Ladies' Knight

And other misconceptions.

No point to today's entry, just some teasers, the likes of "why is it that stuff sent by car is a shipment, but sent by boat is cargo".

So... Ever notice how, on any given disco, on a "Ladies' Night", men pay for the so-called "free drinks" for the ladies, but hardly any ladies attend? Naturally, any self respecting lady would realise a Ladie's Night is festering with opportunity for lonely men to try and meet her, and, knowing lonely men (or, even worse, liquored up men), meet might mean harass, even if they don't mean it. Thus, Ladie's Night becomes Overpriced Sausage Fest (just like some department I know...). Now for the depressing bit: clubs still throw these, which means they are profitable, which means at least one of two tings: a) At least enough ladies to ensure Ladies' Night doesn't become a total Sausage Fest don't mind the bad pickup lines, the overly insistent invitations to dance/make out/go back to my place (well, obviously not mine, but you understand what I mean) and the occasional grope; b) Not enough men have wised up to the meaning of a Ladies' Night. And that's plain disturbing. I should talk, just yesterday I was caught smack dab in the middle of one. I'll say this in my defence: I had no idea there was a Ladies' Night going on at that place until minutes before my party and I (so there were two of us. A mob, no doubt) set off to the place and I wasn't going for anything else than some fun times with a mate. It was kind of a bust, as we were promised a female DJ who didn't show up in the time we were there (and it wasn't like we left early, either) and the two punk-arse kids who style themselves as DJ put on a grand total of three decent tunes the whole time we were there (but don't go trusting my taste), and the only request I made was met with "not tonight". What afraid to drive off the ladies? News flash, lad, they've been driven off already.

(Thin) People tell people who want to lose weight and who, for some reason or another don't have time to exercice "you're telling me that you can't take ten minutes every day?" all the time. OK, sure, I believe everyone can take 10 minutes out of their very busy scedulle every day. Here's what else I believe: ten minutes every day are worth absolutely squat. I have my own training regimen, and the warm up alone is twelve minutes. Last time I checked, twelve was greater than ten, but don't go trusting my math either; after all, I'm only an engineering student. I'm supposed to be rotten at math. Go ask the management types. Now I remember when I was wasting my time with a personal trainer, our routine was 45 minutes, three times a week. So 3 x 45 = 135 (approx.), whereas ten minues every day is 10 x 7 = 70 (give or take). Now one might be tempted to rush into the conclusion that 135 > 70. I maintain that I wasted my time on that plan now you do the math. Besides, any ten minutes that most busy people I know could possbly take would be at the end of a very exhausting day, when exercising would be innefficient and only contribute to tire them out even more and make them sore the day after. So, just in case you're an advocate for good health and regular exercise, the next time you want to argue with me that I can take ten minutes every day to exercise, remember that I take two hours at least three times a week to work out, I diet and I'm still struggling to slim down a bit. That and I reserve the right to shatter one of your bones for every sit up I do on the spot. I might come to over half your skelleton. Be ready.

Advocates of good health (I'm picking on them today. Everyone gets a turn) and no smoking will tell you that if you smoke a pack a day you'll spend so much in so long, and you could do so and so with that money. I say balderdash. Assuming you're a smoker, if you didn't smoke you'd have more mony to spend, and you would spend more mony, plain and simple. If you stopped smoking now, you wouldn't be able to take a dream trip by Christmas on account of it, you'd plainly spend whatever you'd save on smokes over time. If you could save the money you'd otherwise spend on tobacco, you should be able to save just as much without quitting. That said, I do think smokers would be well advised to quit for the sake of their healths. However, if any smoker is unwilling to quit for whatever reason, I won't bother you for it, just keep your cancerigen tar-filled foul-smelling billows well away from me and be merry.

So here's the smoking saving plan, from me to you. Get a box. Any box. An old shoe box, a sandbox, a lunch box, a very large matchbox, an X-box or even a computer case, which can refered to as a box. A woman's vagina might also be refered to, in slang, as a box, but I'm afraid that sort of box is unfit for our purposes. Now that we have our box, we're going to smoke a pack a day (or an extra pack a day, if you already smoke). Now, smoking is, sorry to say it, a foul habit, and I could never in clean counscience advise you to hack at your health like that, so instead of actually buying and consumming tobacco products, figure out how much a pack of any given brand of cigarretes costs. Then, every day, slip that much into the box through a slit you would have made into the box (thus making a cardboard box a good choice, a plastic lunch box a fair choice, a computer case a rahter poor choice, an X-box a terrible choice, for this matter, and the other sort of box a disgraceful choice). Here's the important bit: DON'T OPEN THE BOX UNTIL CHRISTMAS!!! (or Summer, if you start after July) When you do open the box, asuming you've kept it properly, well, there should be money in it, no surprise there. Treat yourself to something nice. And you didn't even haev to stop smoking for it.

Pax vobiscum atque vale.

ArabianSHark would like to sing some praise to "The Dark Knight", but whatever pressure from the studio or the distributor or whatever to make it a PG film really stopped it from attaining its full potential. Still pretty good, though. I recommend it.

Sex and violence

Not at the same time, rest assured. And, on that note, "Having sex while boosting cars" is probably one of the worst lines a script has ever forced from your lips, Mr. Cage, but I do like your work on the whole. I digress...

So recentely, on a message board, I got asked which is worse: sex or violence. First of all, the question is malformed, or at least ufit to be taken out of context. Amidst a discussion about video games and, consequentely, movies, the question is wether depictions of sex are worse than depictions of violence. And now I can clearly and absolutely state that the question is malformed.

As if this entry wasn't going to run long enough, I ask you a similarly malformed question. Which is sweeter: salt or beer? The answer is, rather clearly, neither is sweeter because neither is sweet to begin with. Ergo, I argue that neither depictions of sex nor depictions of violence are necessarily bad.

Alright, let's invite our guest speakers to bombard me with their ususal arguments. Better yet, let me do it for them, they'll need all their spit to babble a dogmatic reply to my venting. So without further ado, "1. Violence in movies makes our children violent", "2. Violence in TV is the cause of all the wars going on", "3. Violence in video games is at the root of catastrophes such as Columbine", "4. Sex in movies leads to the spreading of STDs", "5. Sex in video games leads to more and more rapings" and, my personal favourite, "6. Porn is for perverts".

Right, now to address them all in order:

1. Balderdash. Violence isn't depicted in movies suitable for children, unless very mild, humourous and cartoonish, or so the MPAA boasts. On that topic, the MPAA takes incomplete and inaccurate depictions of violence as less harmful than gory scenes. This means that one villian shooting several opponents, possibly multiple times each with relish, showing no remorse in a scene where not a single drop of blood is shown, making a shooting seem like a clean and easy thing, both on a technical and an emotional level, is suitable for a younger audience than a scene where someone stabs an opponent, causing a massive bleed from the victim and eliciting a turmoil of remorse, guilt and self loathing within the aggressor, showing just how ugly violence is. See the incongruence?

2. No, that would be the unquenchable thirst for money, power and oil parching the gluttunous throats of idiots with far too much power and wealth. Let's face it, I am yet to hear of any single war fought for the sake of war. It's the same tired old tale time and time again, from times History itself has forgotten: Party A wants Party B's lands/wealth/goods and is either unwilling or unable to find a diplomatic arrangement that serves both parties and goes on to a non diplomatic solution. That's not TV's fault, that mom and dad's fault for not teaching their political leaders to be to play nice and don't covet thy neighbour's assets. Sometimes, however, it's mere intolerance that motivates wars. And just where is intolerance picked up? Could it be in churches, mosques and synagogues, to name a few places of worship? Must I conjure words such as "Templar Knights" and "Jihad" to make my point? I didn't think so.

3. And I suppose Etonians, fine oarsmen that they are, never picked up a copy of Doom or Quake or Half Life or any of their mods or installments, because you've never heard of an Eton Massacre. Or the Dragon School Massacre. Or the Escola Secundária Alves Martins Massacre (though sometimes...). Also, do you suppose the culprits at Columbine, all of whom adept players of first person shooters, were the only adept players of first person shooters in the whole school? Doesn't this make you think that possibly it wasn't the game's fault, but the players' fault? Don't you suppose they could have picked up just as similar a thought from studying the bloody wars our History is littered with? Do you suppose I'm ever going to state anything rather than just make questions to rebate this claim? Well, yes, I am.

4. No, unprotected sex with multiple partners without asserting each partner's health condition through reliable, regular tests, conducted by quallified medical personnel, impractical though it might be with increasing, leads to the spreading of STDs. I'm not going to advocate monogamy or condemn casual sex, regardless of my own moral convictions, because those are matters of lifestyle and, ultimately, opinion and neither can be taken as morally superior for as long as informed consent is given by all the participants. What I will advocate is that, with each choice of lifestyle, certain responsabilities must be assumed and certain measures are recommended. A loving, monogamous couple might settle for an STD exam for each of the partners and dispense with condoms, while an active party animal, getting off with one (or more) members of the opposite sex (or of the same sex, or a combination, whatever works) should probably insist on adequate prophilaxy. This is not the behaviour depicctions of sex should either recommend or discourage; this is for schools and parents to teach to their children. Ask yourselves this (assuming you disagree, otherwise, don't bother): would you rather your child came home with one or more STDs and possibly an undesired pregnancy or put your puritane views aside for twenty minutes and teach them about condoms? Face it, someday your children are going to have sex (unless, possibly, if they choose to become engineers or managers). It might be up to you wether it is a wonderful experience that leaves them satisfied on a physical, moral and emotional plane or an awkward disaster that leaves them frustrated and miserable, not to mention diseased, possibly to the point of fatality. Think about it. And yes, I'm advocating Sex Ed in public schools, which I was promised for the best of eight years and never got. Maybe it wasn't such as loss for me, but not everyone is as lucky. I have my mother to thank for it; others might not.

5. Again, rape is not the fruit of exposure to sexuality, but of a misinterpretation of sexuality. Understand that rape isn't about getting of in the same erotic sense as consensual sex is about getting off, or, in other words, it's not about physical pleasure. It is, in fact, about aggression and dominance. Consider this: a young infant, or anyone else who has not been told about healthy sexuality, watches as two (or kore, really) bodies writhe in strange motions, seldom, if ever, seen in everyday life in public, while bestial groans and cries are let loose for several minutes of sternuous activity until finally all participants are left exhausted, and at least one of them walks away glad. Now I as you: has our subject observed an episode of sexual activity or a brawl? Rape is motivated by the desire to either harm or assert social or physical dominance, and sex is used as a tool. Lust might play a role, but rest assured, it is not remotely the same kind of lust one feels towards a consensual partner; it is, in fact, more akin to blood lust. If anything, sex scenes, which often depict all partners involved enjoying the experience, would work against the probability of a rape occuring, unless, of course, the rapist is deluded to the point of believing the victim is enjoying it. Then the rapist cannot be taken as any other member of the society and regular rules don't apply, voiding any arguments related to media.

6. And religion is for zealots. Sorry, I couldn't help it, this kind of generalising gets up my nose like itsy bitsy spider getting up the water spout. Porn is for those seeking quick arousal and relief for their lust or a catalyst for their sexuality. Unless an addiction is in play, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with porn. Performers do so of their own volition and are remunerated, and purevoyers are, of course, acting upon their own desires. Themes depicted are only staged as a fantasy, which should be taken as fiction, and no more harmful in nature than "The Sound of Music", which, in turn, features depictions of a regime who thought well to purge a country of millions guilty only of worshipping a different faith. How's porn ever done something like that?

More to the point, probably, is how exactly do you suppose you're protecting your children? Blinding them to violent os sexual themes isn't going to help them in the long run. Both are innate to mankind, and the best we can hope for them is to channel them apropriately, into harmless outlets for violence (i.e., let your kids shoot the bloody brain and guts out of their polygonal enemies in video games, lest they pick up the carving knife from the kitchen and let your blood all over the dining room carpet. It will stain!) and healthy sexuality (your little boy is going to come across the most goregous youg girl sunning herself in your next trip to the beach as a family and maybe you should be the first to tell him why she makes him feel that way, why he can't take his eyes off her and why does he suddenly want to be close to her. Same goes if he feels that way about the male lifeguard, it's no one's fault, especially because no harm, no foul( foul/fault, get it?). You're not protecting your kids by not letting them know about violence and sexuality, you're just setting them up to become confused as all hell when they do discover about them in the end. Just a word of caution, don't be in too much of a hurry. I learnt of human reproduction at possibly age three or so, way before I had any notion of sexuality, and now I realise that it kind of is a bit of a prequesite. Might be a good idea to introduce them both at the same time, or at least, when your youngling asks you where do babies come from, instead of comming up with the good old stork or its likes, deliver an approach on the basics of reproduction stressing the relevance of affection between two consenting adults, otherwise a cold, scientific approach might lead your children to regard the whole process as banal and completely unrelated to feelings of tenderness, which is probably not the best idea.

Enjoy your summer and the sunning beauties that come with it.

Pax vobiscum atque vale.

ArabianShark will now recite some less recommendable words that might make this entry pop up in Google searches, as I really would like to reach more than my four usual readers, bless your hearts. Fucker anal ass butt sodomy whore hooker prostitute porn star gay faggot lesbian dyke Osama bin Laden Hillary Clinton Barack Obama George Bush George W. Bush Al Qaeda molest molester sex offender gangbang pussy penetration intercourse S&M SM S/M BDSM bondage torture pain juggs boobs breasts penis cock dick golden shower lick nipple bukkake cum splooge fletching gokkun ream reamming muff dive blow job deep throat and, of course, the highly unrecommendable ten, shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits fart turd and twat. That ought to do it.


No, wait, that's misspelt.


Much better. Onwards, then, I shant be long. That would be a first...

So I gather Ms. Oprah Winfrey has airings of her worldwide known show, "Oprah", dedicated to her Favourite Things, in a long segment aptly named "Favourite Things". Any number of months ago, though it ran just moments ago (Ah, yes, the magic of re-runs...), one such airing enlighted the watchers on the process of selecting the Favourite Things. I might comment on the whole process, had I had more than a fleeting glimpse between switching channels, but instead I shall comment only on this quote of one staff member.

       "... [Oprah] gives small clues, like «this is my new favourite thing»..."

My, my, is that a small clue? Perish the thought of what a big clue should be. Perhaps an All-American Gas-Guzzling "ess-yoo-vee" with "Favourite Thing!" spray painted on the side on top of a picture of the "Favourite Thing" at hand? It rather is the sort of thing you've come to expect from that side of the ocean, money permitting (and, quite often, it does...), isn't it?

Pax vobiscum atque vale.

ArabianShark is, quite evidentely, procrastinating. But with a mere few days to go, you'd expect me to, wouldn't you?