationships. It was me being young and not knowing how to disappoint." The woman is thirty-six years old. Thirty-six.

Somebody really needs to pull up her big-girl pants and grow the fuck up. You are not young, sweetie. You are barreling down on middle age. Time to act like it.

honor killing

I was looking through the various recent DVDs that the library has recently acquired for lending. One is a Turkish film Bliss about a rape victim who is sentenced to death by her village.

The movie won a number of awards and received high praise from a variety of respected critics. I almost checked it out because both my husband and I like international art films, but then I decided to wait.

The simple reason is I think I might get really angry watching the movie. The whole idea of honor killing is utterly infuriating and repugnant: sentencing a rape victim to death because somehow she has brought "dishonor" to her family and community.

The bizarre twisted "logic" of that idea is mind boggling. Sometimes the rape victims are mere children, yet they nonetheless are sentenced to death and killed. The rapists often go unpunished.

I could understand killing the perpetrator. Lynching is wrong, but at least the motivation is understandable. But the victim?

I'm glad I don't live in an undemocratic, totalitarian, or theocratic society. If I did, I imagine I wouldn't live too long, because I'd undoubtedly be unable to hold my tongue and would end up in a shallow grave.

australia's top mess

Australia's Next Top Model is a popular show here down under, based on the longer-running American version. I personally don't watch it, both because we don't subscribe to cable and I loathe so-called "reality" TV.

I do, however, on occasion, see clips from the show as well as some of the models featured in various magazines. Like any models, some have a real presence while others clearly are out of their depth.

Sometimes the outfits the women model are pretty ludicrous. Of course, a lot of clothes the rag industry turns out are over the top and bizarre anyway, so it's not like the show is out of touch.

I saw a picture of the outfit seen below and thought it was ludicrous. It has some kind of big knot of fabric strips on the front so it gives the woman a bosom like an elderly matron from 1890.

It's utterly impractical, too. How would you clean that thing? And what if you were at a dinner party and trying to eat?

Not to mention it's as romantic as a tin chastity belt combined with a straight jacket. A woman could not snuggle up to a man while wearing that monstrosity on her chest.

told ya!

Early in the week I predicted that the US Supreme Court would rule 5-4 in favor of gay marriage in a decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And that's exactly what happened yesterday.

Some might say this was not a difficult prediction, and they're probably right. But I've seen plenty of media types and pundits who predicted a different result, either in the way the court would rule or in the final vote count.

I think it was inevitable that this would come sometime soon anyway. Other countries have embraced gay marriage and it was already legal in a large majority of US states. So the wave finally washed up on the beach and now it's all over. Now Australia needs to get with it and join the US and New Zealand as well as the several dozen countries where it's legal.

For those who still think this somehow demeans the "sanctity" of so-called traditional marriage, IMHO we heterosexual people did that long ago. More straight couples who marry end up divorced than stay married in many countries, including the US, so whatever sanctity marriage once had already checked out. That's not to mention the number of married people who step out on their partners but do not end up divorced.

My husband sometimes is amazed that I can predict certain outcomes like elections and awards. I also have a 98 percent success record in picking which stocks will go up. He says I'm lucky, but I think it's just a factor of research -- I read a lot and base my opinions on the consensus of what I've consumed.

I've always done well at cards, and that's not because I'm lucky, either. I'm not a card-counter per se, but I do keep a sort of casual running total in my head of what has appeared and what hasn't.

When I lived in Vegas, I always did well picking up extra cash playing blackjack. Friends said I could make a living doing that, but I thought it would soon get boring, doing it day in and day out while sitting in a windowless casino for hours on end.

the man from berlin

I have another book recommendation today: The Man from Berlin, a first novel by British author Luke McCallin. I read the book first and enjoyed it considerably, then passed it on to my husband, who totally loved it.

The novel is a mystery thriller set against the backdrop of World War II in 1943 Yugoslavia. The central character is a "good" German who despises the Nazis but nonetheless is a military detective investigating a brutal double murder.

I'd say it's more of a "boy's book" because it does have a combat sequence toward the end and there's no real romantic interest. If you've enjoyed novels by Philip Kerr or David Downing, you probably will like this book.

Be forewarned, the novel is somewhat on the long side and has many characters. I particularly liked how the author skillfully wove the story with a cast with several villains, so spotting the real "bad guy" is very difficult.

The major characters are well drawn and interestingly complex. The tightening jeopardy as the story escalates is particularly gripping. All in all, it's a very impressive first novel, and one of the best first novels I've read in a while.

doctor seduce

My son is a huge Dr. Seuss fan. We cannot read Seuss books to him too many times.

The repetitiveness bores me somewhat, in all honesty, but I also recognize they're very good for him because they help teach him to read. He has pretty much memorized his Seuss books because we've read them so many times, and now he'll often read along, moving his fingers under the words on the page.

I borrow other books for him from the library, and he'll listen attentively when I read those and look at the pictures. But when anyone asks him what book he wants read to him, he'll fetch one of his Seuss favorites.

I saw the artwork below online and saved it for my husband, who has made up all sorts of Seuss parodies he will chant after the wee one is asleep. My favorite is "one tit, two tit, red tit, blue tit." He murmurs this while kissing my breasts.

skinny jeans hazard

Many news outlets are carrying the story this week about the Australian woman who had to spend four days in hospital because of injuries caused by crouching too much while wearing skinny jeans. This is not the first time health problems have resulted from the super-slim fashion trend.

Indeed, doctors have repeatedly warned that too-tight clothing of any sort can lead to infertility problems in men as well as fungal and bladder infections in both sexes.

IMHO the problem here is a lack of common sense as much as skinny jeans themselves. In the case of the Australian woman, she spent hours crouching while cleaning out cupboards while helping a friend move. If she used her brain before she left the house, she would have put on something more suitable for moving chores.

I regularly see both men and wearing skinny jeans, even though they don't have the right weight for them. Too many use skinny jeans as a sort of girdle to compress their flab. Therein lies the problem. I think you need to be skinny to wear skinny jeans.

I have several pairs of skinny jeans. When I bought them, I went for a fit that was snug but not strangulating. I've never worn them when I would be either very mobile or not at all mobile.

So they're great for shopping or lunch out with a friend. But I don't wear them on plane flights or while cleaning the house.

Pictured here is singer Nicki Minaj in white skinny jeans. In all candor, I don't think she has the right weight for these. They make her look fat and her butt seem swollen. Either lose the weight or lose the jeans.

too much porn?

Aeon Magazine has an intriguing new article up that poses the question: does do much porn numb sexual pleasure? In my opinion, questions like this are subjective, and the answer all depends on the individual.

Too much of anything might well numb sexual pleasure. If you spend twelve hours a day watching reality television or playing video games, you're probably numb to almost anything.

I think a more important question about porn is whether the user is consuming it for a momentary diversion or consciously watching it to avoid actual human interaction. I remember reading somewhere that some men, particularly younger ones, would rather masturbate to porn than actually have sex with a woman.

If someone is using porn as a way to avoid real sex, I think that's a serious problem. But the issue could be more than just sexual; the person may have serious emotional issues involving any human interaction. Professional help probably is needed.

I would submit that occasional porn is harmless. It's a form of escapism like TV or reading. Your brain needs some mind candy from time to time.

winter in australia

A northern hemisphere friend emailed yesterday to wish me a happy first day of winter. She assumed because yesterday was the first day of summer "up there," it must be the first day of winter here down under.

Actually, it wasn't. The first day of winter in Australia is June 1. Winter will end on August 31. That's not just tradition -- it's official.

This was established because June, July, and August are the three coldest months of the year here. The equinox is not used to determine the start and end of seasons.

Coldest, of course, is relative. The climate here is much like it is in Los Angeles. Winter days typically are in the sixties Fahrenheit and the nights are in the upper forties or low fifties.

IMHO the Australian seasonal starting system makes more sense than using the equinox. Wherever I lived in the US, it was usually warmer on June 15 than it was on September 15, even though the latter was considered summer and the former was considered spring.

So if you're ever on Jeopardy! and the Final Jeopardy Question is about the first day of Australian winter, you're all prepared. And I think sending me a 35 percent cut of your winnings would be an appropriate token of appreciation.

supreme court prediction

This is the time of year that major decisions are often announced by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's because their annual term is drawing to an end, and they have a predilection for announcing the important cases at the season's close.

I was looking at a statistical page on the excellent Scotus blog charting which important cases have yet to be decided. I noticed that Justice Anthony Kennedy has written the least number of opinions this term. That suggests he's been working on a big, important opinion that's taking up a lot of his time.

He's known to be a fence-sitter on some very important cases and will often cast the deciding vote in key 5-4 decisions. And one of the big decisions yet to be announced is the gay marriage ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. Kennedy has written other important gay rights decisions in recent years, hopping off his fence to lead a 5-4 majority.

That has me speculating he's been busy writing the court's decision in the Obergefell case. So I'm predicting he'll be the deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling in favor of gay marriage, and he'll issue a long, detailed decision, which is what has been taking his time away from writing in other cases.

Time will tell if I am right or don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Of course the latter could well be the case, and I just happen to be right about this one. Stay tuned.

famous virgins in history

A few days ago, I finished reading The Wright Brothers, by multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough. It was interesting, although I don't think it was his best book.

What I found most curious was the fact that neither Wilbur or Orville Wright ever married nor did they seem to show any interest in women. Even dates with the opposite sex seemed non-existent. They spent all their time tinkering in their workshop.

We might then safely conclude both were life-long virgins. For their era, that probably was not rare.

This tidbit got me thinking. Had one or both had an interest in women, they might not have found the time to perfect human flight. As a result, men flying may have been delayed for several years or even decades, which would have had an impact on World War I and II.

Would that have been a good or bad thing? There's no way of knowing, but it does demonstrate how losing one's virginity can have a monumental impact on history at times.

donald trump is an narcissistic buffoon

After flirting with a candidacy several times before, Donald Trump is actually running for President of the United States. Or maybe not, as The Washington Post suggests.

The maybe/maybe-not campaign could all be a gigantic fake self-promotion endeavor. If that is true, I certainly wouldn't be surprised.

If I had to be stranded on a desert isle with one other person, I think just about the last man or woman I would pick would be Trump. That would be true hell.

In some ways I'm hoping Trump is actually running for real, because that way, when he's soundly shut out of the primaries and has won few or no delegates, he might finally shut up. A big collective fuck-you sandwich from the American people might just wipe that smug smirk off his face.

Only a few days into his campaign, Trump has already offended scores of people, repeatedly made offensive self-aggrandizing claims, and sent a whole army of factcheckers into overtime because of his flat-out-wrong claims.

My favorite bit of news out of all this is something in a CNN article. Quoting a political consultant on what he's telling candidates about how to react to Donald Trump's campaign: "Steer clear of the stupid zone."

journey to jihad

The June 1, 2015, issue of The New Yorker magazine has a fascinating article about a father in Belgium and the angst he faces because he son joined ISIS. The piece makes clear ISIS and similar terrorist organizations recruit new members much like other cults: by targeting disconnected, drifting youths alienated from family and society.

What struck me about this article was how the father was guilty of what I sometimes think of as "absentee parenting." He seemed little invested in his son's life during his teens, the time when the latter drifted toward radical elements after converting to Islam.

This has long been a topic of interest to me because I was a child with absentee parenting. My parents were not invested in my life. They never attended any school events. They never asked me how school was going or what I was studying or what grades I was earning. They never inquired about any after-school activities nor whether I was even involved in anything.

I was well provided for in terms of food, clothing, and shelter. Someone was always home when I returned after school, but it was someone they hired. I sometimes saw my parents at breakfast, and that was usually the only time of the day. I almost never had dinner with them, even on weekends.

They made sure I was cared for, but it didn't seem like they actually cared about me. Likely as a result of this, or at least partly, I became very sexually adventurous. I looked for love elsewhere because there was none at home. Years later, I'm amazed I didn't accidentally end up pregnant at thirteen or fourteen.

If I had moved near the periphery of any cults, I probably would have been the sort they would target. I was looking for something that was lacking at home. I was looking for a substitute family and affection, and I found that in sex before a cult found me.

The son in The New Yorker seems much the same. His family wasn't there for him, so he sought a substitute family, even if only subconsciously. Unfortunately, that substitute family turned out to be lethally dangerous and evil.

I can't have a do-over for my own childhood. But I am absolutely determined I won't be an absentee parent for my son, and I know my husband feels the same way.

hair freedom

Buzzfeed has an interesting piece this week about My Stealthy Freedom, an online advocacy group dedicated to ending Iran's compulsory headcoverings for women. In 2014 alone, 3.6 million women in Iran were warned, fined, or arrested by the morality police for showing too much of their head in public.

(For more information about this persecution, The Guardian ran a great article last year about how the morality police target women in Iran.)

In my mind, compulsory headscarves make less sense than the whole-body burqa that are mandatory in countries like Saudi Arabia. They cover the entire woman so men will not see any details of her body.

But what's obscured by a headscarf? You can still see much of her hair. A woman with a headscarf and snug pants arguably is revealing more about her body than a woman without a headscarf in a baggy dress.

Of course, any kind of compulsory clothing for women is repugnant. Women should be free to wear what they want where they want, just as men are. As long as your private parts are covered, whatever else you're wearing should be your business alone.

brothel offers free sex

An Austrian brothel is offering free sex and free drinks with no cover charge for four to eight weeks to protest what the owner is calling "a tax squeeze." Prostitution is legal in Austria, so the hookers are licensed and subject to regular medical exams.

The response has been so overwhelming that lines of men stretch around the block. Hundreds of potential customers have also been turned away.

The owner is obviously reaping lots of free publicity with this offer. But it doesn't sound like the smartest protest from a business standpoint.

If he's feeling squeezed by taxes, how is earning absolutely nothing, while continuing to pay the sex workers out of his own pocket, hurting anyone but himself most of all?

I'd also think the women would not be enjoying this. Paid customers have the wherewithal to pay well for sex, and might be good tippers, too.

But cheapskates only looking for free sex would be a lower class of punter. And cheapskates do not tip well.

cycling to sexual liberation

The fact that we are more sexually liberated today, compared to the Victorians, can be directly attributed to the bicycle. I read this interesting tidbit in a book the other day.

Bicycles became wildly popular in late 19th century western culture. As a result, teenagers and young adults became much more mobile.

Before the bicycle, unmarried women and men met in parlors and strictly controlled social functions close to home. Hanky panky was close to impossible.

Once unmarried men and women were riding bicycles, however, they could peddle out to the countryside, find an abandoned barn or convenient wooded meadow, and surrender to their passions.

Narrow-minded older adults of the day wanted to ban bicycles to prevent these sorts of shenanigans, but they were unsuccessful. And while many trysts probably involved no more than heated petting, others undoubtedly went further.

As a result, many historians and sociologists believe, rigid premarital sexual prohibitions began to unravel. Mobility brought more freedom, and more freedom brought experimentation and adventures -- and mishaps, too.

I remember once when I was about twelve, I discovered in a printed family genealogy that some relatives of my great-grandparents' generation had children only six or seven months after they were married. I also remember an old family album my grandfather had showing some circa 1900 relatives on bicycles when they were in their teens.

Were any of them sexually liberated by their bicycles? I'll never know, but it's fun to imagine some of them were.

manhungry versus ladies' man

Other than gender, what is the difference between a manhungry woman and a ladies' man in Western culture? The latter is stereotyped as a bon vivant who is suave and sophisticated, who can easily bed women because of his charm and sexual prowess.

But when the shoe is on the proverbial other foot, when it is a woman pursuing men the same way a ladies' man pursues women, then she's manhungry. That implies she's a desperate slut. She's somehow quietly frantic in her need for dick.

Manhungry women are desperate and foolish. Sue Ann Nivens comes to mind, the desperately horny TV personality in the old Mary Tyler Moore reruns. An older woman who chases after men is something of a buffoon, ripe for ridicule. But an older man like Sean Connery who chases after women is cool.

Why does the English language have a pejorative word for a woman who like sex -- a slut -- while a man who likes sex is a stud?

I know this is how it is. But I don't understand why it is.

an amazing australian

James Harrison is an ordinary Australian who has done something extraordinary with his life: he regularly donates blood because his contains a rare antibody. As a result, more than two million children's lives have been saved.

He never accepts money for his blood and his has donated more than a thousand times in his life. He proves Anne Frank's oft-quoted observation: "Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart."

Maybe not all people, but some people definitely are.

married at first sight

I pay little attention to what's happening with so-called "reality" television. I never watch any of the shows and only barely know tangentially what's happening with it and some of its faux "stars" like the queen of skank, Kim Kardashian.

So I may have been just about the last person alive to learn about a "reality" show called Married at First Sight. The concept is simple: a man and a woman are paired by "experts" affiliated with the show and they marry the first time they meet while cameras capture the moment.

This obviously is a "hit" concept because the original Danish series has spawned adaptation clones in fifteen countries, including Australia and the United States. It plays here on Nine Network, one of the country's five major broadcast outlets.

With all that said, I'm boggled that anyone would agree to do this. I've met plenty of men in my life who, after only a few minutes, I couldn't stand to be with again. Imagine having to marry one of them.

Apparently offscreen fucking is involved in these marriages, as the couples spend their first show on their wedding night and then their honeymoon. So imagine not only having to marry someone you immediately dislike, you have to fuck him for a month during the "trial" period the show mandates for your marriage.

I assume these people are paid to do this show, so in a sense they're fucking for money, which makes them whores. Of course, everyone on reality television is a whore in one way or another, doing it for the attention and/or some cash. Because, otherwise, why bother with having every intimate detail of your private life publicized on television?

history of kink

I was wondering the other day if humans were always into kinks and fetishes. If someone today is into pony girls or women in thigh-high patent-leather boots, he (or she) can easily satisfy that itch via the internet, either for passive viewing or active engagement.

But what about hundreds or even thousands of years ago? Did people even conceive of the various kinky scenarios that enthrall men and women today? Or do things like mass media and the internet awaken hidden primal fetishes buried deep inside men and women?

Logic would suggest that some of these might not have existed, or not in the prevalence that they do today. Many men now have foot fetishes, but what about hundreds of years ago, when seeing a woman's foot, let alone her leg, was all but impossible? How could a man have a saddle shoe or high heel fetish centuries before such shoes even existed?

I searched around online for answers but didn't find too much that was specific. An article from late last year in The Telegraph about an upcoming sexhibition (which is still running) provided some interesting insight.

This tidbit was most interesting to me: chastity belts were a nineteenth century fantasy object. How could someone get excited about something that inhibits sex? Perhaps that's part of the key to understanding kinks and fetishes: logic doesn't always apply.

hotel room sex

Aeon magazine has a new article up where the writer talks about the despair and loneliness of hotel rooms. It would be safe to say that I disagree with her completely.

I love hotel and motel rooms. I particularly love vintage places that haven't updated in decades but nonetheless are squeaky clean and not at all shabby.

For me, hotel and motel rooms are places where I've had some of my best sexual experiences. I fondly remember the quaint roadside motel in Nevada where I first had sex with my husband. I hope I always have that memory as vivid as it is for me now.

Hot sex aside, I like the orderliness of hotel/motel rooms and what they represent: a waystation on a road to adventure and something new and different. In a room on the road, you're not bogged down with the normal chores and activities that consume time at home. You can relax.

Every few months, my husband and I take a long getaway weekend while Joey stays with his grandparents, so that means a hotel or motel stay for the two of us. And that means some long, hot, languid sex. But it also means time where we can visit together in long, leisurely conversations.

Like many things in life, a hotel or motel room is just a place where you're at, so if there's a problem, it's not the place but instead it's you that is amiss. The problem with the Aeon writer isn't hotel rooms. It's her. She doesn't like something in her life, but instead of addressing and remedying that, she's casting the blame elsewhere.

what a wonderful world

I visit the elderly owner of our house in the care home once a week to bring her goodies and see how she's doing, given none of her relatives ever visit her. Nearly every time I've been there, an ancient little man usually in the lobby has always greeted me and whomever joins me and anybody else coming or going.

He passed away suddenly and peacefully last week a few days short of his 97th birthday. He had lost a leg in the Second World War and his sweetheart was killed in the Blitz so he never married.

They had a little celebration of life for him at the care home, given most of the residents are too old and infirm to travel anywhere else. They had cake and music and everyone had a nice time talking about Harry.

And then they played this song while people released balloons and I just completely lost it. Little Joey kept saying "okay Mum, okay Mum" and patting my hand. It's a sweet song, but I've always thought it had a tinge of melancholy, too.

very bad behavior

Let's say you see a neighbor or acquaintance in a store or similar place. Suddenly he starts hitting his wife or child really hard, enough to draw some blood and generally terrorize the family member. What would you do?

Chances are you'd intercede in some way. You'd say something or try to stop the violence or, at a minimum, you'd probably call the police. That kind of violent behavior just can't be tolerated in your community, part of a civilized society.

Chances are you'd later tell some friends and family about this incident. If the offending party lived in your community, you'd probably shun him, inadvertently if not deliberately. You might not have nothing more to do with the bully. If he has a business, you would not frequent that establishment.

So let's change this parameter a bit. Instead of the belligerent party being a neighbor or acquaintance, let's say it's another country, perhaps nearby. This country is repressive and cracks down brutally on citizens who speak out in dissent. These victims then disappear into "re-education camps" for years if not decades if not forever.

What do you do about this kind of very bad behavior? Chances are, you do nothing. You and I are perfectly willing to act when a stranger in front of us is victimized, but when the victim is in some other country, it's a different situation.

You are not alone in this. We all react the same way. I speak up if I think something in my community is wrong, but I say nothing when an oppressive country treats its citizenry quite brutally. And often, just like you, I buy all sorts of products made in that repressive country.

I'm currently reading a fascinating yet depressing book about modern China. It's no secret that average Chinese citizens are dealt with harshly and often brutally if they speak out or question authority in any way. Severe censorship is rampant and dissent is absolutely not tolerated. Those who refuse to comply are subject to rigged trials, if at all, and then sent to deplorable prisons, often for a very long time.

We in the first world know this yet we continue to buy all sorts of products and goods from China. Many, too, from the first world travel to China and do business there. We simply avert our eyes and look the other way when the Chinese government severely mistreats its citizenry.

Reading this book, I'm left with the idea that we should be shunning China. As ordinary citizens, we should try, within all practicality, to not buy products or goods from China. Like the United States, Australia is also the endpoint for a large percentage of products originating from China, arguably even more, so it would be a challenge here, too.

We don't tolerate very bad behavior in our own communities. Shouldn't that standard be applied everywhere?

foam orgy party

This certainly looks like fun: hundreds of naked couples covered in foam for a wild orgy, called a foam party. Some watched while others participated. Only couples were admitted.

I'd love to go and make the beast with two backs with my husband while others watched. James loves sex and isn't against public dogging, but I am certain he would not be interested in an orgy like that.

As soon as he read the business about grabby hands on tits, he would veto any such excursion. If anyone grabbed my tit, I'm fairly confident the next thing he'd meet was my husband's fist pounding his face.

viagra for women

The US Food and Drug Administration has given preliminary approval to a new drug that's being called colloquially "viagra for women" (although it's actually named flibanserin). Reading about it, the stuff doesn't sound like it's particularly effective -- it increases sexual desire slightly in certain middle-aged women who have experienced a decrease in sexual desire.

But this development may lead to much more effective drugs of this sort for women in the near future. Time will tell whether that comes to pass.

If a more effective drug becomes available, I suspect that could lead to abuse -- not by women but by men. What better way for a man to end up scoring than by slipping a powerful stimulant in a woman's drink at a bar or a party? Better than a narcotic that knocks her out, this would make her horny as hell.

I could see that might lead to some interesting legal issues. Let's say a woman does not want to have sex with a particular man, but he slips a powerful sexual stimulant. That makes her so fuck crazy that she takes him home and bangs his brains out.

But was there true consent? She wouldn't have shagged him were it not for the drug. Does the artificial desire that the drug creates equate to consent?

The idea of not wanting sex is totally alien to me. I can't imagine that. I hope I never experience such a condition.

the announcement about an announcement

The 2016 presidential race in the United States is now underway and already providing entertainment to political junkies. Almost all of what's been going on is a waste of time, so if you're an American but haven't been paying attention, you haven't missed anything important.

The hot new thing in the battle this time around seems to be what I'm calling "the announcement about an announcement." A candidate who has been "exploring" a run makes an announcement that he/she will make an announcement on a specific future date about whether something will actually happen.

The media dutifully reports this gibberish and everyone else responds with a collective yawn. Candidates are obviously doing this to milk extra publicity, but I have to wonder if it ends up hurting them more than helping.

Rather than this wishy washy "exploring a run" crap and the announcement-about-an-announcement that only seems to interest the media, arguably the public would be more interested in and excited about a race if someone well known just came out of the blue and said "I'm running." And then instead of giving the trite Mom-and-apple-pie add-water-and-stir announcement that really said absolutely nothing, the candidate came out swinging against some conventional wisdom and sacred cows to shake things up.

I think that's the only way the public will really get excited about an election that's almost a year and a half away. Surprise the public with something very different. Shake it up.

With that said, already the field is crowded with candidates in both parties who have utterly zero chance of being nominated and don't even register more than a blip in polls. The fact that they don't even realize they'll lose instantly disqualifies them from actually being President, because it fully demonstrates their lack of good judgment, connection with reality, and common sense.

If you're utterly unknown to 99 percent of the American public, you will not be elected. That's reality in our media saturated age. Wake up and smell the future.

still skeptical

The media feeding frenzy has been in turbo hyperdrive this week over Vanity Fair's surprise cover boy -- er girl. Yes, it's Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce Jenner. Possibly you've heard of this person?

As you can see from the photo, she/he had a boob job and is doing something to obfuscate his junk so there's no tell-tale bulge (she/he's told interviewers his original plumbing has not been removed). She/he is also hiding the hands, always a good indicator of whether the lady has a penis.

When I initially saw the cover, before I realized who the subject was, my first thought was yeesh, Barbara Hershey isn't aging so well.

I'm still skeptical that this "transition" is 100 percent legit, in that I mean she/he's doing this because of gender confusion. I still wonder if he's doing this to satisfy a need for continual fame and constant attention, as I wrote here a few weeks ago.

He now has not one but two television series about her/him soon to air. On the Kardsashian scale of self-whoredom, that has to be like a home run.

Deciding to grow tits has arguably made him more famous than what originally made him famous: his Olympic glory. The fact that he exists in the frenzied penumbra of the Kardashian narcissism colossus, whose members constantly strive to keep media attention on themselves around the clock, makes me extra skeptical.

If this was all happening in private, and he was shunning the media, then I would believe him. But the fact that he's doing this so publicly and relentlessly, maximizing all possible coverage upon herself/himself and still begging for more, I just can't quite buy his alleged transition.

If Paddy Chayefsky and Andy Warhol were still alive, I think they would be thunderstruck by the way Caitlyn Bruce Jenner has shined a spotlight so brightly on her/himself.

beyond ugly

W Magazine, a sister publication to the iconic Women's Wear Daily, is featuring Finnish designers in their latest issue. Quite honestly, I think some of the outfits are just about the ugliest clothes I've ever seen.

I've picked out what I think is the worst one of all for the photo below. Believe me, it was hard making this decision, because nearly all the choices are somewhere beyond hideous.

Not only is this particular ensemble an eyesore, it's ridiculously impractical, too. How do you possibly clean the pants with all those loose threads and yarn hanging all over the place?

The shoes are surreal to the point of being bizarre. Not only are those big white wads of fur downright unsafe, they would stay clean for all of thirty seconds before they began collecting grime and filth.

If you walked down the street wearing that mess, people would not think you were at the cutting edge of fashion. They would think you were completely barking, howling mad.

a naked cyborg

There's something unsettling about the model shown below. I thought at first she was one of those life-like sex dolls, but she's an actual real human.

In my opinion, the pose, the makeup, and the blank expression on her face all add up to give her a surreal presence. It's not just this picture, either. In many poses from the shoot, she has the same doll-like aura. I wonder if this was intentional?

I'm pretty sure her tits are real. If not, they're bloody well done. I would love to be stacked like that, but the only way I could achieve that would be implants, and I won't go there.

a jealous deity

As someone who wasn't raised in a religious household, I approach organized religion with a certain skepticism. I'm always looking for holes in the theology.

I've been thinking about one in the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a single deity and that no other god exists.

So then consider this dependent clause from the Ten Commandments, quoting directly from the big man himself: "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God." Now that's a curious phrasing, because it certainly seems God is admitting other gods do exist.

A quick search online shows 1,001 explanations of this passage, but those are all personal interpretations. Some say God was just trying to underscore the fact that he could be jealous, but then why not just say that? Why not simply say "for I the Lord God will be jealous" and end the sentence right there?

Further into that section of the Ten Commandments, God goes on to say that those who defy him will be cursed, as will "the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." I've brought this point up here before -- how can God be loving and beneficent if he'll punish the great-great grandchild of the evildoer?

The names of most of my great-great grandfathers are unknown to my family let alone any details -- six out of the eight, to be exact. Yet I may be cursed for all time because of what one of those unnamed ancestors did?

A deity who administers that code of rules doesn't seem very just, wise, nor loving to me. That sounds petty and vindictive.

Now, of course, some unnamed person may have done some editing and rewriting between the source and the earliest preserved manuscript of this passage, the proverbial editorial license. Some would say that's heresy to suggest as much, but then what proof is there that there was no literary tinkering?