Monday, December 11, 2006

Best Woman in the World to Marry

Ok, so here's what this douche asshole wrote on this site that I'm on.

"I would like other men's opinion on this subject. I have been to many countries over the years. I truly believe the best women a guy could have for a wife is Asian. They seem to respect men and care about their happiness more than any other race of women.

European women are next. Polish/Czech. They are great at running a household, taking care of a home and they are hard workers. I've seen them scrubbing their sidewalks on their knees with a scrub brush. They also have respect for men. European women, France, Germany Holland, Italy. Although they can be very moody and at times difficult, they are very sexual, senual and open about sex and their bodies' Plenty of nude beaches there. They don't have the hangups American women when talking about sex.

In Italy I seen many men pinch a woman's butt. If this were an American woman, she'd have the guy arrested. Mexican women I've talked to seem to think a woman should take care of the house, cleaning, kids and cooking while the man should bring home the money. From my experiences the worst are the Russian women. I don't know if its because they don't have much in the way of money, but it always comes down to money with them. As if almost they are scamming twenty four hours a day to try an seperate you from your cash. American women and Canadian women. There are some very nice women in both places. But a good percentage of them seem to have cornered the market on bitching, moaning, jealousy and cattiness. God forbid if one of their friends has a nicer house or car than they do. Get divorced from one and they seem to try and take your testicles along with all your assests. "

And here will be my response (in blog form), for I simply can't help myself:

(Not to be taken seriously. I'm not so provincial as to truly pass judgment in such a manner. It's not my style. This meant to make a point; a point that should be obvious)

*Some* Asian men are quiet and well mannered, but generally stick to their own race, so why even bother bringing them up? They get the short end of the stick, in more ways than one.

Then there are *some* black men who verbally abuse their women by addressing them as bitches and whores, no matter what their race is. They're just in it for the sex and their money and the use of the woman's car after all. But there is an exception in Mr. Federline, is it not?

*Some* Latino men want white women, will settle for their own, and lust after black women, though we are certainly (to them, and probably others as well) not good enough for LTR's, or official relationships in general, for that matter.

I have noticed that *some* white men can be controlling and overbearing, often jump to conclusions in various matters and are generally full of it. They need to be babied and have their needs met first. They generally want subservient women who will praise them at everything they do, even if they're sullying it all up.

Then there are *some* Greek men who are generally perverted and like sodomy. This is in general, not one hundred percent of course.

Oh, and I can't forget *some* Italians who like to beat their women, and silence them with the threat of even more bodily harm. Oh, what fun!

I have to cover my ass and not say "all", cause that would make me sound like a prejudice bitch who likes to group men in certain categories because of different races and cultures. Because I'm not. I'm sure you women out there know what I'm saying. Any man who bitches and moans about this blog or objects clearly has nothing better to do with his time, and is suffering from small penis-itis. Or limp dick-itis. Or has "secretly in the closet-itis", if not all three.

In conclusion, the best type of man to marry is, well, none. I would say those Asian guys, but if you're not an Asian woman, then shucks, you'd just be S.O.L.

Friday, December 8, 2006

Who Could it Be?

Me, bitches.

[Due to the length of this blog, in which I typed all at once, I've titled each individual paragraph, so you guys can read the shit you actually give or may give a sod about. Fuck, my wrist hurts...]

"Britney Spears"

Has lost her damn mind, apparently. I keep seeing all of these pics of her and Paris, and Paris is the one who looks like a respectable, young lady. Those three separate incidents where Britney flashed her cooch was all before they went partying at the club- you know, when she was sober. So if she's sober doing that, then clearly there's a problem. I just thought I'd point that out just in case you missed the photo where she didn't want to spill her cappucino and almost dropped her baby instead, or decided to drive with her baby between her legs, directly in front of the steering wheel, and no seat belt. Kevin Federline might be a freeloader, but it doesn't automatically mean he's an incompetent parent.


Next topic- O.J. What a pathetic dumbass. He should never have written that book, or had a ghost writer or whatever. However, I understand why they pulled his interview, but how in the HELL did they manage to pull the book? From every book store? How is this possible? Was it beyond poor taste? Of course. Could some stores or store chains refuse to sell and carry the book? Of course. But how could they nationally just take it away? What happened to all the books they made? Did they just burn them? If so, then I'm kinda scared... What the hell happened to free speech? I wouldn't have bought or read it, but I don't like how they took away my opprotunity as an American to do so. Also, a lot of people out there were hypocrites. I say that because if they hadn't pulled his Fox interview, and people were all like "I'm not watching that shit- he's a fucking murderer" and shit like that, I'm willing bet it would've been one of the most highest rated shows watched this year. People would've watched for sure- but they just would've been too ashamed to admit it.

"Clay Aiken, Rosie and Kelly"

Okay, Kelly Rippa- if you haven't heard, apparently she made what Rosie O'Donnell deemed to be a homophobic comment to Clay Aiken when he cohosted the show the other day. He put his hand over her mouth cause she was talking over him in their interview with Emmet Smith and his partner for "Dancing with the Stars," and she said something like "get your hands off of me- I don't know where your hands have been." For her defense, she said that she just didn't think it appropriate to put one's hands over anyone's face while they're conducting an interview. Then Extra went and showed clips of her doing it several times to Regis Philbin on several different occasions while *he was giving interviews. What a homophobic hypocrite.


Next, Michael Richards. I love Seinfeld, and Kramer cracked me up. But seeing that outburst... damn, what the hell was he thinking? He wasn't drunk, or insane when he said all that racist bullshit- it was a retort to the heckling, sure, but if you're going to insult someone, you don't have to take it to their race unless you're at least a bit racist. There's the bounty of their face, their genitals, clothes, their date, their mama, outfit, hair, whatever. If the first and only thing you make fun of is their color, and telling them that fifty or so years ago they would've been lynched, no, that isn't cool. Mel Gibson was drunk at least... and a Christian fanatic- which is really, never all that good. Whatever. If I get some extra money, I'll still get a Seinfeld DVD.

"Stupid ass worthless war"

Okay, it's so depressing to see those pics of the amputee soldiers. Sure, at least they (finally) get to come home, but at what cost? I know that in past history events, (some) war were worth fighting for. But this? If I had a son, and he was drafted or insane enough to enlist himself, I swear to God, I'd make his favorite meal, only with a shitload of sedatives in it so that he passes out for like twelve hours, and break his leg or something, or shoot him in the foot (not all Kathy Bates in "Misery" but just enough so that he stays home). And when he came to, and started bitching and moaning about the pain and how crazy I am, I'd tell him that at least he was still alive to feel the pain, and at least he still had a leg or foot. This war was beyond a mere mistake. When will certain people admit that?

"Music Awards= Sucks Balls"

American Music Awards- I remember ten plus years ago, I used to be so excited to see that shit. Or MTV awards, maybe BET... But the artist of today are so full of shit with their shitty performances... It was so dull and boring, it's like why was it even aired? Besides Jimmy Kimell, who was funny, btw, that show sucked ass. Beyonce, Carrie Underwood, Nelly Furtado Gwen Stefani, others... All of their performances were shit. Why'd they even bother? Was that supposed to be entertained? Were they trying to achieve that, or boring me to the point of disgust? Cause they succeeded in that. It's a damn shame that the best performances from a music awards show that I recall are all from at least three years ago. They should've had Diddy perform something- at least he puts on a show for his five/six minute performance. Or back when there were real singers, who didn't need all the glitz and back up dancers, and fans blowing their weave and shit. Like Luther Vandross, Whitney Houston, hell, even Christina Aguilera that one time. I have nothing to look forward in a music awards show ever- unless Chris Rock is hosting it. At least then I'll get a laugh (out loud). Fuck...

Also, Kevin Federline may be a "no hit wonder," but damn, if it wasn't for all of the publicity surrounding him and Britney, if he were completely anonymous and just known for being a "rap artist," and I say that lightly in this day and age (hell, look at the abundance of so called rappers who aren't Ludacris, or the old ones, or... T.I. That's it), and no one knew bout the Shar Jackson and child support shit, he would've been just as famous as those other losers. Seriously, everyone would've been singing his "Popsau" (or however you spell it) bullshit.


Oh yea, and what was the big ass deal with "Heroes?" I mean, if Claire- the cheerleader has regenerating powers, so that whenever she dies, she just comes back to life after her cells regrow or whatever, what the fuck difference did it make if that Sylar (evil guy) was trying to kill her? She just would've come back to life any damn way. All that suspense and shit and those annoying commercials for the nothing. And I swear, if they killed the only black hero that they have, it's gonna be one....

Okay, got carpal tunnel now for typing all this shit at once. I'm out.

Gay Marriage

"Those who do not know their opponent's arguments do not completely understand their own." ~ Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints

I've known several comedians who would start a joke with something akin to "We all have one in our own family. A crack head, funny Uncle Joe, who was really just a child molester, the one who is always unemployed, begging for money, and the gay one [family member]" etc. Well, as it turns out, I have several gay family members. And it doesn't bother me one bit.

I never understood that out of all of the things or types of people to hate, some people choose good Samaritans who happen to be gay. What's the big friggin' deal? Especially why anyone would oppose gay marriages. Oh, that's right- it allegedly desecrates the "sanctity" of marriage. Uh huh. This in a country where we have had reality shows such as "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" or where celebrities often get quickie marriages and then divorced in less than seventy-two hours.

Before I actually read any material on the subject, I never did understand fully why people would be opposed to gay marriages, besides the fact that they are prejudice, of course. But as I researched more of the subject, I found that the reason goes far beyond phobias of gays and what they may or may not do behind closed doors. The reason that these seemingly hateful people have against gay marriage is "the word of God."

I believe in God and Jesus Christ, however, I am not one of those types of people who take the Bible literally word for word. Nearly all of the material I read regarding the reason why gays should not be allowed to be legally married is because "it is against God's will." Nearly all of people against gay marriages quoted some scripture from the Bible, and would be followed by a statement similar to "So you can see, God sees this act as an abomination. To even have a desire or thought of gay acts will make you lose your spot in heaven" etc. They like to use the word "abomination" quite a bit. If we were to take everything to heart that's in the Bible, then any menstruating woman would be an "abomination" as well.

So herein lies the fallacy: there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, and in the definition of marriage, it says that ": the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." (Street Law 216) It is limited to man and woman because of the Bible.

Besides the fact that this definition of marriage is formatted under the laws of the Bible, which it shouldn't be because of the alleged separation of Church and State, why is it that people automatically assume that the Bible is the correct text to use anything as a basis for when there are so many other religions out there? And what of the people who are not religious at all?

No one considers the benefits of gay marriage. If two people are truly in love and wish to be together legally as well as in the eyes of God, whom I believe loves all of His children ("I have looked out on everything I have made and behold it is very good." Genesis 1:31), then why not allow gays the right as the rest of us heterosexual Americans has as well? This is supposed to be a nation of freedom, when this bias clearly points out that it is not.

Many people against gay marriages, or people prejudice against gays, or homophobes consider it all to be deviant acts. But if we accept their unions, it can possibly help with low-self esteem that can lead to social problems. If one is gay, then one probably knows it at a fairly youthful age. Shouldn't we give gay kids "a sense of a real and responsible future, instead of a void where they will be condemned no matter how they live their lives?" (Sullivan)

EMAIL OF THE DAY: A statement of the obvious: "It seems to me that maybe something that goes without saying needs to be said again-- one of the steps that any sane policymaker would take to slow the resurgence of HIV infection among gay men would be to recognize-- and, indeed, encourage-- gay marriages. Obviously, marriage is not for everyone, straight or gay, but the availability of marriage inarguably decreases the spread of STD's among straights. Why wouldn't it have the same effect among gays? It certainly couldn't hurt."

Some viewpoints I have read consider homosexuality to be the "assault of what remains of America's sexual morality," (Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints) that gays and lesbians are a danger to society. But how is it that if two people who are committed to each other and want to have a family be wrong? I have seen first hand some heterosexual married couples who were just entirely one hundred percent wrong for each other, and where the environment had become hostile. For a couple to be straight does not give them an advantage to a happy, healthy marriage. If anyone wants to take "the plunge," then they should by all means be allowed that right just like anyone else.

I believe the opposition to gay marriage and the opposition to gays is simply the replacement to biracial marriages and opposition to blacks. It seems as if [as a whole and as a community or country] we don't have something to fear and hate, then we simply cannot function.

In 1958 in Virginia, a white man and black woman wished to marry, but it was illegal in their state. They went to Washington D.C., got married and returned home. They were shortly thereafter arrested, and the charges would only be dropped if they moved out of the state of Virginia for twenty-five years. They left, fought the case, and later won. The case was Loving v. Virginia.

Nikki Giovanni once said that "if Mathew Shepard wasn't Emmet Till, then who was he?" I think that with time, people will move on from hating gays and gay marriages to something else entirely, as they did with racial differences and anything or anyone else before it. Our country is deep seated in prejudice and hatred, though some would like to believe it is righteousness and following the word of God. How long will it take before we stop hiding behind the Bible?

"When you look at the crystal meth epidemic or the underlying psychological reasons to pursue sex for sex's sake, you have to include the fact that gay teens and gay men have close to no social incentives for coupling or monogamy? Marriage will save and lengthen gay lives, as it saves and lengthens straight ones. There will be no ultimate solution to HIV in the next gay generation without it." (Andrew Sullivan)

Some people are against gay marriage because of the welfare of the children. Some people fear that a gay couple will attempt to make their children gay, forcing them into a life of "deviancy." Or what of when the gay couple divorces? Who will have the legal right over the child? If one of the parents is the biological one, then the answer should be simple. But what if the child is adopted? Then clearly, that should be debated in a court case for custody, just as with any heterosexual couple who had adopted a child and are then divorcing.

I think the law and defintion of marriage should be altered. I think that it should include man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man. As long as it is a union between two persons alone, then it should be legal in the "land of the free" that is America. The term "free" should include all races, ethnicities, creeds, religions, and sexual preferences. If we want to talk about the "welfare" of the children, then, going back to what Andrew Sullivan mentioned, how is this train of thought affecting the gay youth as well as straight children? We are teaching the straight children by poor example that it is okay to single people out, and to condemn, and to be unaccepting of those who are different from us. We are teaching them to not see people on the content of their character, but on their personal, private business. We are teaching gay children that there will eventually be no love or acceptance for them as far as relationships and having families of their own. We are teaching them that straight people are better and will go to Heaven, and we are teaching them self hatred. Have we learned nothing from the "separate, but equal" time in our history? We are in fact allowing history to repeat itself, which should not be occuring. It may not be the same situation, but it is in fact parallel.

"We have now had one year of legal same-sex marriage in our state. Despite predictions, we have not witnessed any threat to so-called 'traditional marriage.' There has not been an attack on family, and almost all would admit that very little has changed. In fact, however, something has changed. Many of our citizens have experienced the joy of marriage for the first time where the laws of our state have said, 'You are equal.' We have seen that joy in our son. To take that away would be an injustice. It would be devastating for our family and the real values we believe family should represent" (The Boston Globe)

And what of mothers and fathers who want their children to be happy and healthy, no matter what their sexual lifestyle? We are working on the deconstruction of our community. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sexual activity or legal bindings between two consenting adults. If we want to talk about abominations and deviancy, then what of a situation involving a pedophile wishing to marry an eleven year old? Then there would be cause for strong opposition.

In the past year or so, Mary-Kay Letourneau married her former victim Villi Fualaau. A lot of people decided that perhaps it really was true love for those two, in spite of the extreme age gap and that it was between teacher and student (Villi was 12 at the time their relationship began). They also have two children together. Though some still feel it's gross, the two lovers had the right to legalize their union under the eyes of God, even though the relaionship started when he was only a child, and essentially, she was marrying her victim. When will we realize that if the relationship is between two consenting adults, even if they are gay, that they have the right to happiness, legally, with their lovers as well?