The Last Lemurisian

Representative Issa Is Scared Of 'Girl Germs'. (This is totally factual and not at all mocking.)

2012-02-18T16:16:00.000Z

So, I was talking to Cyc the other night, about politics and other intelligent things that had nothing to do with ducks wearing hats, and we started talking about how ridiculous it was for Representative Issa to throw a little party/sleepover (Is there proof that didn't happen? Well.. It might have.) over contraception. And, of course, with any immature little boys throwing a little get-together, there must not be any women. They might have cooties or girl germs! You wouldn't want that, would you? No. Of course not.

So it only makes sense for them to stick a nice big sign on the door of their fort, and stop all the girls coming in with their girl germs. Ew.

Carolyn Maloney said, before walkingout of the committee;

"What I want to know is, where are the women? I look at this panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning. Mr Chairman, I was deeply disturbed that you rejected our request to hear from a woman. A third year student in law school named Sandra Fluke, and I am using this to urge on you, once again, to let Miss Fluke testify, let one woman speak for the panel right now on this all-male panel."

And yet, no women testified. Representative Issa said that;

The minority chose the witness we had not found to be appropriate or qualified. Now, appropriate and qualified is a decision I have to make. I asked our—our staff, what is her background, what has she done. They did the usual that we do when we’re not provided the three days and the forms that go with it: they did a Google search. They looked and found that she was, in fact, and is, a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue. I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or minority witness if they do not have theappropriate credentials both for a hearing at full committee of theUSA house of representatives and if you cannot get them at a timelyfashion.

They could not find one woman who wasqualified or appropriate, or with the appropriate credentials tospeak at this hearing.

There is a rush transcript from DemocracyNow on interviewing Sandra Fluke and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about this issue, including Sandra Fluke's would-be testimony,

I especially wanted to tell the particular stories of some friends of mine, actually, close friends, who have medical needs that require birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. For example, one of them—it’s just a tragedy. She actually—she lost her ovary. It had to be surgically removed because a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball grew on it, because she didn’t have access to contraception to prevent that. She has polycystic ovarian syndrome. And as a result of that, the doctors are very concerned that she’s going into early menopause at the age of 32. And, of course, this will cause complications for her ever trying to conceive a child and puts her at increased risk for heart disease, osteoporosis and cancer. Well, for many of these types of medical conditions, like endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, many other conditions, doctors regularly prescribe contraception to prevent growth of things like cysts or fibroids, and that’s widely medically accepted and is the most appropriate and effective form of treatment.

I just want to clarify the misconception that the only women who are affected by this are young women who are not married. For the law students that I represent, the average age is 27, and many of them are married, and they have no access to contraception, as well. But beyond that, I strongly believe that our government has to legislate for reality, not ideology. So, if we don’t provide contraception coverage and healthcare, that’s not going to stop anyone from having sex, whether they should or should not be. And we really have to take care of women’s healthcare and not worry about policing their moral choices.

Well, all I can say to finish this off is that I'm damn happy that I live in a country where the government knows we're all filthy immoral whores that need to make sure we don't have any of those god-forsaken little horrors they call children!

And my personal note: Fuck youformatting. I hate you. Go away.

Youtube user disturbing name, disturbing videos.

2011-12-17T20:14:00.002Z

So, I was on youtube, watching The Young Turks and I was watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSltPSxD-Bc&feature=autoplay&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&lf=plcp&playnext=3
When I came across a comment by someone called beagoodgirl4Daddy.
If you go on their channel, it has nothing but videos of preteens, or even younger, doing 'sexy' things.
Please, please go and report them. I believe in freedom, but that is just absolutely horrible. There's no way that should be on any popular site.
Unless you approve of sexualizing young children, this is sick, wrong and just plain disgusting.

Change Immigration Laws To Include Character And Employment References

2011-11-28T06:47:00.001Z

Disaster has struck, and I need the help of the good people of the internet.
My boyfriend of two years, Cyc, lives in America. I am English. Recently, yesterday, he tried to come here, as mentioned on his blog, but due to some complications at immigration, he was refused entry, because our immigration system in a computer system where you must tick the right boxes, rather than judging who we actually want to visit our country, and who we don't.

My petition letter is on this link, for the change.org petition, please sign and give us both some hope for humanity, and maybe we can change the unfairness in this particular part of the world.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24371

Blogger issues

2011-08-21T19:50:00.002+01:00

Can-Fap (Not for the squeamish due to video content)

2011-07-24T15:35:00.002+01:00

So, blogger is not nice to me. I'm hoping this will work. Anyway, I have no idea what I wrote for this post, but I have a feeling it was really long and detailed and had all the pros and cons of circumcision... But before I go and write it again, I'm going to check if blogger is working for me again yet!

Okay! Now that it's apparently working, I'm going to try to rewrite:

Circumcision is found reasonably often in males, and is usually performed within 10 days of birth, usually before the child is taken home. It's done for religious, cultural or occasionally hygienic reasons. But circumcision is both dangerous and unnecessary, providing no long term benefits, and occasionally causing death due to insuffieciant aftercare, badly done surgery, anaesthesic overdose or unsafe practitioners. Even though death is rare (Around 18 per 100,000), would you risk your child's life over almost no long-term benefits?

Circumcision can make children difficult, even make them develop an early post-trauma stress disorder, causing them to sleep, eat and bond slower. It can also cause them to have a lower pain threshold. Besides, would you remove any other part of your child? You may as well take their appendix, as that is utterly useless. It's not your right to remove any organ, or part of any organ, from your child, without a good reason. Especially in such a traumatising way.

It also costed over a million dollars in state funding, and most insurance companies will not cover circumcision or complications after circumcision. Even Jewish children are often now circumcised without cutting, to reduce complications and trauma. There's also no need to circumcise a child so that they will 'fit in with their parent'. If your son regularly sees his father's penis, enough to realise that has no foreskin and his does, then you have more to worry about than whether or not they feel they'll fit in!

Children don't need to wash under their foreskin until it's easily retractable anyway, by which they will figure out that they should clean under it sooner or later, until then, a bath or a long shower will do fine. Circumcision does not do much to prevent aids or stds, it's much easier, cheaper and less traumatic just to explain to them what a condom is, and that they shouldn't have unprotected sex. Ever. (Or at least unless they know that their partner is clean, and wouldn't mind breeding with them.)

Uncircumcised men have a very slight increase in penile cancer, but as it is only a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting it anyway, it is not a good reason to circumcise an infant. A 2007 study found that the five most sensitive parts of the penis are removed by circumcision, and the head is made less sensitive from exposure. Do you really want to deny your child full sexual enjoyment? Did you know that men, like women, can have different types of orgasms? Removing the foreskin removes the possibility for your child to enjoy some of these.

In Australia, some hospitals will only allow circumcision when it's medically necessary for the health of the male. The foreskin should not be fully retractable until the child is at the least five years of age, and it is not recommended to try to retract it at all until at least the age of three. Phimosis (The foreskin not retractable at an age where it should be retractable), paraphimosis (The foreskin not returnable to its original place after being retracted) balenoposthests (The inflammation of the head of the penis and the foreskin) may all be treated by circumcision where medically advised. Meatitis is the inflammation of the opening of the penis, and is more common in circumcised males, but leads to no long term harm.
Urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised children, but after the first year or two, this evens itself out, and it is not shown to be down to uncircumcised males having worse hygiene because of their foreskin.

And if nothing else will persuade you, here's the video (Which is not for the squeamish) from the Can-fap (The Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project) website.

If you wouldn't allowed female genital mutilation, why would you allow males to undergo essentially the same process? It's illegal in many places to cut the genitals of a female under the age of 18 for any non-medical reason, why would this not be extended to males?

Please go to Can-fap for more information.

2011-07-12T18:42:00.000+01:00

D/s: Security

2011-06-10T02:14:00.000+01:00

A big part of D/s is security, not only for the submissive, but for the dominant as well, security in the relationship, and in each other. The submissive has to feel safe enough to let themselves be open in the relationship, and the dominant needs to feel secure enough to act dominant with the submissive without it feeling harmful. There are a lot of ways to create this security.

1. Physical reminders

It's very nice to have something tangible to reassure both that the relationship exists in that manner, even if it doesn't look like something from a D/s relationship. Personally, I like having my collar, but some people might like something more like a bracelet or a ring. Some prefer something that they don't have to have on them at all times, even just a letter on it's own. Sometimes these can be used instead of safety words, like I use mine, for a break from the relationship to talk, or something similar. It's nice for the submissive to have something to touch and feel to remind them of the relationship, and for the dominant to be able to see or touch for themselves for the same reason. I also have a leash, which I'm very fond of. Whenever I feel particularly anxious, out of place in my relationship and/or submissive, I'll just ask to have it on, and it makes both myself and my Master feel a lot better.

Manners Of Speaking

It's normal for people in D/s relationships is for each to use names for each other, or at least for the submissive to have a title for the dominant. Master/Mistress, Sir/Ma'am, Lord/Lady, etc, are often used, though the latter more in online communities. Another thing is for the submissive to be referred to by themselves or others in third person, or with their Master's name for them, or even just their gender. For example, a dominant may refer to their female submissive as 'girl', or a submissive pet may call themselves 'pet'. In some cases, the submissive may not be able to talk over a whisper, without permission, or to anyone other than their dominant, though these are often used as punishments as well.

Spontaneousness

A good thing to remind the submissive of their place in the relationship is random demands or requests, and when the submissive obeys their dominant, it's a nice reminder to the dominant of their place in the relationship as well. Even random light punishment if the submissive is acting out of place in general is well-suited.

Positioning

A common mistake is that to an outsider or beginner, when a dominant treats their submissive in an 'objectifying' way, it isn't really objectifying, but showing the submissive their place, and therefore giving them security. One way this is seen is when a dominant specifically positions their submissive for an activity. Some submissives have a specific way to kneel or sit for their dominant, some have specific spanking positions, or specific positions for punishments. These are reinforced by their dominant whenever the submissive does the position wrongly. Sometimes this seems like the submissive is being treated like an object, but they're just being trained.

Training

There's always something new to learn in any relationship, and D/s is certainly no different. A good way to improve the relationship if it's getting a little drier, or just to amuse yourselves is to add a new training regime. If there's nothing that specifically needs doing, rearrange a system that doesn't work as well as it could. From something as simple as telling the submissive which direction to clean around the house (E.g, downstairs left to upstairs right, or bedrooms, then lounge, then bathrooms, etcetera.), to asking them to learn and prepare new recipes or learn a new skill. The training can also be strictly D/s, but that isn't nearly as fun, especially when the two can be combined. For example, if the submissive is learning a new skill, the dominant may instruct them to practice it for an hour a day. It could be that if they do so, they'll get a reward, or it could be that if they don't, they'll have some sort of punishment. A nice thing if you're using the punishment idea would be to slightly increase it each time it happens. (Obviously in a safe situation, giving a submissive an increased number of spankings for each time they don't will likely get tiring for both involved. A better idea would be to increase the unpleasantness of the task, say, start with spanking, then move up to doing unpleasant chores, then to some slight humiliation.. Depending on what the submissive likes, and on an agreed schedule. There's no use in if they miss it twice, going straight to the next level of punishment.) Dominants also need to remember with any form of training that there has to be exceptions for some situations. You can't expect the submissive to.. Say, practice panting if a family member is seriously wounded and needs attending or company.

Leaving Strict Roles

I've had someone ask me before, something like, "In your relationship, do you always stay in your D/s roles?" And while I consider myself full time, for the sake of my relationship having depth to it, I've never stayed strictly in my role for more than a few hours without resuming normal conversation or banter, or something just to break us both out of that regime. It isn't that we aren't still in those roles, it's just neither of us feel as though we need to stress our positions because by not needing to, we both know that the other is happy and mentally secure in their role. That isn't to say there's anything wrong with not being entirely secure in it, sometimes I enjoy just laying there and talking about the relationship roles for hours, or I ask my dominant to do something to remind me of my place. I remember when I told the person who asked the earlier question the answer, they were extremely relieved about it.

Affection

There's a misconception that D/s relationships are less affectionate than 'vanilla' relationships, but for this, we really need to remember that all couples in all different types of relationships There are some of both that have very limited affection, and others that are in danger of breaking the law with the amount of PDAs that happen between them.

Is My Dog Sexy?

2011-05-24T18:50:00.000+01:00

I'm sitting in my conservatory, and my dog (A new member of the family) came in to see me and laid her head on my lap and I petted her and talked to her, calling her pet names like honey, baby, sweetie, etc, because I get like that with animals, dogs especially, and suddenly out of nowhere, I call her sexy. I'm scratching behind her ear, she's wagging her tail with her head somewhere near my knee, resting on my leg, and suddenly, among these totally innocent and loving terms, I call her sexy.

And I did the Inglip face. I really did.

I was that surprised.

Immediately, I thought, "What does this mean about me? Am I attracted to my dog? Do I actually find my dog sexually attractive?" And this shook me. I had to think about it, because I like to think about why things like this happen, and if it's a problem. And so doesn't just look horrific, I'm not talking about a Chihuahua, or a Westie, nothing ridiculously small. I'll provide a picture of my dog.

Zarka is a large dog, most likely a Saarloos Wolfdog, or something similar, and she is a beautiful dog, but why on earth did I call her sexy?

Well, on one level, I suppose I just meant that she looks good, nothing sexual, just that she's a pretty dog. That's that.

But on another level, as an empathic person with too much general knowledge on animal mating behaviour and evolutionary behaviour generally, I'm actually calling her a sexually attractive dog. Yes, my dog has sex appeal. But to me? Well, she's pretty to me, as I said, but calling her sexually attractive suggests I would actually have sex with my dog. Would I? Absolutely not. If you're into that, and the animal isn't hurt, and I don't have to know about it, have at it. Go get yourself a dog, and do it until it's fed up of you. But I personally do not want to have any type of sexual relations with my dog. So why is it true to me that she's sexually attractive?

Well, my dog is in fully working order. She's good at tracking, which proves her nose, eyes and ears work consistently. She reacts quickly and is very capable of learning, which proves she has a good mind. She's capable of running and walking for long enough distances and can hold her own in a fight (recently proved by accident), which proves she's strong and fit and healthy. She has a wonderful calm temperament, so would be good at looking after puppies if she had them. Not to mention that she has an absolutely beautiful coat and structure.

If I were a male dog who wanted a mate, I would see Zarka as a dog that I would potentially mate with. I would find her suitable to reproduce with. She's healthy, could care for puppies, and would be unlikely to protest. Therefore, my dog is sexually attractive.

Aspiring Bakers #7 – Chocolate Delight (May 2011) (Tastedandtested.blogspot.com)

2011-05-24T02:31:00.001+01:00

So, I'm an avid baker. I love baking random things at 3 in the morning in my customised apron.
And I was looking for a recipe for chocolate chip rock buns (Nomnomnom.), and I came across DG's Tasted And Tested Aspiring Bakers thing, and this year, the classification was something chocolatey, so I thought, okay, why not?
So this is my submission for that, and I just baked these, and am looking forward to eating them. The recipe is under the pictures, as well as the name of the book that the recipe is in.

Double Chocolate Brownies with fudge sauce (from the recipe book Blissful Brownies)

Brownies

115g butter
115g plain chocolate
300g golden caster sugar
pinch of salt
1 tsp vanilla extract
2 large eggs
140g plain flour
2 tsp cocoa powder
100g white chocolate chips
(I personally like to use milk chocolate instead of plain chocolate, and use plain chocolate chips as well as the white chocolate chips.)

Preheat oven to 180c/350f/Gas Mark 4
Grease and line the base of a square baking tin

Place the butter and chocolate in a small heatproof bowl, set over a saucepan of gently simmering water until melted. Stir until smooth. Leave to cool slightly. Stir in the sugar, salt and vanilla extract. Add the eggs, one at a time, and beat until well blended.

Sift the flour and cocoa powder into the mixture and beat until smooth. Stir in the chocolate chips, then pour the mixture into the tin. Bake in the preheated oven for 35-40 minutes, or until the top is evenly coloured and a skewer inserted into the centre comes out almost clean. Leave to cool slightly while preparing the sauce.

Fudge sauce

55g butter
225g golden caster sugar
150ml milk
250ml double cream
225g golden syrup
200g plain chocolate (I used white chocolate instead because I didn't have enough plain.)

To make the sauce, place the butter, sugar, milk, cream and syrup in a small saucepan and heat gently until the sugar has dissolved. bring to the boil and stir for 10 minutes, or until the mixture is caramel coloured. Remove from the heat and add the chocolate. Stir until smooth. Cut the brownies into squares and serve immediately with the sauce.

Project Lolita

2011-05-21T16:55:00.002+01:00

So, I haven't really brought it up before, but I'm currently putting together a poetry book called Project Lolita, not sure on dates yet, but it should be later this year. It'll be around 100 poems in it, some from a while ago, and much more recent ones, with authors notes, and some various quotes. I'll update when I have more details, but for now, this is all my information.

Random 'Feminist' List Sucks.

2011-05-21T02:27:00.000+01:00

So, I was watching this video, about a feminist list, which I'm also going to go through.
The list is called "A Man Is Rape Supporter If..." And while the video is amazingly good, I hope to be able to go through it decently myself.
So, here goes.

"This is a handy guide for women who involve themselves with men. I’ve recently received a bunch of comments from men who say that they aren’t rape supporters because they (1) have never “raped” a woman and/or (2) are gay. If you are around a man who claims to be anti-rape, see how he stacks up."

Okay, so the only men I know are anti-rape, and this random feminist psycho is going to persuade me that all of them are rapists. Go ahead, woman. Persuade me. In fact, lets see how I rank on this too, shall we?

A man is a rape-supporter if…

He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

Okay. Nice start.

Most the people I know that have had sex were underage, because I mostly know underage people. The majority of them were probably drunk. I personally am into physical restraints as a kink. Who hasn't been somehow coerced into sex? Give me one person who hasn't, and I'll show you someone who's never had sex. Having an emotional connection to someone, and wanting to have sex with them despite that you wouldn't want to otherwise is a type of coercion. If you're in love, and you decide to have sex with the person you're in love with, and both of you consent, but you're generally asexual outside of that, that's rape support, according to the feminist psycho.

He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.

So... A woman's consent to sex is not a defense against rape? ...What is then?! And how is the current definition of rape (Being forced to have sex with someone.) incorrect?

He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.

Because that has ne-eeeeeeever happened. Ever. Men do a version of this too, it's called waking up next to a fat woman and wishing they hadn't done that. A huge 5.9% of rape accusations are false. This doesn't seem like much, but in 1000 women that report rape, of those could potentially ruin a man's life over a false accusation.

He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.

Okay, what woman hasn't got a little out of her depth, and accidentally gone somewhere she shouldn't? In fact, what person hasn't? And it is your fault if you do that, whether you're a male or female, and people should blame you for that. I'm not saying if you do get attacked it's your fault, but if you are somewhere that you are likely to be attacked, and it ends up happening, well, you shouldn't have been there, should you?

He has procured a prostitute.

Okay, so some prostitutes are forced into that work, but many also are there free of choice, and earning a lot of money doing so. Paying a consensual prostitute who chooses to do that job... What's wrong with that? You get off, she gets her money, everyone's happy.

He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.

...Didn't I just do that? Some women want to use their sexuality can, and will. I'm happy to use my sexuality to model, some women are happy to use their sexuality by prostitution. Simple. Anyone who endorses it is just helping the trade, like anyone that endorses paying a maid is helping that trade.

He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.

A lot of men and women use sex as a transaction. Don't like the carpet? Do your husband and get a new one. Want a shopping spree? Screw the rich guy at work for a day out. Want a promotion? Well, hello sir...

He has gone to a strip club.

Ah, strip clubs. Where women dress up in nothing, then undress out of it, and earn thousands a night for it. Must be rape.

He is anti-abortion.

So, you don't think women should have abortions, even if you don't enforce that in any way, and would support someone close who was getting one? Rapist!

He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.

So, you're pro-choice, you think women should choose what to do with their own bodies, and would advocate the best choice in the situation? Rapist!

He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”

He wants to talk about pornography, and doesn't mind when other people talk about pornography, because hey, people can talk about what they want. No. they can't, according to psychofeminist.

He watches pornography in which women are depicted.

You want to watch porn involving women, as most straight men do? Well don't, because that a rapist-supporter.

He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.

You want to watch pornography without women in? Go ahead, just make sure there's no power struggle, despite that a lot of people consensually enjoy power struggle or domination. I'm a female that enjoys male domination. I can't watch anything with that in now? Damn.

He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.

But... Those ARE the evidence of women trying to seem sexually attractive to either men or women....

He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.

A drug addict, a paedophile and a sadist are talking about what kind of women they like. The druggie says, "I like my women like I like my whisky: twenty years old and mixed up with coke." "I like my women like I like my soda: a few months old and flat as hell," says the paedophile. "Well," says the sadist, "I like my women like I like my wine: one hundred years old and locked up in a cellar."

He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects

Give me one thing where this never happens... Okay, one good thing. In any good program like that, everyone should have something like that against them.

He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.

First two, fair enough, that is kind of supporting sexual violence on women, and the last one, okay, if it's really that bad... But cat-calls... They're pretty much men being...Well, men. And it's kind of nice, most of the time. And media depictions of women?: What about media depictions of everyone else? It's the media, you can't take it seriously, and everyone should mock it.

He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.

As a product of sexual liberation, this annoys me, because it's been one of the best things in my life, and though sexual liberation doesn't make me more promiscuous, it does give me the choice to discover and experiment with what I like.

He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.

What about the ones that are, though? Like the writer of this list. Pretty sure she's a man-hater, and wouldn't have sex with a man for that reason. And some women are genuinely psychologically opposed to sex with men, like some rape victims. Some are also inhibited or made prudish by parents or other authority, and therefore don't have sex as often as they'd like. And I personally am rather stuck-up, and that is the reason why I don't consider sleeping with most people, because I just think I'm better than them. And again, not a reason to call someone a rape supporter.

He argues that certain male behaviours towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.

Well, that's reasonable enough as a point on it's own, but as a reason for someone to be a rape supporter? No. Definitely not.

He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men

...What? First part, fair enough to be against that, women's and men's interests should be thought of as equally valid until proven otherwise, but to say that men cannot assume that a women have the same interests as men, even if it's painfully obvious is rather ridiculous... And using it to say someone is a rape supporter... Though, on this list, it's one of the more normal ones...

He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.

Okay, I can agree with that as being supporting of misogynistic views, but not of actual rape unless it's specified as that.

He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.

I don't really understand this that well, because it's terribly phrased. Can't you just be obvious and say that if a man points out that because a woman doesn't have a penis, he's saying that she's somehow physically sexually less important? Or saying anywhere that he would like to have sex with her, or penetrate her, is supporting rape? What about sex talk? Is that supporting rape too, oh great psychobitch of feministry?

He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”

Some women like pain. Some men like pain. It's kinky, and it's also rather enjoyable. A woman now cannot be trusted to give her own willing consent to that, according to this list, because if she does, and the man trusts her to know what she wants, then he's a rape supporter.

He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”

Okay, no sexualizing minors. (What about miners? -terrible pun-), or sexually abusing minors, not sure sexualizing them is rape support as much as just being a little perverted, but condoning sexual abuse of minors is kind of supporting rape, or sexual abuse. But if they're willing, and know what they're doing and are emotionally mature enough to do so... How is that supporting rape? (Refer to my paedophillia post for more information on that subject.)

He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.

There is a biological element in women that makes reproduction a fulfilling thing in most women, just like there is in men, so in one way, some women just would be happier or more fulfilled with children. My mother is one of those people, and puts her children above all else, and believes that nothing else would have made her happier. Then, there are some women who choose to never have children, and are perfectly happy like that, so I'm definitely not implying that all women want children or would be happy with them, just that a lot of them do, and would, because it's biologically programmed into all creatures to want to reproduce.

Oh, and it's definitely not rape support to say that.

He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”

First, arguing that people have sexual needs as rape support... Are you fucking stupid, woman? Do you have no brain cells, or do you just choose to not use them? Were you drunk while writing this, and doing it as a dare? Please tell you you're not honestly that stupid.

Guess what, lady? Everyone has sexual needs unless there is a physically anomally that stops them having them, and that's very rare, and very abnormal.

He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.

So now a man cannot find a certain type of woman attractive without supporting rape? Telling them is a little crude if don't rudely, but I've been told that before, and it's not offensive, they just like different types, and I accept that. People like different things, how are we supposed to know what they like if they don't tell us?

He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.

... Excuse me, but who hasn't at some point? I'm bisexual, and I objectify it sometimes because sometimes it is just there for objectifying. There are women that pretend to be lesbians to be sex objects to men. There are women that engage in lesbian activity to be more attractive to men. These are women objectifying lesbian acts. I'm not saying that it's a totally objectifyable concept, but everything is a little objectifyable. I like to objectify myself as a bisexual female. Straight females like to objectify themselves. Straight men like to objectify themselves. Gay men like to objectifty themselves. Bisexual men like to objectify themselves. Not all of those, or even many in some cases, but there are people in every group of everything that objectify it, for fun, for attention, for whatever. People do it. It's not particularly politically correct to objectify them, but it happens a lot, and everyone knows it will. Definitely not rape supporting.

He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.

I suppose as a woman where my willing consent etc. means nothing, I can't say that as a woman who engages in most of these things at some point or another, I wouldn't be a rape supporter, but if a man points out that I do, then he's a rape supporter.

Psychobitch, you are so damn stupid that given a chance, I would like to neuter you.

So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?

There is none, in fact, there is no one in the entire world, male or female, that doesn't fit this list. She doesn't even fit the list. Go commit suicide or something because you are a rape supporter, everyone. You support rape, because this random 'feminist' psychobitch says you are because you fit in her list that everyone in existence fits in.

I'm actually sorry for every time I called you a feminist, because you are a misogynist, a sexist, and a would-be Darwin award winner. Feminists.... Okay, true feminists tend to have some idea what the fuck they're talking about when it comes to women and women's rights, rather than just blindly hating men! You are not a feminist, and you're barely even a human being if you can fit your own fucking list to a T. Screw you, you moronic, psychotic, insane, bitch. You are the anti-feminist, well done. Twilight is more feminist than you. The 1200 were more feminist than you. Woman beaters are more feminist than you. Muslims are more feminist than you. You are the cancer of feminism. Congratulations.

My Favourites: Gorgonopsia

2011-05-20T01:01:00.000+01:00

One of my favourite suborders that has ever existed is the Gorgonopsids, a therapsid synapsid in the middle to late Permian, though, they were sadly extinct in the Permian mass extinction, the only theradont line to meet this end. There were many types of Gorgonopsid, the largest, inostrancevia, the size of a rhino, and due to the extinction of dinocephalias, because the top Permian predator.

Gorgonopsia, meaning 'gorgon face', were mammal-like, with heterodont teeth, ear bones and temporal fenetraes (skulls characterised by bilateral, symmetrical holes, or fenestraes, in the temporal bone.), though it's unknown whether they had scales, fur, or just naked skin. They're one of three groups of theradonts, and are a close relation to mammals, through cynadonts, another group of theradont.

There are 19 families of Gorgonopsia, and three subfamilies. The three subfamilies of Gorgonopsia are Gorgonopsinae, Inostranceviinae and Rubidgeinae, and contain three, two and four species respectively.

Gorgonops is the most common genus of Gorgonopsinae, that grew to 2-2.5 meters long, and had 12-cm sabre teeth, similar to smilodon. Gorgonops were faster than the majority of Gorgonopsinae because of their long legs under their body. There are three definitely known species of Gorgonops:

Torvus, the type species. A medium-sized Gorgonops characterised by a longer snout and some difference in skull structure.
Whaitsi, a larger Gorgonops, with a wider skull rear and details of proportion.
Longifrons, a large Gorgonopsid with an larger skull-orbit and snout than Whaitsi.

There are three other species, though they're either uncertainly placed, or synonyms. These are dixeyi, kaiseri, and eupachygnathus.

Artist interpretation of Whaitsi

Torvus, by Theropsida

Longifrons, also by Theropsida

Gorgonops have been in popular culture a couple of times. In 2005, a Gorgonopsid was featured in Walking With Monsters, but was specified as a Gorgonops in the companion book, though as it was shown preying on a scutosaurus, it was likely a different genus of Gorgonopsid, as Gorgonops and scutosaurus lived in separate countries. It was also shown in the 2007-present ITV-sci-fi, Primeval twice.

Another Gorgonopsinae is Sauroctonus, a 3 meter long gorgonopsid with a triangular skull, and a primitive parietal eye. They had a pair of huge canines on the upper and lower jaws, larger on the upper jaw. Their other teeth were smaller and pointed, and tiny blunt teeth were found on the palatine bone. The lower jaw was widened to form a chin, and their long, lightly-built limbs resembled mammalian limbs. Despite having mammalian characteristics, they're not ancestors of mammals. There are two species of Sauroctonus, Parringtoni and progressus.

Artist impression of Sauroctonus

Another genus of Gorgonopsia is Scylacops, a moderately-sized relative of Progressus Sauroctonus, composed of two species, bigendens and capensis.

Scylacops bigendens, by theropsida

In the subfamily Inostranceviinae, the first genus is Inostrancevia. Inostrancevia had an upright posture of 1-4.3 meters long and strong muscular attachments. They had larger temporal fenestras and smaller eye sockets than less advanced therapsids. The upper jaw contained 10 small back teeth, 6 large incisors, and 2 larger canines. Their lower jaw was composed of 6 large incisors, and 8 small incisors.

An artist impression of an Inostrancevia and a scutosaurus

There are four species of Inostrancevia, Amalitsky, l. Pravoslavlev,Tatarinov, and v. Pravolsavlev.

Pravoslavlevia is another genus of Inostranceviinae. Only one species of Pravoslavlevia is known, Parva. Their total length was around 1.4 meters, making them a particularly small Gorgonopsid.

Artist impression of Pravoslavlevia Parva

The last subfamily of Gorgonopsidae is Rubidgeinae, and the first genus is Broomicephalus. They were small gorgonopsids with long, broad snouts, only about 1.1 meters in total.

Artist impression of Broomicephalus.

Niuksenitia is another genus of Rubidgeinae, but I can't find any information on it.

Prorubidgea is also a genus of Rebidgeinae, containing 6 species, Alticeps, Brinki, Brodiei, Maccabei, Pugnax and Robusta, but I couldn't find any more information on it.

The last genus is Rubidgea, a 2.4 meter gorgonopsid with very large canines, which contains one known species, Atrox.

Artist impression of Rubidgea Atrox.

There are another 19 families of Gorgonopsids, but I'm very tired, and have an exam in the morning. I may return to them, but for now, I do need to sleep.

Who Does The School System Provide For?

2011-05-19T18:15:00.000+01:00

So, I'm still in the school system for a few months, but for the past few years, I've been home-schooled, and still am, I just have to use the school for taking exams and getting resources. Now, I've been too two schools, a first disastrous one where teachers mocked and ignored any misbehaviour done towards those that don't fit in, and a second where they were slightly more helpful at first, until they got a new headteacher and then stopped responding to anything for months, and when they did, it was very unhelpfully. True, I was never a perfect student, and when I did take exams there, or when I used to go in for lessons, I was never that well behaved, but I tend to not behave well unless I'm well provided for. After they stopped me doing exams there because I messed around too much one time, I started preparing to take my exams at a different school, and wow, was this one different. Not only was I given my own personal exam room for the entire time that I'm taking exams there, but I can bring candy if I like, as long as it's in a see through bag, listen to music out loud, leave whenever I'm finished with the exam, and no one minds if I'm slightly late. True, not everyone can be treated specifically for their needs, but those can't do well without it definitely should be. But because of how egotistical the school system is, it almost never happens.

The school system is supposedly an educational system, there to help people not only with the subjects presented to them, but also social and personal value. Usually they gain some sort of social values, whether those are build on being popular and adored, or with a few select friends. Personal value is a little more varied, but most come out of the school feeling at least decent about themselves. But what education do they actually get? Who does the school system support, the students, or the curriculum? Are students actually taught, or just told?

The average class consists of making notes, or answering questions, whether from a text book, novel, video, or the teacher talking or presenting something, but multiple studies show that humans learn better from hands-on learning, or simulation if that's unavailable, though, both of these cost more than lecturing or reading. Education is becoming less and less important in our politics, and in our lives, apparently, yet exam results are becoming more important, how does this work? How can you expect children to actually learn if you can't be bothered to put the effort in to teach them anything except how to get exam results?

But I don't want to blame this on the schools and teachers. No, the main fault of this is on the exams. Exams which teach us nothing for real life, and everything for just having the paper that's needed. When did having a piece of paper become more important than having real life skills?
Personally, I love science and psychology. They interest me, and for what I want to do in the far away future, they'll be useful. But I know that one of my good friends wants to own a bakery, and for her, having those qualifications is useless. We're dragged into doing so many things that hardly anyone is 'specialised' anymore, but socialised. We're all set to follow the same pattern, the same rule. This is what you know, and this is what you'll do with it.

Previously, people would have a general bit of knowledge from schools, then would either go to work or a university or college to specialise. Now, it's near impossible to get a decent job without having a lot of qualifications, because we put so much value in trivial, meaningless and often falsely informative paper.

Great Men Survey Statistics - Lifestyle askmen.com

2011-05-19T02:58:00.000+01:00

So, continuing on the article I previously wrote about, the statistics on askmen.com, last time the questions were on dating, this time, lifestyle. How do men in Canada, Australia, UK and USA differ in this respect?

In the UK, 8% more men think that the drink they order doesn't reflect on them, and are the least fond of scotch, at 18%, and Australian men least prefer Whiskey at 16%. Australian and UK men prefer beer over 5-7% more than Canada or USA, question 4.

Australian men own the least amount of suits at 2%, and USA men have the most, at 20% having over 4. 6% of USA men also have at least 10 pairs of shoes, compared to 14-15% of men in Canada, UK or Australia, questions 5 and 6.

41% of men don't actually look for clothing, but prefer to buy it if they come across something that they like, and USA men regularly shop for clothing the least, question 7, and Australian and UK men care most about trends, while UK and Canadian men care most about being unique. American men care most about price being cheaper, and comfort, question 8.

UK men are eating 2% more fast food than last year compared to the other mentioned countries, and 28-29% of Canadian and American men are eating a lot less fast food this year than last year, compared to 22% of UK and Australian men, question 12. On question 13, only 1% of Canadian men would miss pizza if it were banned, though 40% would miss burgers if they were.

50% of men across the board think that women most admire abs above other physical qualities, highest in Canada and USA, and only 1-2% think that women appreciate men's legs most, highest in UK and Australia, question 16.

64% of American men think work morals have declined, but 24-26% of Australian and UK men think that they are the same as ever, and men find potential career growth the most important factor when looking for a job, and the company location and reputation the least important. 5% more American men say that they would never betray their work ethic, compared to the second highest, Canada at 30%, and only 7% of Americans say that they have, and would again, betray their work ethic. Men in the UK are most open to the idea that they may have to go against their work ethics, at 32%. UK also has the least male sexual harassment in the work place at 78%, but 24% of male Americans that say they have been sexually harassed at work say that they didn't mind. Only 1% of men in any of these countries say they were bothered by sexual harassment, and did something about it, compared to 5% who were bothered by it, but did not do anything about it. Questions 18-21.

30% of men say that if they could get away with it, they would punch their boss in the face, highest in UK at 35%, and lowest in Australia at 26%, though 49% said they would punch a colleague in the face if they could get away with it, also highest in UK at 52, and lowest in Australia at 47%, questions 24 and 25.

48% of men in the UK do not have a credit card, compared to 46% of Canadian men that own one. American men are 3% more likely to have 4 or more credit cards, question 29.
59% of men, highest in Canada at 63%, would take a significantly higher paid promotion, even if it came at the cost of some of their direct reporters jobs, and 44% of USA men would not take the job at that cost, Question 32.

USA men find having a family the ultimate male status symbol 5% more than any other country listed, 2-4% more men in Australia and Canada than anywhere else think that it's having a high profile career, and 4% more UK men think that it's having a beautiful wife or girlfriend. 42-43% of men in USA and Canada believe that you cannot have an online social status, and 33% of men in the UK think that you can if you reveal your real life social status, questions 34 and 35.

31% of Men in Canada and the USA have a 'bucket list' or list of things they want to do in their life, compared to 25% of Australian and UK men. 27-28% of the men in the last two countries say that they don't because it isn't right for them, but 49% of Australian men say they would like to, question 38.

As I mentioned in the last one, I just love statistics, and find comparing them interesting. Make what you will of them, and there's a link to the full statistics and all of the questions in the first paragraph.

Great Men Survey Statistics - Dating askmen.com

2011-05-19T01:18:00.000+01:00

So, I don't usually go on this site, but sometimes I like to check up on the statistics because, well, I like statistics. Today, I was checking up on an article I wanted to read on there, and I found a link to this list of questions answered on the site by men in Canada, UK, USA and Australia in 2010.
Some of these are actually very interesting on what each country votes highest or lowest on, and just what they all answer overall.

One of the ones I found most interesting is that 33% of men in all of the countries either don't believe in the institution of marriage, or don't want to take part in it, and 38% of men in America would not date a woman they wouldn't marry, or that doesn't have 'wife potential', questions 2 and 3 on the site.
Also on the survey, men from the United Kingdom are more likely to not cheat on their partner out of love, compared to 39% in Canada, who wouldn't because it violates their moral standards. Australia has the lowest percentage of men that are very likely to cheat on their partner or already do, at 6%, though only just, and America has the highest at 8%, question 5.

In all countries polled, the lowest stat that men would change about their partner is intelligence, at 2%, and the highest is their attitude, at 16%. Only 13% of men said that they wouldn't change anything about their partner, and only 10% of UK uk polled that they would change their partner's sexual appetite, at least 2% behind the other countries, question 7.

America is the country that phone break ups are most acceptable at 18%, and UK is where text break ups are most accepted, but only at 5% even then, question 9, and if you live in USA, you're more 4% more likely to have to pay for all the dates through the duration of the relationship, compared to 10-12% in the three other countries, and 0% of men believe that the woman should have to pay for all of the dates, across all boards, question 10.

1% of men have set up an account on a social network site to have a private relationship, but 12% know someone who has, question 14, and 3% have used the internet for cheating on their partner, question 15. UK is most accepting of women facebook 'friending' their exes, question 13, and online relationships work out in reality best in the UK, and it's also most commonly a way to meet potential dates in the UK, question 16.

27% of men in the USA make an effort to be romantic very often, but across all the countries, 54% make an effort to be romantic some of the time, question 18, however 18-19 % of men in Canada and USA make the effort for the possibility of sex, compared to 13-14% in Australia and UK, question 19.

Interestingly, men in the UK are 1% behind all other countries in lack of sex satisfaction, and 15% say there's nothing at all that they would change, at least 2% higher than the others, (So us UK females must be doing something right...), and 41% of American men say there is room for improvement, at least 2% higher than the other countries polled, question 22.

8% of men, highest in UK, would tell a woman that he loves her just for sex, and would do so more than once. but 11% of men in the USA would, but wouldn't do it again. In Australia, 65% of men say they would never confess counterfeit feelings for the purpose of sex, and are apparently the most honest in this respect on this poll, question 25.

15-16% of all men in these countries fantasize about public sex with their partner, and threesomes are the most common fantasy at 34%. UK men fantasize 2% more about anal sex than any other country, and are also interested in less common fantasize than the ones provided, question 28, but they're also 3% less likely to tell their partner about their fantasize, because they would be scared that their partner wouldn't be into it. 13% of men are scared to tell their partner about their fantasize because they're afraid of being labelled a pervert by their partner, question 29.

If a male birth control pill was available, 5% more Australian men would take it, at 74%, 10% above Canadian men in this survey, question 30.

20% of American men would not be at all bothered if their partner faked an orgasm, and Australian men would be most offended by this, because of their inability to pleasure their partner, compared to 34% of UK men who would be offended because their partner was lying to them, question 31, and American men fake orgasms more than any other country in the survey, question 32.

2% more American men have had sex with multiple co-workers on multiple occasions, but 54-55% of Canadian and UK men would if they had the chance, question 36.

Men in the UK care 6% less about bra size, but also 10% more of UK men would prefer D-cup or bigger, and only 1% of men in all countries prefer women with A-cup breasts, but 46% would prefer to go for women with C-cup breasts, highest in Canada, question 37.

Oddly, 1% of men in Australia think that women start to lose their looks at 18, 21% think at 20, 0% think they never do, and 38% think 20. In the other 3 we have more expected statistics, with 40 being the most common, followed by 50, and 17-18% of UK and American men think that women never lose their looks, question 39.

To me, this was interesting, and if you want to read the actual statistics, there's the link at the top, and if you want to read the questions I've missed out, those are there too.

Paedophilia: What... Exactly.. Is it?

2011-05-07T23:54:00.000+01:00

So, these days, the news seems to brings out everything involving a child as paedophilia.

Man kills child: paedophilia

Mother gives child botox: paedophilia

Parents take pictures of their own child in the bath: paedophilia

Okay, so these are so more out there things, they obviously do happen, but they aren't the norm in what people mistake as paedophilia.

What we have to do to find the actual meaning of it, is get right back down to the technical definition, and even after we do that, it's not black and white. (Is it ever?)

One of the things that few people understand is that being a paedophile is not actually a crime, as paedophilia is only the attraction to prepubescent children, and not the actual crime of doing anything inappropriate with children. That's like saying that all straight males must touch women, despite how inappropriate it may be. Many paedophiles live very normal lives, and do nothing inappropriate to anyone.

First, there are several types of attractions to younger people, first, adolescent paedophilia, which is 16-18 year olds being interested in children 5 or more years younger than them. Next, is adult paedophilia, which is adults over 18 being interested in children under thirteen. After this, we leave what technically is paedophilia, and move into hebephilia, which is 11-14 year olds, or ephebophilia, 15-19, and if we go backwards for a moment, infantophilia or nepiophilia,which is interest in under 3 year olds.

Even though these are social unacceptable if acted upon, if kept entirely in the mind, or only acted upon in a safe way (With all participants over 18, such as infantalism,) which isn't usually enough to satisfy paedophilia, it's absolutely legal. It's only when it actually leaves that, and the paedophile either starts looking at, or touching children in inappropriate ways. Even then, this isn't actual technical child or adolescent sexual attraction or -philia, unless it's continuous behaviour with at least two children. Otherwise it could be opportunist sexual abuse, or just attraction to that child. Say, if a young adult takes interest in a young adolescent, unless there's a continual pattern of this, either with adolescents previously, or younger children, it isn't paedophilia, but it is child abuse, no matter how consensual it is. (I actually disagree with this sweeping generalisation, as there can be rare healthy relationships with that age difference.)

Another difference that I mentioned before, the sexual opportunist, who will either coerces anyone they can into sex, and younger people are a lot more vulnerable to this, or someone who would resort to rape, either out of sadistic tendencies, mental instability, or just sexual urges, are both not technically paedophiles, even if they do sexual things with children, as they aren't actually interested in the age of the person.

Paedophiles are also incapable of staying in a relationship with a child, even if it is consensual, with a child that does understand, and it being non-sexual, a paedophile cannot wait for the child to become legal for the relationship to properly work, as that would mean the child ageing, and therefore becoming less and less attractive to them.

Due to modern over-sensationalism, not only has paedophilia become one of the least understood -philias, but also has been thrown around by people that have no understanding of it. While I'm against it when it's harmful, to have desires towards younger people, while it is potentially dangerous, and should not be acted on, it's definitely not as uncommon as it's thought to be, and I strongly recommend that anyone feeling that way should seek open-minded and professional help, but only if it is actually paedophilia, and not just an exception, as I've written on here.

Erotomania: Delusional Love

2011-05-03T00:53:00.005+01:00

De Clerambault's syndrome (Named after Gaëtan Gatian de Clérambault, who published a comprehensive review paper on the subject in 1921), or Erotomania, is obsessive, paranoid and unrequited love for a person that either completely doesn't know the Erotomanic, or barely knows them. It's a cause of stalking, and even murder.
The Erotomanic believes that they're loved by the person in return, and are being told so in secret ways, such as body positions or secret looks, or if it's a famous person, in media.
It's not to be confused with unrequited, obsessive love.

The movie Eye Of The Stalker deals with the story of a college student who's professor believes that they are in a strong relationship, and that she returns his obsessive affection, and her mother is the one keeping them apart.

The delusion that the object of their affection must keep their love secret because of their peers, colleagues, or family is extremely common with Erotomania, and may even kill the people they believe to be 'in the way' of their perceived relationship.

It's been re-defined a few times, defined until the early eighteenth century as 'a disease caused by unrequited love', then again in the early eighteenth century as 'the practice of excessive physical love' (Similar to nymphomania or satyriasis.). In the early nineteenth century, it was redefined again as 'Unrequited love in the form of a mental disease', and in the eary twentieth century, it was given it's modern definition as 'the delusional belief of being loved by someone else'.

It's a monomania, which means it can be the only mental problem in an otherwise rational and normal mind, though, it can also be caused by other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.
Erotomanic's decisions become more irrational, obsessive, impulsive, paranoid, and/or even psychotic as they believe the relationship to be developing further. They often start to believe that everything is a sign of the person loving them, and that the person is being manipulated into doing things against them by people around them. The Erotomanic often believe that their love interest started the 'relationship'.

There are some hints that it could be caused by a brain haemorrhage, as in The Journal Of Neuropsychiatry And Clinical Neurosciences 1998, perhaps by interfering with the emotional region of the brain, as shown in a case study here. (I don't fully understand all the biology, as I'm not quite that good at it, so I'll just leave it there for you
to read yourself if you want to, as I'll probably just mess it up, and I wouldn't like to do that.)

In evolutionary psychology, it's explained as a 'pathological variant of a long-term mating strategy', and Psychology Today has the key statistics on an article, stating that almost 70% of patients with Erotomania are female, and female suffers most often had older male 'love' interests, who had high social statuses, but with males their female victims tend to be sexually attractive and younger than them. Erotomanics make up approximately 10% of all stalkers, and coincidentally each Erotomanic episode lasts about 10 years.

Erotomanic stalkers are rare, but definitely not unheard of, and can become very dangerous.

Psychiatry Online has a very good article here on female stalkers, involving Erotomanic, with lots of lovely statistics and studies, and PsychNews has an article about Doreen Orion, who was stalked by a schizophrenic and suicidal female patient.

Updates

2011-04-20T15:25:00.001+01:00

I've been away from here for a while. I know. I'm sorry.
But I'd like to ask a favour. And I'll get to an actual blogpost later, really. Just after this.
http://cheezburger.com/View/4674178304 Go on here, vote it as high as possible, and get this lovely lady on the featured. 5 seconds of your time, and I'll love you forever.
Anyway. I'm going to hopefully put up two blogposts today, one just an update on what's going on in life and what I have planned for my blogs, and the other on some serious stuff.

Okay, so, its already becoming summer in England, I'm in the conservatory, in a bikini top and shorts, and it feels wonderful. There's butterflies outside, and wasps in my orange juice.
I'm not going to be here much over the next few weeks, but you should all be used to that.
There's not much going on in my life, but things should be picking up soon, I hope.
So my birthday is coming up. And what I asked for mostly was prehistoric figurines. I'm a dinonerd, and you should know that by now. On that note, I'm thinking of reviewing my figurines that I do have, and the new ones when I get them, because I want you all to know how much I love them.
Another thing I'm thinking of starting soon, between Cyc and I, whenever I get my Sony Vegas back, is moving into Vlogging, using some of his writing (Because it's so much better than mine.), a bit of my own, and a few random bits too, probably, and I'll let you know about that too whenever it happens.

So that's about all I have to say on that right now, hopefully some of those will happen, if not all of them, and I won't have to make excuses as to why they haven't.

Different Types Of Subs

2011-04-01T01:44:00.001+01:00

So, in my last posts, I've kind of gone a little bit into the differences about subs, slaves and pets, and I'll go more into that, but I haven't yet even mentioned the different types of doms, which I'll do in my next post, but I'll say a little about here too. Though the names of the types of doms are much more interchangeable, and while they are less important in anything other than technicalities, they do still exist.

The difference between subs is usually about the service they give and the amount of control they give up, whereas the difference between doms is usually about the punishment types, and the affection given.

In each type, there are also subgroups, which I'll go into a little also.

(These are meant for guidance, people tend to be more of some things than others, but a mix of others also, as humans can never be entirely classified, like most things, into such small and defined groups)

Submissives

First, I'll go with the obvious option of just plain submissive.

Submissives are usually only into light D/s, and there's very little influence over the submissive's life decisions with this one.

It's usually a mostly sexual thing, with the dom having some small control over the submissive. The submissive usually has responsibility over some household things, but the dom will share the chores, and the submissive has little to no obligations to the dom above other things, and plenty of choice and opinion.

There's usually two types of submissive.

The training sub: A submissive who's either new to D/s, or new to being a sub. Their degree of control and choice tends to decrease as time goes on to a point that they're happy with, and if that leads them into another category, they'll fall into that one instead. It's a very non-permanent and often delicate place to be, where the sub and dom have a lot of discussions about where their training is going, and what both are wanting from each other.

Another type is the genuine submissive, this submissive has found the light, very slight controlled, lifestyle or scene-ing to be their place in the D/s spectrum, and while they know more about D/s and could be more, they choose not to, because they're happy with something that gentle. Usually there are no actual 'punishments' that aren't sexually motivated, and the dominant helps the submissive with the everyday parts of life.

Next, the more common of the higher tier, slaves.

Slaves are usually sexual submissives which enjoy physical punishment to a degree, if not masochistically, but not always. They have a natural enjoyment of servitude, and find both sexual and emotional fulfillment in doing so. They're very controlled, and have little to no choice, and enjoy this.

There are three types of slaves

House slaves

These only take care of things like housework and their dominant's needs, like running baths, cooking food, and cleaning the house. Often the relationship is non-sexual, or the sexual part of the relationship is aside from D/s, but it can also be included in this type of slavery, just very uncommonly. They very much enjoy the servitude over anything else, and get a usually non-sexual fulfillment out of it.

Sex slaves

These are pretty much what it sounds like, slaves completely devoted to their dom's sexual needs, but they don't tend to do much else. Sometimes they do housework, but it's often a sexual experience, such as the 'sexy maid' idea. They are usually into sadomasochism, and enjoy the sexual thrill of control, and/or pain, and pleasuring their dom.

Show Slaves

These slaves are often the best 'well cared for' in the conventional sense, and take pride in their dom's pride in them. They are often sexual as well, and occasionally house slaves, but can also just be dress-up dolls for their dom. They also take pride in how much physical or mental pressure or pain they can take often, or in the extent to which they'll serve their dom. Usually, some exhibitionism is found in show slaves.

Now, the last, and newest type of sub, the pet.

Pets tend to be non-sexual with their dom, but that isn't to say that they can't be, as they certainly can, just not commonly. Generally they tend to have very little amounts of opinion, and sometimes will not even speak. Control and care are the main attributes to a D/s relationship involving a pet, as well as affection, and mutual trust, more than any of the other types. Despite the overuse of the word, real pets are much rarer than any of the other types.

There are four types of pet

Guard pet

These tend to be male pets, that are similar to bodyguards, but can also be female. They enjoy the control of their dom, and enjoy protecting them. It often gives them an emotional fulfillment rather than a sexual one, but it can also be sexual in some rare relationships. These are not common, but they tend to be very loyal, and have a deep connection to their dom.

Animal pet

These are pets which actually act as an animal most of the time, often ponies, kittens or puppies, but others have been heard of. While animal play is common in pets overall, animal pets are specifically attracted to (Emotionally or sexual) animal play. Again, it's usually a non-sexual relationship, where they get emotionally fulfilled by the instruction and complete ownership of the dom.

Love pet

This is where sexual contact is most likely to be in the pet subs, as a love pet is very much giving themselves utterly and entirely to their dom out of genuine absolute love, trust and adoration to their dom. While they are rare, it's one of the strongest relationships possible, as the pet not only enjoys the control of and obeying the dom, they also put their entire life into the dom's hands, usually with no boundaries, or safewords.

(As you can tell, this can be dangerous, and lead to some bad incidents when the love and trust are abused..)

Show pet

These are a lot like show slaves, but tend to also be into animal play, but not consistently. Often their physical appearance and obedience are higher priority, and they tend to be more into exhibitionism, in a sexual or non-sexual sense. They are often very well groomed, often by a professional groomer or their dom, and can take part in pet shows, hence the name, or just be shown around by their dom in public for the specific reason of displaying how well groomed and how obedient they are.

Ten (Stupid) Misconceptions About D/s

2011-03-27T21:57:00.001+01:00

Okay, so recently I started frequenting the IMVU D/s community... And it's trainwreck 90% of the time. Really.
So, I'm going to vent my frustration in explaining the 9 most common things (And one ridiculous one for my own sake.) I've come across which are totally wrong about D/s, and feel free to facepalm at the stupidity of some of these... You may need to.

1. Dominants and submissives are equal.

Seriously. I've come across this personally, and I've heard of it happening before.
Some people believe the "the sub is secretly in control' myth in D/s, which annoys me, but in some light scene subbing, that is the case more or less, and since that's what ICR people are generally into if they say they're into D/s (If they do it in reality at all.) are actually into, I can understand it.
But when people say it actually thinking they're equal in all regards, and that the entire thing is an imaginative game, that does annoy me. That is not even scene subbing, that's just role-play, which is very different to scene subbing, in that during scene, the submissive is really a submissive, and not just pretending to be one, even if only for a short amount of time.
If it's equal, it isn't D/s.

2. Collaring isn't serious.

One thing I hate is velcro-collaring, or frequent, meaningless collaring and recollaring, almost entirely online.
This is usually done without informing the person you previously collared, or were collared by, and sometimes that person is never even spoken to. Sometimes in D/s relationships, it's okay for one or both (Usually the dominant) to be with others in that way or other ways without asking, but it's usually planned out, and the dom and the new sub have decided on it, and thought it through to make sure it's what they both want. Collaring should never be a snap decision with little to no thought.
Sometimes people don't use real collars or even virtual collar, but there is a 'collaring agreement', where the sub knows that they belong to that dominant, and has given their willing consent to that.
Another side of this is that sub's collars aren't always respected. If they have a collar, they're either owned, or they're not looking for anyone to dom them. You should make sure that if they do have a dominant, that they're okay with whatever you're doing before you even hint at it to the sub, and if they don't seem to have a dominant, it's okay to approach the sub to ask, and if they're happy with your actions, and they don't have a dominant, then you can continue. If they have a collar, respect that it means they are not available. Sadly, this isn't done much in the online community.
If the sub's collaring (Whether it's a real collar, or a metaphorical act of collaring) doesn't mean much at all to you, then it isn't D/s.

3. If you're a sub and a dom, you're a switch.

Switch is not a wide term. It doesn't have many meanings. A switch is someone who subs and doms for the same person. If you sub for one person, and dom another, then you aren't a switch, you're a sub and a dom. A switch switches their position in the relationship.

4. Real life D/s doesn't exist.

This one, I can't even believe without the direct quote. I was talking to a girl on imvu about the difference between scene D/s and actual D/s, and in the middle of the conversation, she said this to me:

"But, it doesn't exist in the real world, right? That would just be weird... I mean, how can people, like, own people for real? They wouldn't like it."

(I'm giving her better grammar than she really had, aren't I nice?)

At this point, I just left the conversation. I don't even have anything to add on about this, just that D/s does exist, and the subculture is not even hidden all that much any more in some places.
D/s really exists.

5. Sub, slave and pet is the same thing.

This one is very common, and I detest it. There's a very good description on (one of the only websites which includes pet) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/629613/different_types_of_submission_in_bdsm.html?cat=7, but I'll give you a brief bit of each definition on there for if you don't feel like clicking.

As a submissive you are in the first tier lets say of a Dominant/submissive lifestyle. You submit to your Master, you give up control for long periods of time. However you have your opinions and your choices and you can still make them.

As a slave control is given up completely. The power balance is completely tipped in the Dominants direction. However keep in mind this is a choice the slave makes not something she/he was made to do. Slaves usually are slaves 24/7.

A pet is more on the side of a slave except for one large difference, sex does not have to be involved. In many cases it is not. If you have become a pet it is to give up yourself and obey, you gain pleasure from the control and the obeying not from sexual play. There can be play but it is rare in this kind of lifestyle.

These are the basic differences, though it does go into more of it, but as it isn't perfect.
The main difference between a slave and a pet (Other than the sex bit it does mention) is that pets tend to be cared for, and slaves tends to care for their dom.
That doesn't mean pets don't do anything to help out, they just generally don't do a lot of servitude.
Subs, pets and slaves are all very different.

6. Physical punishment is necessary, or if you enjoy anything resembling punishment, you're into D/s.

I do not like this misconception much more than the last. For one thing, there's a difference between enjoying the act of things used for punishment in D/s, and being punished for something in a D/s relationship.
Punishment in a D/s situation is not pleasurable, it isn't sexual, and it certainly isn't always physical.
You can enjoy being whipped, restrained, or spanked and it can have nothing to do with punishment, just that you're a little kinky.
Unless there's a big element of regret for something that's been done during it, and forgiveness for it afterwards, then it isn't punishment. Unless the sub knows what they've done wrong, and admits they deserve the punishment, you won't get anywhere with any type of punishment.

Another thing is that people assume all punishments are to do with physical pain, like the things I mentioned before. The best tend to be mental or psychological punishments, in my opinion, for most things. A sub will learn better from staring at a wall to think about what they've done for half an hour, or writing lines of what they must not do over and over a hundred times than they will from a couple of canings, and it isn't likely to ever get influenced by your anger.
Physical punishment does not need to be included in a D/s relationship, and you can enjoy the act of being 'punished' without being into D/s.

7. Doms are controlling and damaging, and subs are abused or non-consensual.

I can't stress how much this annoys me. All I have to say on this is that if either of these sentences are true, then it isn't a D/s relationship, it's an abusive relationship.
Doms often have quite a big amount of control over their sub/s, but they are not controlling, and the sub enjoys this treatment, but they aren't being forced.
A real D/s relationship is healthy and consensual.
8. Anyone in a D/s relationship is automatically into kinky/fetish things.

Okay, so technically, if you enjoy a very strong D/s relationship, that itself is kinky, and therefore you are, but a light D/s, or a sexual D/s relationship, is not technically kinky. In fact, enjoying consensual sexual domination or dominating, even just as role-play, is quite normal.
But to assume that any of those people in either of those is into other things is just making a stereotypical assumption. I'm actually into a surprisingly small amount of kinky things outside of D/s, and some pet-play. I actually can't think of anything else at all I like... So that's a good example right there.
People into D/s do not have to be into anything else that's abnormal.

9. D/s is an entirely sexual thing.

Not even scene D/s is an entirely sexual thing. If it is entirely sexual, it isn't technically a D/s relationship, or even being into D/s, it's more of a control/domination/force kink, or fetish, and while these are present in D/s relationships often, I know a few who's sex is completely vanilla, because that isn't part of D/s that they're interested it. Especially with pet subs, the relationship can be, and often are, non-sexual completely.
Another part of this is that a lot of people seem to think that D/s is a way to get sex easily, because subs are assumed to be slutty, or to have low standards. This is entirely not true, I'm so picky that by the time I've told someone all my standards, they've completed a papier-mâché statue of the entirety of Downing Street, and while not all are quite that choosy, 99.9% of the time, a real sub will have at least good standards, if not higher than people that aren't subs. The same can be said about proper dominants.
D/s can be completely platonic, and people in D/s relationships are not easier to sleep with.

10. Submissives want someone to run their lives.

While some do, and some dominants want to honestly help them do this for them to the best of theirs and the sub's ability, most are not looking for their lives to be run.
I already have a lot of idea on what I want to do in my life, and if I was told that I couldn't do this, I'd leave the relationship, because I don't need someone to tell me directly what I can and cannot do in my future, though I would like guidance and assistance and to be pushed to the fullest of my abilities by them, as to achieve my full potential. This is what a lot of non-scene subs are looking for, more than to have someone tell them how to run their lives.
Subs more often want assistance and guidance in life rather than just pure dependency on instructions.

D/s, Animal Empathy, And Some Personal Memories.

2011-03-27T04:12:00.002+01:00

(So in this blog, 'animal' refers to something that is alive and isn't human, even though humans are animals, they're going to be excluded for this.)

So, I'm going to try to lead into this to come to my own conclusion as much as to try to lead you to one also, it's something I've been thinking about more and more over the past... Let's say three years, that's peaked in interest the last half a year or so, and especially more recently with my feeling secure enough to bring it into my current relationship.

So, first off, let's go into the animal empathy bit a little first.
I'm sure most of us have some 'special' connection with at least one type of animal, mostly on a human/animal level, where you feel some sense of leadership over the animal, that it is, in a way, less than you, or less capable, or that you can look after it and/or control it. Some of us feel that especially strong, and others feel it... Well, a lot less. Since I'm definitely not one of the former, I'm only going to go into the latter.
When I was younger, I always felt closer to animals than people, and I still do, but not on a level of human to other animal. More that of admiration, respect on a higher level, and an overall equality. I loved laying with my cat, stretching out in similar ways, nuzzling it and playing with cat toys together. I loved play fighting with dogs, and laying with them on their beds, and barking back and forth (Even if it didn't make any sense), I even loved to mimic things like hamsters. More recently, I've started horse riding, and I absolutely adore it as it gives me such a sense of kinship and equality, and connection with the horses, that we're both equally trying to help each other (Usually), and that pays off for both of us, and afterwards (or before), I give the horse attention and grooming in return for it letting me do so. As well as enjoying the experience, I feel quite envious of the animal being treated so well, and being so useful also. I'll continue this further down, but I'd like to go into my own past a little bit first.

As a child, my favourite games were being a creature, but also being looked after as a creature. There was a prolonged game where my sister and two of her friends had human, well involved roles, and I had a role of an animal, and I would do little but lay on a rug, and eat and drink from bowls, and believe me, this was an amazingly fun game for me, despite what anyone else thought of my role in it. I also very much enjoyed playing 'pony' to the extent of doing 'training' as a game, and being 'groomed' a little, in that way. Cats or dogs were also games I would frequent, along with any other type of animal, real or made up.
What I'm trying to say here, is that as a child, I enjoyed playing animal far more than most, and far more intensely, and I still quite do, but on a higher level. Between these two things, it builds me up quite the mindset of a more animal level, especially in characteristics and emotional needs.

So, early on, about three years ago, I figured out that normal relationships just didn't work for me, and I'm quite into the commitment idea, so it wouldn't do not to be in any, therefore, I had to look outside the norm for that. Of course, having been exploring the internet from a young age, I eventually stumbled into the Dom/sub idea, and immediately fell in love with it. The more I grew to learn about it, the more I liked it, but it still didn't fit perfectly until I found the pet category, about a year later, and I was even more in love with that idea. Now, while there tends to be a lot of information on the slave or sub idea, there's very little on pets, so I suppose I should write a little bit in case you don't feel like searching for a few days, and I'll copy and paste some of the information I have found.
(I'd like to mention now that the pet submissive is no immediate relation to puppy, pony or kitten play... Just a cousin or something. But if anyone wants, I can probably get into those on another post...)

This hasn't always been a classification of a submissive person and is still controversial in some circles. A pet is more on the side of a slave except for one large difference, sex does not have to be involved. In many cases it is not. If you have become a pet it is to give up yourself and obey, you gain pleasure from the control and the obeying not from sexual play. There can be play but it is rare in this kind of lifestyle. This submission is one of the most dangerous because you can lose yourself mentally because you so rarely have thoughts of your own, you usually do not work and although you may discuss things with your Dominant he is last say in all things.

From http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/629613/different_types_of_submission_in_bdsm_pg2.html?cat=7

Now, it obviously varies in different relationships, but I'll admit that is the general gist of the pet scenario. Some may choose to have different things, in the same way people will get different types of dogs. You don't get a poodle if you're looking for a guard dog, and you don't get a pit bull if you want to be around children a lot, and it's the same way with D/s pets.

This submissive has a strong desire to treated like a house pet, typically a dog or cat. House pets receive a lot of attention and care from their Dominants (or “owners”) in much the same way of a typical house pet. This includes being fed, and walked, petted and so on. While in this role the submissive relinquishes any active human behavior such as speaking, walking upright, and in some cases the wearing of clothing. Among the more dedicated, the intensity of this role can include being regarded as an actual pet, complete and total domestication in the sense that no human consideration is wanted and/or given to the pet for the duration of the relationship.

From http://bdsm-advice.com/

Again, it varies from relationship to relationship, and person to person, and even more than that, from mood to mood. There are times where I feel uncomfortable even standing, or speaking, or feeding myself, yet other times I would hate to not be able to do those. The thing with the pet sub is that it isn't a specific pet, and that makes the behaviour as one vary. Sometimes I quite like to be alone, or at least independent in the provided space, and entertain myself with things and look after myself, other times (most of the time, actually) I either want some attention quite desperately, or just don't want to be alone, or with people other than who I'm with, and want to be entirely looked after and cared for.

The pet D/s relationship isn't a TPE relationship (total power exchange) automatically, just like owning an animal doesn't give you complete control over it. A pet may do what it want, but should be trained out of undesirable behaviours, but it can still do what it likes until trained otherwise, whereas a sub, or more definitely a slave tends to have set rules that they should already know. The main difference is that with the other two, there tends to be a lot more spoken about wants and needs than with pets, I tend to find, as being a pet owner is about knowing your pet absolutely so that un-casual talking isn't needed. (That is, talking that isn't just for entertainment and/or enjoyment), more than almost anything else. While some talking is needed, obviously, it should be more or less that either the pet accepts anything that's said wrongly from their owner, and the owner knows what to say and do. Pets generally should not and will not accept physical things they don't like/want, unless they've agreed to it beforehand.

Another thing many people don't tend to get is that pets have no real obligation to other people whether they're doms, subs or otherwise, unless trained otherwise. Personally, I currently will not respect anyone who doesn't give me a reason to, no matter what their status, unless I'm feeling in a particularly obedient mood. Simply because, as a pet, you don't have any obligation to any human social structures except what you're train to oblige to. Some may see this as disrespectful, but you do have to think, do we care if a cat or dog comes up to us uninvited? Generally, no, it's usually a pleasant experience, so (once we understand the system of the D/s pet) why shouldn't it be with that type of pet?

So, while this turned out more as an info session than a personal thing, I think it's quite a bit of both, and I feel happy to leave it here. If anyone has anything they'd like me to add, or anything you think I've done wrong, or haven't covered properly, please leave me a comment, or with any questions, I'm happy to answer those too.

Pro-Life? Pro-Children's Suffering (God loves abortion.)

2011-03-09T19:57:00.003Z

I'm definitely pro-choice. Definitely. I don't have the right to tell people what to do with their body, or with anyone else's, unless there's a really, really good reason to get involved, in which case there should be a fair decision by an educated panel.

But with my own, I can say what I want, right? I'd only expect that much respect in return.

Now, on a personal level, directed towards myself only, I would actually never have an abortion without a really, really good reason. Personally, I think if I get myself into that situation, I should be responsible to deal with it. (Excluding something like rape, which I do hope never happens, or a sudden huge change in circumstance that would really damage a child's life, in which case, for the sake of the thing itself, I would.)

But can I tell other people what to do, or even what I think they should do if they don't want my opinion?

No, of course not, why would I be able to do that?

Once again, I am very pro-choice, and that is my personal choice on the matter.

There are so many situations where pro-life makes huge problems for a lot of people, even those completely uninvolved with the child themselves.

When more children are born through less abortions happen, first, what do we do with them all?

The population is going up, more and more jobs are being given to technology so less are available for humans, we have so many problems already that need fixing, including overcrowding.

Though, upon saying there are born being born, there are also more living a lot longer, without the ravages of disease as much, there's less deaths from natural occurrences, and as we have better health and better medicine, more are being born anyway, so I'm not saying pro-life is the problem, that's like saying social security is the debt problem, just unlike social security, it actually is part of the problem.

There are so many children who are born into bad situations, parents who don't want them anyway, products of rape, abusive parents, just people that shouldn't have children, and wouldn't, if abortion wasn't such a taboo in some places, still.

Come on, this is 2011, there should be very, very few taboo subjects that make logical sense nowadays. This means the children don't have the best opportunities in life, and therefore don't do well, and a lot more end up on benefits, which means you're paying for them in taxes. Even if children being raped, neglected, indoctrinated, sold, and otherwise abused doesn't get to you, you'll lose your own money through it. Do you really want that, you selfish bastards?

Even if you are a complete religious holy-than-thou type, there's no reason to be against abortion from as early as they say you should be. The bible clearly states that a fetus is not a human life, and to be honest, why should it be? They are not properly sentient, so they should be on the same levels as other animals to you. They do not think in a constructed and consistent manner, therefore, they should be on the same level as dogs or cats when you decide to whether or not to kill them, and besides, God kills babies, children and pregnant women in the bible, just for revenge, do you really think he cares? You should be thinking of him as the one putting the idea of abortion in their minds, especially since he's a cruel bastard that wants you all to die and suffer anyway.

"You had sex without being married, fuck that, get rid of the baby, do it, now!"

You heard it from God, not me, now, go spread the word.

And get this stuck in your head while you do.

Charlie Sheen: Please Shut Up And Act.

2011-02-26T18:38:00.003Z

Well, anyone keeping up with the news has probably hear about Charlie Sheen's narcissistic, idiotic and slightly anti-semitic comments that caused the 2011 season of Two And A Half Men to be cancelled.

He claims that he's already sober after hardly any time in rehab, though he obviously still needs a lot of help. His comments were fueled by Chuck Lorre and the other members of the show's cast and team trying to get him the help that he so badly needs, but may directly be a reply to Lorre accusing Sheen of 'having reckless sex and a drug problem', which he certainly does have. Rumours are going around the Sheen is an anti-semite, after he called Lorre his Hebrew name (Chaim Lavine) in a derogatory way on the Alex Jones radio show, though Sheen claims that he was

"referring to Chuck by his real name, because [he] wanted to address the man, not the [expletive] TV persona,"

This is just a bad move all round for Charlie, as he earns around 1.2 million dollars per episode, but won't be paid for the four episodes that were cancelled from season eight, though, the two other main cast members will likely be paid for those, Angus Jones - $500,000 dollars and Jon Cryer - $550,000, both per episode, so they don't lose out because Mr Sheen decides to have a bitch-fit, because he can't get over that he isn't 'Mr Perfect'. Charlie says that he will find more work without Two And A Half Men, but with this conduct, I don't believe too many people will be willing to hire him.

Sheen says that he must have embarrassed Lorre

"in front of [Lorre's] children and the world by healing at a pace that [Lorre's] un-evolved mind cannot process."

He claims that Chuck Lorre took money out of his, his family's and the cast and crew's pockets, and that he violently hates Mr Lorre.

Charlie also called Alcoholics Anonymous a 'bootleg cult' with a 5% success rate, and that he does not have a disease, that he's 100% better, and cured himself with his mind.

Sheen insulted every woman that he's casual slept with, saying that they have 'that night' and he'll forget them as soon as they leave. He's currently on a vacation with his girlfriend, Natalie Kenly, a 24 year old graphic designer, pornstar Bree Olson and originally his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Brooke Mueller but she left, apparently after a huge fight.

He says he's close to securing a 5 million dollar per episode show on HBO, 'Sheen's Corner' to RadarOnline, though an HBO official says that there is absolutely no truth in the story, despite it being everywhere now.

Sheen says that he

"urge[s] all [his] beautiful and loyal fans who embraced this show for almost a decade to walk with [him] side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong."

Though, how many of us are willing to do that when he clearly is in the wrong here. I hope for the show's sake, and for Charlie's sake, that he makes a very humble public apology very soon, and goes back to get the help he needs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/sheen.ew.tv/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/charlie-sheen-anti-semite-half-men-suspension/story?id=13006633

http://gossiponthis.com/2011/02/03/jon-cryer-two-and-a-half-men-relies-on-the-internet-to-get-updates-on-charlie-sheen/

http://www.okmagazine.com/2011/02/natalie-kenly-charlie-sheens-new-girlfriend-24-is-a-marijuana-bikini-babe/#more-2378842

http://www.gossipcop.com/charlie-sheen-hbo-show-sheens-corner-5-million/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/charlie-sheens-show-halts-production-12997826

Anonymous, Jeremy Kyle, Tyra Banks, David Pakman > Westboro Baptist Church, USA's Most Hated Family

2011-02-24T23:30:00.009Z

You know, some days things happen that just give me hope in the world, while simutaniously making me laugh at it's horrific stupidity.

(On that note, I've stopped coming up with descriptions of people's stupidity, and will now just call them 'A stupid' or 'Stupids' for ease.)

One of these days was today, when Anonymous quite literally took down Westboro Baptist Church, in a glorious interview, during which they actually hacked one of their websites, and put up a message after WBC apparently received this letter from Anonymous, then replied to it in a suspiciously fast, and immature way, shown here.

As you can see from that, we're dealing with stupids of the most dangerous kind, religious obsessive fame whores.

Anyway, so you don't have to look yourself, if you haven't already seen it, here's the interview.

And the cached copy of website referred to that Anonymous hacked in annoyance at their stupidity can be found here.

(Hey, does anyone else picture anonymous like this:

I do.)

Anyway.

I really don't need to describe the horror of WBC, when there are so many people who already do it so well.

Here, some sickening images of child indoctrination, mind control, and overall fucked-up-ness to the point of 'Wait, which way is up?'. When you're born into the 'church', and when you even think of questioning a little, here's what happens.

Now, I generally don't like day time television. Talk shows are not my cup of tea in the slightest, unless they're ridiculously hilarious, e.g Jerry Springer, but here's two talk show hosts, first Tyra Banks, then Jeremy Kyle (And two other people) both ripping the spokesperson from WBC to shreds, as if they weren't already in those. Enjoy.

It tells you plenty about the 'church' in all of those, but I'll just round up the facts.

WBC has under 100 members, almost all of the same family, and was started in November 1955 by Fred Phelps (Anyone still think of this guy when we say Fred?)
It's rejected by every other religious group, but describes itself as 'Primitive Baptist and Calvinist'.
It's officially a hate group and a cult, not a church as it claims to be.
According to the WBC members, every death is God's mad punishment for being 'fag-enablers' if not actually 'fags'. (Notice the quote marks.)
They've even stooped as low as to have some members picket a nine year old murdered female's funeral, earlier this year.
There are multiple efforts against their picketing, going as far as to ban them from entering the UK. Various UK religious organizations supported this decision, proving that some despicable things bring us all together in disgust.
The common motto against WBC, started in 2001, two days after the 9/11, by Jared Daily, then 19, is "Not today, Fred."
There have been various entertaining and intelligent counter-protests, which can be found on wikipedia here.
The WBC is almost definitely a publicity stunt gone wild, but that isn't to say that they don't believe the message they're spreading, as at least most probably do unquestionably.

Let me leave you with one final thing that's both hilarious and disgusting; a documentary on 'USA's Most Hated Family'.

It is a playlist, so you will have to click a link this time, but it's worth it. It's about half an hour long all together, with one that's a separate part of a different BBC program.

Country Music Is To Blame.

2011-01-31T19:02:00.003Z

People have been going on for ages about how rap, rock and metal music are responsible for crime, for violence, and even for satanism. Well, I want to make a bold claim, okay? Now, remember that there's no logical proof for any of the arguments for other types of music, okay?

Country music is to blame for heartbreak and alcoholism.

Too bold? Well, listen. I have proof. What is most country music about? Drinking, right? Or heartbreak. Of course, I haven't really heard any, but do I really need to for this? Come on, I'm just making a point here. They have lyrics about how they drink to make things better, and how their sweethearts run off with their neighbours and stuff, so it's got to be their fault. And you know what I think we should do about this? Let's ban it. Let's ban all country music that mentions alcohol, or heartbreak. See, that'll fix it all.

Also, I think that games that involve simulation teach us to be manipulative, and make us want to control others. See, here's how I figure it: In simulation games, you control people, right? So, you must learn to control people in the real world too. Just like violent games make us want to go out and car-jack, and shoot people. Right? And like sci-fi games teach us to fly spaceships. We don't want kids going that either, do we?

So, there you have my theories. Stop listening to country music, stop playing simulations, and stop your kids doing these too. They're just plain dangerous.

Amy Chua: What the fuck?

2011-01-31T16:14:00.005Z

Okay, so, watching a video by The Young Turks on youtube, there's a video on a woman named Amy Chua, who wrote an article on how she (and in general, she says, Chinese parents,) raise their children, and this really irritated me.

She's basically saying that pushing children, not caring about their self-esteem, and forcing your bias on things on them.

Okay, so there are all in all, not that many things that annoy me in general. Sure, I get annoyed a lot, but not by one specific thing. I'm generally a build-up person. Give me a day of things going wrong, then someone shows me a video of... I don't know, Sarah Palin demanding all dogs must be cages forever because they're a threat to the tea party (Which she hasn't said- yet.), then I'll start getting annoyed, but this just did.

Her list of things her children have to do is just insane, it includes being top of every class (Excluding gym and drama), having to play the piano and violin but no other instrument, and not socialising outside of school. The full list is on the link above in the first sentence. Is she insane? You know, I agree on strict parenting. I'm for that. Children need structure and rules. They need parents that they respect as authority and obey. But this is insane. Children also need freedom, they need their parents as people who listen, and care about their opinion.

I strongly believe that a massive part of being a parent is trusting the children to make decisions on their own. When you stop doing that, you stop giving the child an individuality, and you're just trying to make the child exactly how you want them, which will not work. Children are people, and yes, they're changeable, and influenced by a lot, especially their parents, which is all the more reason not to try to make them into a little doll.

If you want your child to be a dancer, send them to dance, and don't let them quit. Give them good reasons not to, and they will start to enjoy it after a few years.

If you want your kid to be a cook, show them the kitchen early, give them cook books, teach them what you know.

If you want your kid to be a writer, give them books, give them a writing tutor, teach them grammar and things at a young age.

But there's not use in it if the kid really doesn't want to.

I really hope if I ever have a child, it'd be into science, and writing, and psychology, and things, so if I still feel that way, I'll send them to a science class, give them psychology books, teach them grammar, but damn it, let them do what they want to.

Amy Chua banned her children from picking their own extracurricular activities. All of them. They had no choice on that at all. Sure, pick one or two for them, like I said, I'd get my child to take psychology or science or english, but stopping them from choosing any of their own learning subjects is just too far. But coming from a woman who insists her children are not allowed in school plays, to have sleepovers, or any type of dates, as friends or as anything else, what else do we expect.

One thing she says on a child getting 'bad grades' (B), is that

Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace."

But

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

I like this. I like how this woman is so plainly unafraid of being racist, and talking about behaviours which deeply damage children's self-image, and self-worth.

The Chinese parenting system of children's self-image is that children have that to begin with, and they don't deserve it. What? Are they out of their fucking minds? We have so much proof that children learn self-worth from their upbringing, and the people around them as they grow up. Sure, they praise the children once they get there, but for every failure, there's shaming,

punishment, and even full blown abuse. My non-existent God, what are you teaching these children?! Just think it through, it's so fucking stupid. I really cannot stress enough how damn moronic these ideas are.

My ideas on the parent/child relationship are very 'Western' apparently. I believe that, as Amy's husband does, parents are responsible for the children, they chose to create the child, or at least to keep and bring them up, so they'd better do at least a decent job of it, or at least try to. The kid's job is to be a kid, not to look after and fulfil the wishes of their parents, like Chinese parents do. The parents are supposed to look after their kids, because their kids are they're there because of the parents, not for their own accord.

This next bit actually has me gritting my teeth and pulling at my hair in frustration of oh god how can you be so fucking stupid?!

Over trying to get her seven year old child to play this song, she says this in favor of coercion,:

She punched, thrashed and kicked. She grabbed the music score and tore it to shreds. I taped the score back together and encased it in a plastic shield so that it could never be destroyed again. Then I hauled Lulu's dollhouse to the car and told her I'd donate it to the Salvation Army piece by piece if she didn't have "The Little White Donkey" perfect by the next day. When Lulu said, "I thought you were going to the Salvation Army, why are you still here?" I threatened her with no lunch, no dinner, no Christmas or Hanukkah presents, no birthday parties for two, three, four years. When she still kept playing it wrong, I told her she was purposely working herself into a frenzy because she was secretly afraid she couldn't do it. I told her to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.

I'm sorry, but you're making a seven year old practice non-stop for a week, not letting her eat, or drink, or even use the bathroom during hours or practice, to get her to play a two minute song. That is fucking insane. I'm actually shaking in how angry this makes me. Oh, and she says that none of this is insulting or damaging the child because:

Then, out of the blue, Lulu did it. Her hands suddenly came together—her right and left hands each doing their own imperturbable thing—just like that. ... "Mommy, look—it's easy!" After that, she wanted to play the piece over and over and wouldn't leave the piano. That night, she came to sleep in my bed, and we snuggled and hugged, cracking each other up. When she performed "The Little White Donkey" at a recital a few weeks later, parents came up to me and said, "What a perfect piece for Lulu—it's so spunky and so her."

Okay, so yay, it worked, she forgets the suffering now, and other parents are so fucking amazed at how wonderful your child is. But the damage of doing this kind of thing to children over and over, of degrading their worth if they don't do what you say... It's almost irreversible unless you have a lot of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

What she basically has to say in the last bit is that Western parents care too much about their children's ego, and their self-image, and their individuality and their worth as people, and Chinese care more about preparing and arming their children with skills for the future.

All I can say is that if you don't stroke your children's ego just a little, you'll end up stroking their... Well, we can see where I'm going with this.

The last thing I have to say on this pretty much just hey, lady, shut up. You're a terrible parent. Stop teaching others how to fuck up their kids. I know someone raised on very strict guidelines, where the very best was expected, and the punishments were damaging to his mental and physical health, and you know, that is just plain fucked up.

(When I say specifically 'Chinese parents' I'm using the term Amy Chua is, not my own knowledge, as I don't actually know that much on which parents do, and don't do this. She does have a note that where she says Chinese, she means anyone who does this.)

Also, there's a wonderful post mocking her parenting here.

School Shootings: Explainable

2011-01-13T01:28:00.011Z

So, I just finished watching a documentary on the Columbine massacre, (I'm supposed to write an essay for an exam on that sometime in the future, so expect one on here sometime soon.), and the last line of it was something about how unexplainable it was, and how could two teenagers do something so horrific. To be honest, I almost laughed. I almost went into that lovely state of semi-worrying giggling that follows hearing something ridiculous.

And it is, just so very, very ridiculous.

To understand this, you have to understand what it is to, not once, not twice, not even once a week, but every day, every lesson, every break, be tormented and tortured by people who you see being perfectly civilised to other people, so much less worth it than yourself. Now, I'm not saying this out of spite (Okay, maybe a little.), or out of hatred (Seeing as I didn't know the people really, I had, and still have, no reason to feel anything other than disgust towards their behaviour.), but knowingly so. Knowing that I could do better than them, that I was more attractive than most of them, that I was more interesting, more capable, than them. Perhaps not all of them, but a good deal of them at least. Sure, they were decent people alone. Some of them had good talents (One, I know was a brilliant female football player, another a wonderful singer, a third was a good animator, among less memorable others.), others didn't, as you'll find with any group of people. The natural losers, the natural winners, that's just how it goes, and I know that.

So, I'm not saying this because I'm shallowly hating them for anything that happened, sure I'm a little spiteful, as anything with the ability of thought would be. A dog will be spiteful if you repeatedly kick or step on it. A cat will scratch you if you never pay it any attention but to pull it's tail, or clip it's ear. Even a hamster will bite if it's never touched but to be pulled around. It's a natural reaction to this treatment.

But knowing that you can do better, that you are better than the majority of these people, of these shallow, immature, children... It 's a very difficult thing to not feel spiteful towards them for when you are, in the words of the documentary I watched earlier, the loser of the losers. Where when you walk into a room, the temperature drops with the hate put your way, where sitting at the same table as someone puts them down a social status unless they torment you just for existing long enough to be in secondary school, where walking down the hall, or opening your locker to change your books is an invitation for them to give you a whole new form of hate.

And we wonder why these people murder, we wonder why these people end up killing at such a young age.

Sure, some are just born like it, some have brain damage that makes it seem viable, but most, most of these children, most of these juveniles that go on to murder their peers go through hell. Whether it's the school, home, or even on the streets, or in the current culture, online, it's no wonder these kids do what they do. In the words of Bob Geldof, about the school shooting by Brenda Ann Spencer in the song I Don't Like Mondays, that 'the silicone chip inside her head got switched to overload.', when secondary, or high school, puts us under so much pressure that unless you're flanked by support from your peers, or at least, as long as you're not regularly under attack from them, it's pretty easy to snap.

And what support do you get for this? What do the teachers that hear, that know, that watch these things happen do? I've had... About two or three teachers out of two schools full of teachers, actually do anything to hint that they're doing anything, (How many actually were... I'll never know.) I strongly believe that if I had owned anything that would have worked as a weapon, there were times I would've killed as many of those people as I could. I would have delighted in watching them suffer at one point, to see them get that side of it for once. Of course, I knew this was wrong, and, mostly, I had nothing to use for a weapon, so I didn't.

In a lot of cases, as in, almost all of them, the people that do this are rejected, isolated, hated by their peers, and that drives them, in their emotional immaturity or their undeveloped ability to cope with these things as they're rarely left alone to happen in younger social settings, to kill. In the words of Nightwish, The Kinslayer, "Time to die, poor mates, you made me what I am." almost entirely explains why these things happen. Now, I'm not blaming this entirely on their peer's treatment of them, (Though, what can you expect when you torment people five days a week for years?) part of the problem is our lack of ability to deal with this happening. Teachers, T.As, the people who are supposed to help, I've watched as these people just shake their heads at this behaviour, and shrug it off. I've come to them in tears with my tormentors still in sight, waiting for the teacher to leave, (Though, why they bothered to wait is still beyond me.) as they sighed, and told me to be careful and not get on anyone's bad side. When they've been 'a little too busy' to deal with an 11 year old who runs to them in tears because everything she had brought to school was stolen from her. When trying to explain is a cause for mockery and only increases what you get from the other children in your class.

A school is a place where any justice that exists in the real world is mythical.

There is no safety from no racial, religious, sexual, or any other discrimination. It's rare for anyone to do anything about this things once they get to a certain point. Where there's no point in asking for help, because it won't be found. Where asking for understanding from anyone is asking far, far too much. How is this really different to the real world? Because in the real world, there's escape, there's people who are paid to help you, there's the addition of most people having some ability to cope with that actually, it doesn't matter all that much if you wear black or pink.

Okay, it's not all that much different, but at least if you're being bullied that much when you're out of school, you can leave if you really want to.

But I did escape. After just over a year at my first secondary school, about three years ago now, my mother took me out of school, because we'd tried everything we could, and we could do nothing to stop what was going on, and I was deeply depressed, refusing to get out of bed for fear of what would happen if I did, spending hours at my computer because there I could blur every line of reality that existed, where I could be anyone, where I could be someone, where I could fake importance. That was my life. I was far, far too scared to leave the house, getting me into the back garden was cause for celebration. The only places I'd go were at least an hour away, where the people who knew me from school wouldn't be, because if I was around town, around the next towns over even, my former peers would find me, and make sure I knew how much they 'missed' having me at school.

After two years of weekly therapy, I felt more confident in myself, despite that I was still bothered by people from my first secondary school. (In fact, if I go out at the wrong times, as in, any time school isn't in session, alone, they still bother me today.) Some of them weren't, and aren't, kids that were at school at the same time as me. Sometimes people come up to me and ask me if I am who I am, and are obviously a few years younger than me. I was, and am, still very immersed in computers and the online world, but I had regained some sense of the lines between fantasy and reality.

At this point, fourteen years old, and still in weekly therapy, I decided to return to a different secondary school. Apparently, I was still a loser among losers, and soon the same treatment as I was used to from my first school returned. So, at this point, I quickly returned to almost being in the same state as before. I sunk back into depression. It hurt, and it still does, and I hold scars, both physical and many emotional, from those times, but I stand proudly knowing that I escaped, that I didn't give into that urge to do any fatal damage to either any of them, or to myself, and that I was able to make other people's lives easier by helping them out, even by being the shield. Being the one that took that instead of someone else.

And mine wasn't even all that bad. I had a few friends.. Sure, most weren't real friends, they didn't like me that much, they'd rather not talk to me in public, and one of my friend's still doesn't that much. My best friend, since I was around 2 or 3, doesn't talk to me in public, as not to damage her reputation, because I tell her not to. The rest... Well, when I left the school, they had no reason to talk to me that much. The only one that stayed, I stopped talking to a year or so later because they abused my trust in them. When I started the next school, I had another friend, who left to go to a different school because she was bullied also, and couldn't take it. To be honest, she really wasn't all that bullied until she was friends with me. I guess I blame myself a little for that, for making one of the only people who stood by me have to leave the school.

In my second school, I found that by misbehaving, by being cruel to my undeserving teachers, and by generally making a nuisance of myself, some people would let me sit with them, some people would let me be in their group for a bit. Though, they also got some grief for it, and I feel sad for that too, that more people who would at least pretend that they liked who I pretended to be, took any hurt for that. But it was the same situation as before, almost entirely, in the end.

Anyway, this is too much about me there, and I'm sorry, this is the first time I've put any of those out in the open. There's still a lot I'm not going to go into, but this isn't about me anyway.

What is it about those people that's so different? What is about the people that are the 'faggy nerds', about the 'loser geeks', the 'gay dorks', that's so different to you? What makes you able to judge whether or not these people need you to make their lives hell?

I'm not saying what they did was fair, but neither is what you did to them.

Look at these teenagers, Eric Harris, and Dylan Kelbold, who between them killed 13 people.

Do they really look that different? Do they look 'evil'?

Or Luke Woodham, who killed two people because 'life had wronged him', and this is how it feels to be the subject of your peer's torment.

Or these preteens, who killed five people.

Would you pick Jeff Weise out of a crowd? His peers did, leading him to kill 9 people in revenge.

Pekka-Eric Auvinen put out endless warnings to what he would do, including putting a video about a massacre happening as it did, on his youtube page. If only he hadn't been pushed to this extreme by the constant, torturous bullying he experienced, as he was a model student, excelling academically and philosophically.

Or Tim Kretschmer, who was described as a "Lonely and frustrated person, who felt rejected by society." Perhaps if he had felt less rejected, 16 people, including himself, would still be alive today.

I'm not saying any of this was okay, it wasn't, in the slightest. There were so many ways this could have been avoided. True, there may have been other reasons, mental health problems, home life, etcetera, but perhaps if they hadn't had as much as they did at school time. Perhaps if they were called their names, for once, instead of 'fag', 'retard', or just being told to die, nameless. Perhaps if they hadn't been spat on, pushed around, or beat up. Perhaps if people cared more about what they had to say, rather than what they listen to or what they wore. Maybe a lot more kids would've at least had a chance to live their dreams.

These things don't just happen, they don't just snap after one time, and start packing heat. It takes weeks, months, even years sometimes, for them to plan, to get what they need, to give hints. It only takes one person to see the hints, it only takes one person to save lives. Maybe, just maybe, if the situation had been different, if they hadn't been so rejected, so alone, they wouldn't have had to go to such extreme measures.

So, when you mourn the world's loss from the people who've died in school shootings, just try to find the compassion to mourn the killers, who are victims too. Not as understandable victims, but they were victims too. They still were in enough pain, were feeling so degenerated by the world, so let down, than they felt they had to do this. It just happened that they were able to get the right equipment, and that their plans worked far, far too well.

Would you have picked me out of a crowd for being lost, rejected, contemptuous and volatile enough to be planning out how to murder my peers at 12?

Because I sure as hell would've tried if I'd had a chance, in all honesty.

Banning Internet Porn In UK? (random rant)

2011-01-08T17:51:00.003Z

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/internet-porn-block-uk-co_n_799034.html

http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/12/19/all-internet-porn-to-be-blocked-in-the-uk/

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3308449/Porn-block-on-PCs.html

What the fuck?

Seriously? In the country?

Where the fuck are we supposed to get sex ed?

I didn't get any serious sex ed until like... Ever. Seriously, by the time the school got there, I already had my favourite sites bookmarked. Okay, I say sites, I was, and always have been, a hentai/simdate person. Real people just kind of suck. Anyway, why would I tell you that? Because I actually don't think it's something to hide. Porn is a pretty cool thing, I mean, I don't even get off to it any more for personal reasons, and I still like to glance over the sites I like.

Plus, if it gets blocked, what exactly do you think I should use if I ever reproduce, to teach them sex? You think I'll sit down, and have a nice calm talk about human reproduction? If anything, it'll be something like "You know what we saw those animals do in the zoo that time? Go find a human that likes you, and do it." Then there's the whole contraception thing, but that I can do. But really, all I want to do it head any child I'd have in the way of simdates, porn, hentai, whatever it may prefer (Hopefully it wouldn't be totally against simdates, as those are pretty damn useful for dating tips, in all honesty.), and say "Here, do this. Enjoy."

On a less future based thing, how exactly do you keep the kids off each other if they can't get off to something else? We all know statistics can prove anything, so I'll just give it a general guess and say that almost all those kids doing it to porn will go out and do it to each other instead if you take away their internet porn. If you want to protect the children, protect them by letting them go on whatever they like that's free and legal, as long as it's not overly weird... Or if it is, don't check. Your child can get off to goats doing bear cubs while a midget covers himself in spaghetti sauce and gets a cow to lick it off him while spanking the cow with a large feather if they really want, as long as you don't have to see, who cares?

Rant over.

Why I'm not updated/New design.

2010-12-18T07:17:00.005Z

Well, it's been awhile... Almost a month, and that isn't because I'm not here, or forgetting about this. No, I'm actually here every day, and while I keep finding things to write about, I've past the last two things I've found over to Cyc instead, because I'm just... Not that motivated. One of those was this post, which I found out about after he put up the one before it, and while I'm sure he's done it better than I ever could, I was intending to write it as an add on to his, but, well, I didn't, and just passed it over instead. The other was something else along those lines, but about an actual crime, which I'll link to here when he writes it. (So, no hurry or anything, but this isn't complete until you do.)

Anyway, other reasons. Well, obviously Christmas. Now, Christmas is one of those things I keep thinking "Well, I do like it but- Mother! Keep focused on the food for five minutes, please? Father, leave her alone please? She's busy. But Dani, I don't WANT to get up at 3..." When I think of Christmas, this is generally the scenario. My mother makes every effort to make it nice, my father loses his temper, and my brother wakes me up at a ridiculous time, as all children do on Christmas. So, I tend to get quite depressed and such around this time, which gets me unmotivated, and generally most things don't happen. Plus there's the whole thing of getting presents and all that. That stops me doing things too.

Other reasons involve having started doing a few more things, including a game which we'll come back to when I mention site design, psychogenic pain from my anxiety disorder, a dramatic increase in stress, and the cold making me not even want to get out of bed. So, due to stress and anxiety, as well as that I'll be away from home for a while around the end of December to the beginning of January, don't expect anything good from me for quite a while. I'll probably put up some new things at some point, but I have exams and things until about June, then I'll be trying to get out of here after that. But hopefully, at some point before next year, I'll be able to fully take time to be back on here and post things very often, but I can't see myself having a whole lot of time or inspiration to put into blogging for quite a while, but I'll still be putting poetry up on my other blog often enough, since even if I don't have anything new to write, I still have a lot archived to put up, so feel free to look at that one instead for a bit.

Well, I think that's everything on that. Now, site design. My blog has been quite... underdeveloped for a while, but I think now I've fixed that finally. I actually came up with a blog name I like, and I'll now refer to the game I mentioned earlier. If anyone else has played Star Ocean: TLH, you'll know that a Lemurisian is an inhibitor of planet Lemuris, known for their symbology skills, and their short stature. For anyone else, there's a very short wikia page here. Part of why I chose this was because my second favourite character in the game is Lymle, who is a Lemurisian, and partly because it's a very closeted joke on my height, which, while I'm not overly small, I'm generally smaller than average, and that makes me sad. I also avidly support Faize/Lymle, which has nothing to do directly with this, but I'd like to mention it. The rest of it... Just went together well.
I created the header to go with that change, and I thought I did quite well with it, with some critique from Cyc, who I also created a blog header for, but I won't link again, as I've done that twice in this post already, if you want a link to that, go up to the first paragraph.

Other new things include the background, which I also created myself, and had absolute hell trying to get it right on the page, and just gave up and left it like that, some opinions buttons since I know people hate commenting, just click one of those instead and I'll be forever thankful, I also changed the colour scheme to green instead of... However I had it before, adding share buttons, and a pageviews counter as well as hits. Some of my old posts don't seem to have picked up on the changes to font and some colours yet, so I hope those will get to it soon, but I'm not sure. I think that's all, so enjoy the changes, and I'm sorry that I won't be able to pay any proper attention to my blog as much as I have before.

The Not-So-Dystopian Future

2010-11-28T22:37:00.002Z

"Somewhere far off in a dystopian future, every action is controlled, we all fit perfectly into a system that we know nothing of, that uses us for experimental and dangerous processes, that has no use for our ideas, personalities, intelligence, only for to drag us all into it's agenda..."

While I could continue to do this whole post in that way, I shan't, because that would get me no where.
There are stories in every language, in every culture, of some future systematic abuse, of some way that the government, or something similar to that, is doing something to control the entirety of humanity, usually aside from a small underground community.
I think, what we don't realise, is that we're already had this. That this controlled universe that we've always feared, has already happened, and we don't even realise it.

But it isn't something cybertronic, or a drug, or anything else physical. No, it's a thing I'm sure you're familiar with called 'Religion'.

Now, religion works in a lot of ways to be a very effectively adapted mind control. It generally tries to induce people into it at a young age, where they're impressionable, and easily convinced, where the stories don't seem ridiculous, and where the adults are always right, or when you're in a state to cling to something, anything, that says it has answers, and will help you. Not always, mind you, there are other ways and reasons that people turn to it for.

When you start getting into it, here comes the promises, whether it's that God will bless you with a child if you come to church every fucking Sunday of your life, or that when you die, you'll get a million women at your feet. This is what someone I talked to recently called the 'honey' of it. That by promising you these things, whether it's a comforting being to talk to, or something you can blame things on when they go wrong, it's so much easier to just accept it.

By giving you these things that you can just accept, by telling you what is what, and teaching you things that are easy to understand, they stop your need to find things out for yourself. So instead of learning things, and discovering things yourself, you only know what they let you know, and that way, you stop being so much yourself, as what they want you to be, which is the same as everyone else in that situation.

So while only getting involved in it, you're docile and sated from their promises, and you feel informed, and important, because they tell you what you want to hear, what makes you feel important. And then what?
Say you aren't a child when you're brought into it, say you're an adult, with your own morals, ethics, and opinions. These will be the next to be changed, and set as theirs instead. Of course, they'll convince you that it is for the better, as would anyone trying to convince you of anything. But do you think it through? Of course not, you aren't thinking as an individual, and you feel important. Why would you need to think?

If you happen to be a child when this is all brought about, then you will probably not particularly have many opinions anyway, so it is even easier to convince you, as well as that children are conditioned to listen to adults as if they are always right. I was brought up religious, and still did struggle with some of the opinions they left me with for a while, which I am mostly over now, thankfully.

When you have no opinions of your own, you aren't thinking, and you only know what they tell you... Are you not in a state of being controlled? Are you not obeying their wills? Are you not seeing them as the entire truth, no matter how wrong they obviously are?
Of course you aren't.

Perhaps you could tell me that I'm only talking about very harsh religion, cults even.

Every religion is a cult.

Everything that promises you some peace of mind for the price of your mind, your individuality, your personality, is a cult. As I've mentioned above, religion does just that, and therefore, every religion is that cult.
Religion is the drug that we've been force-fed, and it is the cybertronic implant that stops our brainwaves. It is the dystopian future, where we're controlled by a far off council of people that most of us don't even know the name of. Or at least, we were. We were that future, which is now our past.

Around the 17th century, science became accepted, and that is when we broke out of it. When we realised that it is okay to think, when sin was not the only thing to be afraid of. It was then that we broke out of the dystopian control of religion, and we're still in that reform. We are escaping that control, we are fighting for it, and we are no longer just an underground hidden protest. Science is everywhere, and religion is fading, slowly, but surely, it is fading.

Let's hope for a dystopian-free future, where that is one thing we will not have to worry about.

Hair dye.

2010-11-15T10:03:00.000Z

This is really a post to waste time until I can wash out my hair dye, and get ready to go do something today, so if you're looking for anything serious, this will not be.

My personal thing on hair dye is like this: If it doesn't itch, sting a little, or burn slightly, it isn't working.
And I've checked this out with other people who either have dyed it once, or frequently and have confirmed that general rule. And damn, does it itch and burn sometimes. I currently use a strong peroxide hairdye to do mine, which is definitely the worse I've used yet. (I use Schwarzkopf Live Colour XXL, Absolute Platinum.) I'm in no way new to hairdye, so I can tell you that after using various dyes for about... three-four years, it still burns.
And it smells absolutely terrible, though, you do stop noticing that after a few times of doing it.

My end result colour, when I've dyed it a few billion times, is going to be white, which will constantly dry out my hair so much that I can't have it much longer than my shoulders, or it'd just snap off, or shed everywhere.
It's a sacrifice, think it through before commiting to hairdye.
(Thanks Zora for forcing me to dye my hair white for your personal enjoyment, cupcake.)

Dumbledore Is Gay

2010-10-02T18:01:00.004+01:00

So recently I was talking to someone about how people insist that

"If Dumbledore is gay, why didn't he ever act like it?"

So I decided to take this as an opportunity to be wonderfully witty and annoying, and make this:

Seriously, what were you expecting?
Dumbledore isn't the type to brag about what he does in his spare time, and even if he was, bringing up his love life would not be appropriate to share with teenagers, would it? Especially ones that are his pupils.

The fact that it's mentioned by the author here as well as quite a few other places, why do questions like this appear so often?

He's gay because J.K Rowling says he is. She gives a reason behind it, she gives him history. Just because it's not written in a book that's centred around Harry Potter (Since the titles always starting with "Harry Potter And The"), doesn't mean that it's not true. It's part of Dumbledore's personal life that isn't mentioned to Harry, and yet the author chooses to tell us elsewhere.

Be happy to know more about a beloved character's past, and move on.

Oh, also this post is for Zora, and her Harry Potter nerdiness which constantly amazes me.

Dinonerds and Prehistoric Plushies.

2010-10-02T04:19:00.001+01:00

So, recently I discovered another one of my friends happens to adore the prehistoric through a facebook status ("does wonder why hardly anyone else mentions velociraptors in their facebook statuses."), and though she doesn't have quite the same level of adoration as I do for them, it certainly made my day more interesting.

On another note of the same subject, another one of my friends has encouraged me to start trying to collect proper prehistoric toys, which I'm about to buy my first few. I've always had an interest in them, my favourite games as a child involving them (Including having them dismember and eat my barbie dolls.), Watching movies including them repeatedly as a child, and once I discovered the Walking With series, I couldn't be drawn away from it until I'd watched absolutely all of it twice.

I have to confess that dinosaurs are my one true prehistory love, despite that I do adore a lot of others also, and therefore started with getting a few of those from the late Cretaceous period in the North Beringia area, which did happen to have quite a few of my favourites. Though, my absolute favourites remain the Dromaeosauridae (Velociraptors and Bambiraptors especially), Hadrosauridae and Ceratopsia are also damn amazing and both in the Cretaceous period, so that's where I decided to start.

I also decided that well, if I'm going to collect them, I would like a nice place to display them, and therefore started thinking that if I'm going to be starting with all of them from the same period, it would be quite awesome to make a habitat to fit that, wouldn't it?
Since I did only come up with this idea earlier today, I haven't even started to properly plan it, but once I do, I shall certainly put updates on here when I have them.

On my enjoyable (Yet more than a little frustrating) hunt through the internet to try to find any pre-dinosaur toys, I stumbled across this site, and wow, I was amazed beyond all description. Plushie pterygotus, anomalacaris, cethalaspis, coelacanth and hynerpeton? Wow. That isn't all they have on there, just my personal favourites of them. Sadly, they only deliver within Japan, so it'll have to wait until I can visit there and find them in the toy store.

If you have a moment spare...

2010-09-29T20:44:00.003+01:00

So, I wasn't going to put anything new up until Halloween, but I found out from a friend who's in a band called Daughters Of Lilith , which is a pretty awesome combination of metal and industrial, that they have a music video online if you want to have a look, there's a link here, I'd really appreciate if you could check it out because they have worked hard to get it done, and I'm sure they'd appreciate it also.
They have a blog here, and as far as I know, only that one song.

Halloween Is Not Satanism

2010-09-25T09:10:00.005+01:00

I was brought up in a religious household. Not hugely, But I was forced to go to church as a child, I read the bible a few hundred times, and also, I wasn't allowed to have Halloween, which is the point of this.Instead, my mother started a 'Halloween club' called The 'Rainbow Party', because I kept complaining that I wanted to do something on Halloween. My mother is very respected in the local church, and that's how she created this. This 'Rainbow Party' involved craft activities, games, sweets, food, (Religious centered) puppet shows, etcetera. And yes, when I was 7/8ish, it was kind of fun. What child doesn't love watching puppets dance around 'singing'? What child doesn't enjoy sticking pasta in clay and calling it a masterpiece? What child does not adore anything involving free sweets, and cakes? And yet, as I got older, I wanted to be involved in the real meaning of Halloween: Going door to door in a stupid costume shouting "Trick or treat!" At adults who answer, who gasp at how 'scary' your costumes are, and give you sweets. But my mother insisted that there was more to it than that. That if I were to do that, I would slowly move out of the light of 'God' (Which I did anyway, obviously), and would turn me into a Satanist. Imagine telling a child of... Say... 10, maybe younger, that if they go out to a Halloween party, or if they do the aforementioned dressing up and getting sweets from strangers, they'll go to Hell, and burn forever. It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. I think this was when I first started thinking that maybe, just maybe, this 'God' thing was a little fake. But that isn't the point of this at all, maybe I'll go back to that another time. So I suppose if Satan is behind Halloween, the origins of it would be directly related to him, yes?

Halloween is on October 31st, the last day of the Celtic calendar. It was originally a pagan holiday, honouring the dead. Halloween was referred to as All Hallows Eve and dates back to over 2000 years ago.

...You mean it didn't start with Satan leading a few children to Hell, by tempting them with sweets, and turning them into demonic creatures?

Halloween culture can be traced back to the Druids, a Celtic culture in Ireland, Britain and Northern Europe. Roots lay in the feast of Samhain, which was annually on October 31st to honor the dead. Samhain signifies "summers end" or November. Samhain was a harvest festival with huge sacred bonfires, marking the end of the Celtic year and beginning of a new one. Many of the practices involved in this celebration were fed on superstition.

Oh... Honouring the dead, not honouring Satan, celebrating November... Not Satan. And really, how were they supposed to know better than superstition at that point anyway? But which superstition, as Satan is a superstition as much as anything, is this where he comes in?

The Celts believed the souls of the dead roamed the streets and villages at night. Since not all spirits were thought to be friendly, gifts and treats were left out to pacify the evil and ensure next years crops would be plentiful.

Still no Satan... Could it be that he isn't actually involved in it at all? Evil spirits that respond to earthly sweets and gifts... Spooky. Quoted from here, if anyone wants to check it out, it has some nice ideas for Halloween, so go ahead, look at it, read it, follow it, worship it. Whatever. So if it has no connection to Satan at all originally why exactly is Halloween seen as Satanism now?Now, I can't be bothered to read all of this, and I was planning something else for this bit, but that didn't work out, so I'll give you this website to look at, and as well as the Halloween bit, the rest of it is quite funny too. Another entertaining website is this , from someone who claims to not want to put off people who enjoy Halloween, but states that everything to do with Halloween is ungodly, and having anything to do with it is to be immoral and disgusting. And they also say that the origin of Halloween is unknown. Now, it seems that Christians have absolutely no idea about Halloween, at least, the ones who talk about it don't, which, sadly, are the ones that gather the most attention. One I've looked at said it was a purely satanic holiday, another that said the true origin is lost... Oh, and that

It (Halloween) is when we lose our sense of truth, reason and sound judgment that we open the door to the dark side where the father of lies is all too ready to have his way with us.

So, as well as being totally against Halloween, this guy seems to think Satan both exists, and that he totally wants to 'have his way' with all of it. Mmh, sexy. Speaking of sexy, aren't Halloween costumes fun? ...Well, apparently not according to Christians. Well, of course. We all know that. But what is wrong with having a little fun, what's wrong with forgetting insecurities and gaining confidence from that everyone's doing it? Some more than others, of course, but that's part of the fun of it. Who can dress up the sluttiest, while keeping some dignity? What full outfit can one make into something completely uninhibited, and whorish, that most would never wear even something double as covering as that outside of Halloween? Obviously most religions are up for the whole shamefullness, because God forbid we have some pride in ourselves. And as we all know, nakedness, pride, and sexual things at all are the work of the devil.

But aside from that, I have a psychologically mind-fuckingly disturbing movie to watch with someone, so I suppose I'll finish this up here.

I can haz poetry blog?

2010-09-12T22:30:00.000+01:00

Jesus Christ, it's a poetry blog, get in the copypasta! So far, It's under-posted, but attack it's weak point for more poetry. Because, in case anyone didn't notice, I think poetry is a cool guy. Eh has structure, and doesn't afraid of anything. I was going to post a link onto here earlier, but I accidentally a holiday. Disregard that, I visted relatives.
So what are the point of this post? We just don't know.
I know, poetry? In my blogspot? It's unexpected, but an ignoring of this post is fine too.

Click link, receive poetry.

I like internet memes... Anyone know how many there were in this? This is just to prove to someone how many internet memes I do know. And this was just a few. Tada.

Hello Kitty Is Phallic.

2010-08-28T04:19:00.001+01:00

Okay, this is just going to be quick, because I've already done this once tonight. (Yay innuendo!)

Now, I'm a huge Hello Kitty fan, and I don't care that people will probably judge me on that, because honestly, fuck you.

Though, my latest Hello Kitty toy looks too much like.. Well... It should be used for other purposes. Perhaps I'm just terrible dirty minded, which I am, but it doesn't take someone hugely intelligent to see that... Well, something looking like this:

The fan part of it makes the entirety of it vibrate slightly, the bottom part screws off with a lollipop inside of it, and honestly makes Hello Kitty look like a transsexual and makes me feel dirty in general for enjoying it. I'm quite sure once the lollipop is gone, the place that it was will vibrate quite well.
Though, I'd warn people against using it in that way, at least until it's well cleaned, as the lollipops they use in Hello Kitty sweets are terribly sticky.

I'd like to mention that the fan does work moderately well in close range, of course, it's no match for anything that's actually made for cooling oneself, and not made of mostly foam. Also, I have a different design of this candy, mine has Hello Kitty sitting in a cupcake instead of in a plane.

Bitchtime! Oh, this shall be fun. (Misanthropy and general disregard for human life ahead.)

2010-08-28T01:57:00.000+01:00

(Not writing for your pleasure, but for my sanity. I don't care for your opinion, but feel free to share it anyway, I know I do.)

I'm sorry Pakistan, but I frankly don't care about your damn floods, and your children dying, and your God disregarding you, if you're going to try to make me care by flashing pictures of babies on my t.v. I don't like babies, I'd happily let them die if it would make the media shut the fuck up.
You show me senior citizens dying, I'm going to change from "Babies, what the fuck should I care? They don't mean anything other than an instinct to protect them, set in by evolution to preserve the species." To "Oh... that's kind of sad... These people have gone through their lives in this horrible country, and now they're going to die from a horrible flood disease... They don't even get a peaceful death like they deserve. "

You can have another baby, easily. You can even adopt someone else's baby that they don't want. If you're really, really desperate, you can steal a baby, murder the parents, and move to another country for a few years until the heat dies down! So don't try to make me feel bad about babies dying from this flood, because it's just another human being. Just an entirely helpless one, that doesn't know anything and needs protection.

I remember seeing news about the war also, and all I can remember of that was seeing young children, or babies, or soldiers with young children or babies, or the families of the soldiers, all with young children or babies. Seriously media... What am I supposed to feel over that? I was starting to think to myself "Please let that child knife the soldier..."

I'm sure most find the sight of babies with flies all over them, or crying in a disgusting hospital cot really saddening, but really, I don't get it. It's a baby. ...And? So it's dying, and so are millions of other people around the world, why should I care about this one? Why would I, or anyone for that matter, send my money, my resources, to help them, just because I can see an image of a dying baby? No, it's going to take more then seeing an infant in less than perfect health. I've seen images of dying babies before. I study criminology as a hobby, I'm a morbid person, I read a real life stories magazine which tends to have graphic images, and some disturbing stories, some about children dying, I read child-abuse stories for no other reason then being bored. Babies dying doesn't bother me.

I know why it would bother a lot of people, but I honestly don't care about those people particularly. I disagree with the media using species survival traits to fund campaigns. I understand the mother/child and father/child bond, and the sibling bond, and the bond anyone who's close to the family of the child will have with the child. What I don't understand is why I, or anyone for that matter, should care about a child that I wouldn't even know existed unless this news bulletin had been showing at the exact same time I was watching something on my t.v... Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Well, this has been fun, but now I'm off to watch Disney's Robin Hood, and mourn the loss of that one of my childhood heroes, which has now been destroyed by a remake of that movie... Well, not that exact movie, but of that story.

The current generation

2010-06-22T09:58:00.000+01:00

(I shall add here that as a whole, I'm referring to what the generation will become after crossing that line into adulthood if my ideas of humanity are at all accurate as much as I'm talking about the current time frame)

Okay, so this morning, a few things have been quite annoying to me. And... Yesterday. And well, the day before that.. Okay, so a lot of things annoy me. But I'm talking about one thing specifically. Which is, well, The new generation in general.

Personally, I have no idea how generations are actually counted, so I'll go with the idea that anyone over 18, or under... 3 at current is in a different generation to the one I'm talking about now. So anyone born between 6/22/1992, and 6/22/2007 is in that bracket. Including myself, shall I add.

We are a damn lazy generation. Worse in a lot of ways to the ones before, spoiled by the world and stupid to match. Not that there haven't been others before us that are this way, just not a whole bloody generation of it. We are stupid, ignorant, pathetic. We have nothing to fight for because we've been handed everything we want really. We have rights, we have freedom, we have fairness... Or so we think. Because we're too damn lazy to question. Sure, this is the way things are, why should we bother to change them? Why should we ask 'why?', or disagree with how things are? It's been done before, why do it again? Why should we even bother? There isn't much to go against anyway, things are fine how they are.

Really? Are things really okay? Is the world now 'perfect' because we have game consoles, internet connection and soda?
Maybe you're saying "Things do need to change, but who am I to change them?" Who are any of us to change anything? We're the only ones who will in the future, when we're the adults in society, we will need to take a step forward, in fact, why wait until then? Why not start sooner then that? It's been done before, we can do it again. But why should we? Because it's our world. It's ours as much as anyone else's, and we forget that. The social world isn't an ever-changing place just because it decided to be, it's that way because people have ideas, people see the cracks in society, and people decide to change things.

There have been millions of people that changed things, even just ever so slightly, because they believed in it, and they had hope in the cause they were fighting for. Sure, not all these causes were perfectly okay, some were so fucked up we now talk about them in hushed voices and horror, but they were still people fighting for causes. Because they had actually cared about the world. There was more to life then X-box and facebook, there were discoveries, and theories, and experiments. Not that we aren't still doing these, but will we still be doing them in 60 years? Will there be room for the outside world in our busy society of instant messaging and first-person shooter games?

Games are getting more and more realistic, so we don't have to even glance outside to see the world any more. We don't need to go outside when we want to exercise any more, because everything we need is in a t.v screen, or a treadmill. We have no requirements for actually having proper conversation any more, because we can sit on our asses and send each other 5 letter messages in our text speak code. There's no need to go even experience travelling to see places any more, not with videos and photos to do it for us.

I'm not against technology, quite the opposite. We could do some amazing things with it.

Train millions in hundreds of skills just using simulation.
Eliminate global warming and make sure these things never happen again.
Make unlimited resources at the cost of almost nothing.
Make transportation to even deep space something that takes a few hours at the most.
Make transforming our bodies and entire look changeable in a few minutes.

And that's just the start of things.

All of this is very easily possible, if we put our minds to it, and if we make a damn effort. Some of it may even be done in our lifetimes, but only if we try! Because we have all this technology at our fingertips, we can easily learn everything we need to improve ourselves, and learn understanding and empathy. This is what millions of generations before have been working to do, now we have the tools to do it perfectly, please, let's do what we need to do.

There's no reason not to, and I intend to be doing whatever I can to change the world I'm going to have to live in. The world that my family live in, and will continue to live in for the next millions of generations. The world that my species will live in for millions of years to come, hopefully. The world that even after that, other species will continue to live in. A world that means more to me then anything, because it is everything in my existence.

We don't need everyone to help to make things better... We just need a future. It's all fair to go and complain about how the world is, (and this is speaking to everyone, not just that generation)but what are you doing to change things?! Do you even know anything about what you're complaining about? Or do you only know your opinion, or what the press have fed you? There are a million places online to actually learn the facts of these things, not just the gossip. Intelligence is getting hard to come by, and we're doing very little to change that.

We can change things, and we will. The world will change because of us... How do you want it to change? Who will make the history books, because there's room for revolution, we just need to make it happen. Things need to improve, and they need to improve drastically. As top predators, we have the power to make sure things turn out okay for the world. We have to make sure of that, because it's only going to be our loss at the end of it. Other animals will, and have, evolved to put up with us. We're not that adaptable any more.

The continuation of the human race could be down to you improve the world. There are up to 90 million species on earth (Operative words being 'up to'), what is the human race to them, other then another species? Nothing. They aren't going to change the world, we are.

'DIY God'

2010-06-21T12:42:00.000+01:00

So this wasn't going to be my next blog, but since I was reading this, I was... Well, rather outraged.

Now, I don't want to seem like I think this is a ridiculous, sickening, horrifically disrespectful idea... Well, no. I do want to seem like that, because that's what I do think of it.

Honestly, what the hell are these assholes thinking? This is a practically sacred place where far too many people lost their lives to then give up to the reason why these people are dead, just for a good reputation!

Are you people god damn stupid for allowing this?!

It's not that I'm against this particular faith. I detest each of them equally and in their own special ways, but it's hate nonetheless. As an intelligent and sane individual, as well as a misanthropist... I'm nauseated and disgusted by this pathetic excuse for 'tolerance'.

Why can they not show at least some shame for what they did? Because they don't regret it as a whole. This fucked up religion that I've already complained about at least... a few times, has not only committed mass fucking murder, but now also they're dancing all over the ground their murder is metaphorically buried under. Why are we allowing this?

Of course, this isn't the only religion that makes a mockery out of human lives, and take their own damn morals and discard them, bloodied and out-ruled, into a crumpled heap at the feet of their 'God'. A God who causes 'miracles' at exactly the same frequency as would happen randomly, and works in 'mysterious ways' meaning that really, things happen how they would anyway, and you find some meaning in it. DIY God.

This 'DIY God' is a very useful tool for getting your way... Which is more threatening: "If you don't do this, I'll beat you up." Or the alternative: "If you don't do this, you'll suffer for eternity."
Personally, I'm not too bothered about eternity, I have a while to live first, but obviously that threat hits home with some people. So, voilá! Yet another use for the 'DIY God'.
What if you could use this 'God' for whatever you wanted?

If you're feeling down, send up a prayer (Despite that you'd have to yell very, very loudly for him to actually be able to hear you...), and then something that you probably wouldn't have noticed without specifically looking out for it after praying, and now you do notice it, and praise God! That would have never happened today! Despite that it has happened before a million times... Oh, right.

What about when the night is long and hard, and you don't know how you're going to survive to see the light of day? Well, when you're so insecure, and probably edging on breakdown, this 'God' comes down from the sky-palace, and whispers sweet, sensual things in your ea- Oh, no I mean, this 'God' comes down and yells reassuring and comforting things about unconditional love, and safety at you.
...How they can be reassuring and comforting while you're being yelled at, I don't know.

I'm sure there will be something I've missed, but I need to be getting ready for a maths exam. So I'll leave it at that.
All hail the DIY God, for he is mighty as long as we remember to make him that way!

New settings?

2010-06-12T07:10:00.000+01:00

So, I'm... Deciding whether I should do this post for one thing, then another for the actual thing I want to blog about... I think I'll do two if this turns out to be much of a post.

So, what's with the new backgrounds and things? Not that I'm complaining, I like it, I really do. But... Well, the 'backgrounds' bit made me feel a bit self-concious. So, I have to pick an image which I like, right? Well, no, not really. I like the one of the stars, but... It has nothing to do with my blog at all... So can I have it? I don't feel comfortable with it, actually. But then, the other ones I'd choose would be something equally irrelevant... And if there is a way to upload your own, I can't find it, so I'm going to assume there isn't yet. There isn't exactly one that fits with the general randomness of my overall blog, and I can't be bothered with changing it every... Well, every time I update.

Also, I've just spent the last 3 hours or so creating my new header image, which I'm actually quite proud of. I would've added more pictures in there, but I wanted to only put in ones I'd personally taken, and that's the only ones I have. The actual editing of it was... Wow hard. I had to figure out how to do some new things on my editor, and with only conversations going on, that's not too easy. But eventually I got there, and then... Well, even after I finished the picture editing, there was a quote to find... At first I couldn't find any, and then I was struck with inspiration... Well, actually I remembered a conversation I had with my mother about Marilyn Monroe. God, is there anything not amazing about that woman..? Well, probably but still. Wow, I love her. I had so much difficulty choosing which of her quotes to go with, but that one seemed most appropriate. Now with that all said and done, I'm going to reward myself with a packet of Smarties I discovered on my desk...

Also, I'm trying to come up with a new blog title... I have no idea yet at all, but hopefully I will have by next week. I don't have a proper reason, I just... Feel like the other title doesn't fit any more, because I actually do blog... Sometimes.

I think I'll post this now, and write up the next one for later, now I've actually written this.

Animal blindness: A bonding opportunity?

2010-06-08T07:47:00.001+01:00

So, I don't know if I've ever mentioned before, but my family owns a cat. He's an old maincoone cross that my mother and father rescued from the street about 16 years ago. He's now almost 18, and his age is definitely showing.

For the entirety of my childhood this cat... Well, he didn't dislike me, but he didn't particularly like me either. We had two others at the time, one of which I was much closer to, but both have now passed away at a good age.

A few months ago, this cat lost his eyesight, and that made things difficult, but we're beginning to get used to it now. After he went blind, he started regularly meowing and walking around the house seemingly at random. It took me a while, but I came up with the idea that he was looking for us, for reassurance that we were here, so when he showed this behaviour, I tried calling out to him, and going over to where he was at that moment and petting him for a few minutes.

I found that this made him generally stop miaowing, unless he wanted food or water.

So I told this to a friend, which confirmed my theory that yes, the cat was looking for reassurance, which made me feel better about coming to that conclusion alone, that my parents hadn't seemed to grasp yet. Now it's a habit for me to find the cat when he's miaowing, and have him follow me around to where my computer is.

Speaking of being followed by this cat...

He's taken to sitting or sleeping near my chair, close enough for me to have to be carefully not to move the chair as not to hit him with one of the chair legs. Perhaps it's because he can hear my typing/music/whatever and knows that I'm there because of that, or perhaps something else along those general lines.

So, from him not even wanting to sleep in the same room as me, he now purposely seeks out my computer to sleep next to me... Possibly because I respond to him on a regular basis, and am usually here, therefore am reliable in that sense? Probably.

I should probably mention that I never particularly made an effort with this cat, I rarely fed it, or gave it water, as there were other people that would do that. I rarely played with it or petted it before, and I'll admit, I've accidentally stepped on it's tail or paws, walked into it and taunted it a few times as a child. (At a minimal though, as even when I didn't particularly get along with the creature, there's no reason to purposely annoy or harm it at all) So... Why it suddenly decided that just because I paid it a small amount of attention and understanding more then other members of my family, it's suddenly decided that I'm the ideal person to be around most of the time is completely lost to me, really.

A welcome show of affection, that with recent turn of events, I'm more then happy to accept and reciprocate.

Why Creationism isn't a fact.

2010-06-03T03:31:00.000+01:00

So... Does this make anyone else just... Laugh... Hysterically? Or is that just me?

Okay... So, let's start with a basic dictionary...

Fact - 1. Something known to be true. 2. Truth or reality of something. 3. Piece of information. 4. Actual course of events. 5. Something based on evidence.

Theory- 1. Rules and techniques. 2. Speculation. 3. Idea formed by speculation. 4. Hypothetical circumstance. 5. Scientific principal to explain phenomena

So... Fact is... Well, based on evidence, truth and/or reality... Information... Etc... And... Creationism is... Truth?

So... The belief that some magical creature that no one has ever seen, or had scientific proof exists, created... everything in a few days, then sat back and watched us get on with it all, guiding us for the first few thousand years, then getting lazy and giving up mostly, aside from a few miracles here and there, and letting us go about fucking up everything it worked so hard to achieve, is... a piece of information, known to be true, that is entirely reality, and actually happened, that's based on scientific evidence?

I would honestly say both are theory, as there's no proof of creationism, but it is something that makes up the principles of parts of society, it's speculation ,and through that speculation an idea is formed.

Well, I don't think I need to go through the same classification for theory, as even this ignorant person can see that evolution is a theory. Now, if only they'd stop and take a moment to question the idiocy they've always been told, and realise it's complete bullshit...

I can't particularly be bothered to write more on this, for personal reasons, so I'm going to end this here for now at least.

Impossible Or Impractical?

2010-06-02T23:19:00.000+01:00

Perhaps I'm underestimating the difficulty of this, but either way, it's only my mind and I'd like to put it out of it's misery, and into writing... Or... Out of my misery and into my writing. Or... something clever and witty like that.

So... I'm hoping sometime next year after I turn 16, I'll be able to rent somewhere to live to get myself sorted out and away from the general... family area. I understand the general difficulties (As much as people doubt this, I actually think this through a lot.) But perhaps there's something I've missed that would make this so much more difficult.

Okay, so I understand that I'll need to work, a lot, to be able to afford it alone, and I'll need parental permission. Food will cost a lot, and bills in general also... So is there anything in that I've missed out?

Hopefully I'll have someone with me at some point, and my parents will maybe help out if nothing else, at least for food, and other essential essentials.

It seems renting somewhere in the area I want to live in will cost around £275-£350 a month, so that shouldn't be impossible. Plus food will probably be around £100-£150 a month for someone like me I assume, and bills another £50 or so a month as those usually aren't included in rent...

So... That can be estimated at around £550 a month at the most I assume... So... Difficult. But not impossible.

Am I missing something here? Because so far this doesn't seem so horribly difficult, and I would like to know what it is that people are saying is so difficult that I would never be able to achieve it at that point in life. Finding work will probably be moderately difficult, being by myself will also probably be unpleasant sometimes, but I'm sure I can do both without too much impossibility.

Travel... Another issue. I'm hoping where I'll be will be a relatively small area, in that sense, that while the entire area won't be small, but there will be enough in walking distance to keep me sane at least. That way I won't have to spend an awful lot on bus fare, and I'll be out quite a bit.

I'm sure I won't be able to have internet connection for a while when I'm there, but that'll be something I can get later as it isn't immediate, and while I don't have that, I'll have a reason to do other things, find out about the community, see if there's anyone interesting to meet, etcetera.

That is, assuming I have any spare time at all.

So, is it just me, or does this all seem... Not impossible..?

A personal post...

2010-05-27T20:13:00.000+01:00

Okay, so I try to remain somewhat professional... Or at least not overly personal in my blog, because that makes it easier to blog on whatever I want to, but I just have a little complaint on something. Something that's disturbed a friend of mine, and has made me... Quite annoyed actually.

I'm not going to bitch, because however good I am at this, my purpose is to rationalise, and mock things.

So someone on Tumlr called... Ange, I believe, posted this about a friend of mine's girlfriend, and my first thought was "What the fuck gives her the right to do that?"

For one thing, why deliberately do something just for the purpose of making yourself seem childish and small minded? Can she not look at this picture, outside of what she thinks beauty is, and see it for how it is?

I mean, technically, I don't even like guys that look like guys particularly. Tomboys don't do it for me at all, 'rough' guys don't do it for me in the slightest. I like my guys manicured and fully groomed with occasional bit of eye make-up and decorative-more-than-functional clothing. I like my girls in the same type of categories, except more make-up (No foundation though... That shit is fucked up.), but I can still manage to look outside my personal preferences and see that: Wow, this girl is hot, and adorable.

Sometimes, it's better to leave that little bitch session about someone in your head, because you just end up looking silly, and childish. Please think about it, because next time, you might end up being mocked and patronized by someone... Well, at least a few years younger then you, and quite a bit more intelligent, logical, empathic, and well, with more social morals then you.

This girl overall, whoever she is, she goes under the name Angelion Lee, not sure if it's her real name or not, but that's not my business, seems quite... Well, insecure in herself overall... So, because someone is not your ideal of beauty, is better looking then you, or using products to look better then you or something... I assume that it anyway, you feel the need to insult them?

I think this is more then enough proof, I was honestly like... Wait, hang on... What?

And if that doesn't do it for you, how about this lovely piece of what the fuck-ism.

Is she calling Eliza Dushku or Megan Fox ugly? I can't tell, but wow, is she mistaken either way!

And then, just as you think it can't get worse, she has this lovely post also.

Honestly, I hate it when people mistake 'your' for 'you're', I really do.

I ALSO HATE WHEN PEOPLE TYPE LIKE THIS.

Her hair is... Fake? Fake? Really? So when Ange and every other girl in the modern world seemingly dyes, straightens, curls, whatever, their hair, that isn't... Fake? Sorry if that isn't what was intended for it to mean, but it certainly seemed that way.

Her bio on tumblr... Is very...Disturbing...

Alcohol, Cigarettes, Owls, Lions, Hang Overs, Cheap Fucks, Women, Cunt/Titty licker, 360 Champ, Swagga Surfer, Jump Style, Almost Famous, Everything in the Real World, The best kind Girlfriend you will have, Everything that cant be said, Writing, Ipod on Shuffle all day, Elton John, DYKE, Irresistibly good looking.

How... Low self esteem do you honestly have to have to write that about yourself? Honestly, I don't get how half that stuff translates into being the same as the other bits of it..? I don't define a good girlfriend as someone who enjoys 'cheap fucks' really. And as for the bit after that... After saying she's interested in women, is that bit necessary? It seems more like attention seeking really... Especially with 'Dyke' in capital letters. I don't think she even knows enough about the real world, or beauty at all to call herself 'Everything in the real world' or 'irresistibly good looking'...

Really, there are better ways to look at yourself. Please improve your self-esteem, your intelligence, and your morals then continue blogging... Or you know, just... Don't. Humanity is already stupid enough, what could one more do?

Holy water: The Atheist's secret weakness.

2010-05-25T23:37:00.002+01:00

I'm failing at updating. I totally am. Anyway.

It's my birthday on... Monday, so I'm being dragged out to a restaurant by my family, and they're going to try ever so hard to not argue or walk out. Should that even be an issue?

It's a good thing that what I'm actually looking forward to on my birthday is a phone call I'll be making in the evening hopefully, as opposed to spending time with my family... Dysfunctionality works.

Anyway. Someone sent me a link to something... Very interesting.

Which can be found Here.

So... Holy water, huh? Deadly? Well, maybe if you taste it.

Oh, but wait, didn't you know about the new scientific evidence on it?

Holy water burns atheists skin, because they are possessed by demons. If atheists are doused with enough water it can potentially turn them into believing Christians.

(Quote can be found here, with the ever intelligent people of YahooAnswers.)

So, for best results on my atheist friends, I decided to look up the most effective way to create holy water. I was sure I could just get it out a bottle, and get the local minister to mutter a few magic words over it. But no, apparently for best effects, you have to do it a certain way...

Now, I was split between these two answers as the best one...

This one:

By using the faucet, it's normal ******* water, some guy saying a few words over it doesn't change that it's still water, nor does it add anything new to the water, except maybe, saliva from when the person was talking over it.

Or this one:

Hold on.

Some bakery makes crackers that when people eat them physically turn into the actual body of Christ ... and you're puzzled about how water becomes holy?

What, really? Now people can... Become Christ? Wow, I had no idea religion had got this far already... I should research this some more. (By the way, that question can be found here...)

So... Becoming Christ?

My research has shown some promising results... Or not...

Really? because they are perfectly round and with that indent in the middle and they are all EXACTLY the same size and everything. does each church really have the equipment to make all these things from scratch?

i was kinda thinking there was some jesus factory out there that pumps out the body of christ non-stop and ships his body all over the world to churches that order it.

(This quote can be found... Here.)

So... Now somewhere in heaven there's a factory, where Christ is, and they insert some type of tube into the body, and suck out the dough to make 'Christ Crackers'. I'm certainly going to havethat for communion dinner. Mmmh, holy cannibalism.

Speaking of cannibalism, I wonder, to be it cannibalism when he's eaten, he would have to be human. So... Was Jesus human?

Also, remember that in the first 5 centuries of Christianity, there were numerous disputes about the nature of Christ, for example:
- was He only God but he just looked human
- was He only human but adopted by God at His baptism when God said "truly this is my Son"
- was He more than human but less than God?
- was He two complete persons: 1 God, and 1 man fused together?
- was he one person with two natures? Divine and Human

(Findable here)

Therefore, I suppose... If he's half God and half human... Eating Christ is... Half cannibalism... That doesn't sound right, aren't Christians against cannibalism?

The subject of cannibalism is not addressed in the Bible. There is no direct statement in Scripture that says, “Thou shalt not eat human flesh.” However, there are some biblical principles and practices that indicate cannibalism is a terribly evil thing:

However, Cannibalism is mentioned several times in Scripture (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; 2 Kings 6:28-29; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10), but none of these passages condone it.
All of them either predict what will happen if the Israelites forsake God and/or give the fulfillment of those predictions.

If the Israelites turn away from God and refuse to repent, God said he would send such judgment that they would wind up so hungry that even the most delicate and tender mother would become a cannibal, eating her own children, keeping it from the other family members so she would have more to eat.

If cannibalism were no big deal, why would this be portrayed as the ultimate in desperation and degradation?

The thought of families becoming cannibals among themselves is portrayed as it should be—as a wretched and terrible thing. Such treatment is in stark contrast with the way the dead bodies of honorable or innocent people ought to be treated and are treated in Scripture.

(Link: Here)

So... It'd be okay, as long as it wasn't in desperation? Am I getting that wrong or something? It's not condoned as a good idea, but there's also nothing telling you not to do it. Awesome, next time I'm not hungry, and I have the distant family around... Or is that considered immoral?

But... It's condoned by religion... So it must be moral... Right?

Personally, this was my favourite definition of Christian morality....

Do anything you want and just ask for forgiveness in the end........

Really? So... Laws mean... nothing?

Wow, I may just have to convert for that... Oh, but wait.

There's more...

Abstain from every pleasure there is in life

Hmm, now that one I'm not too sure of. That sounds more like the Christianity I was taught as a child. Shame, they almost had me with the 'do whatever you want'

Every pleasure? So... This means sex would be out? But isn't reproduction caused by sex? And God strictly told people to have children.

I've tried to find a good quote from this page, but I just can't find a good enough one. There was a rather good comment by called 'yes, we need serious help' by someone called 'matt'. (Insert sarcasm here.)

You know, if I were 'matt' I'd spell my name 'Matt' Or are capital letters against God also?

God is a persons name - like John, Jack etc.So technically it should be written with the capital G.

(Thank you, 'intelligent' being on this question.)

So, God is a name, huh? I think I should check this out, you know, just for future reference...

Your search 'God' did not match any names. Please make sure your search query is spelled correctly or try a different query.

Admittedly, I made sure it was only that exactly (Only words with one syllable, and 3 characters in it.), but I think it's only fair. Perhaps a well known and respectable online naming/name meaning guide isn't an official source, but it has every other name you could ever want, so... For this particular piece of research, we'll count it as such.

So, I think it would be a good idea to end this here, as it's... Getting on to being quite a long blog. I honestly don't think this achieved anything particularly, least of all the original point I was trying to make, but I enjoyed writing it anyway, so there we go.

The Islamic 'Prophet'?

2010-05-20T16:21:00.003+01:00

So it's not Sunday night, as usual updates are (Not by choice!), but as today is a very important day, I'm putting an update in for it anyway. So what is today? Well today is a very special day for non-believers everywhere, Draw Mohammed day! So, I thought I'd join in with the festivities, and put a picture of my own up...

There's various blogs, fan pages and general news about this day spread over the internet, so I don't feel inclined to put much in here, but I am going to put a quote by a friend of mine on here that's about this picture.

"Three levels of satire in one. Not only does it go against the Qu'ran's edict againt the drawing of their prophet, but it also points out the inherent misogyny as well as its hatred of non-normative gender identities. Why can't you draw the prophet? Well because hes a she and being a she, she must be covered up and if she's covered up then how the hell do we know it's her/him to begin with? A self induced paradox of such idiotic proportions all you can hope to do is laugh at it."

I'm tempted to go into a monologue about the pure amazingness of the person that's quoted from, because they're utterly wonderful, but I won't, because that wouldn't be interesting, so I'm going to end this here.

The time I met a Muslim via IMVU.

2010-05-16T08:30:00.001+01:00

I'm very, very sorry I didn't post last week. I had a strike of depression and ultimately blogging wasn't the first thing on my mind. A few things over the last few days, though more specifically night before last during a phone call, that cause me to think enough to change perceptive slightly, and then this idiot talked to me last night... I thought you'd like to see what went on, as I enjoyed it in a twisted "Heh. I'm smarter then this moron." way. It's slightly abridged (The whole thing was 10 pages all together) And some personal information is taken out, but it's unchanged in any other way.

Guest_Ar1ful: so whats ur ambition in life....?
BloodSoakedMisa: I want to create a society to change the way a lot of the goverment works, without being involved in politics
BloodSoakedMisa: You?
Guest_Ar1ful: interesting....
Guest_Ar1ful: my ambition
Guest_Ar1ful: is to be an accountant....earn good money,,,,buy a sports car
BloodSoakedMisa: Ah, I see. Kind of shallow then..
Guest_Ar1ful: and drive it all day.....me in the drivers seat.....with a hawt chick beside me
BloodSoakedMisa: but hey, sports cars are as interesting as reforming the system of the future :)

Guest_Ar1ful: that i'd say....so wat r ur social views that u think of change to be brought in
BloodSoakedMisa: Education system has a preference to those that belong in social cliches and are in the low to average IQ level, as well as not having suitable resources for those with educational or social difficulties, for one thing.
Guest_Ar1ful: hmm..i think the education system u have here is perfect
Guest_Ar1ful: the low IQ level ppL....are just not attentive enough....that's my say
BloodSoakedMisa: You're obviously of average to below average intelligence, and have always fitted the cliché

BloodSoakedMisa: My school experience was horrible, but I know it does work for a lot of people
Guest_Ar1ful: Mine was horrible too
BloodSoakedMisa: What happened?
Guest_Ar1ful: no it wasn't as well for me
Guest_Ar1ful: i was the shy type kid....who was not popular
Guest_Ar1ful: so today i have almost no childhood friends
Guest_Ar1ful: i am left alone....frm my childhood
Guest_Ar1ful: now i realize...how horrible my skul life was
Guest_Ar1ful: but when u think of it the other way round....i find out....no it wasn't bad after all
BloodSoakedMisa: you had it easy.
Guest_Ar1ful: no i didn't trust me
Guest_Ar1ful: would u like if someone calls u a cockroach....in front of everyone
BloodSoakedMisa: That would've been a nice change from how I was treated, actually.

Guest_Ar1ful: u knw what.........u made realize sumthing
BloodSoakedMisa: What, that you're an ignorant child?
BloodSoakedMisa: I realised that too about you.
Guest_Ar1ful: those douchebags should be kicked from the society
BloodSoakedMisa: no
Guest_Ar1ful: i'll join u on that
BloodSoakedMisa: That isn't it all.
Guest_Ar1ful: i feel so relieved...sharing it with you :)
BloodSoakedMisa: It's nothing to do with the individuals.
BloodSoakedMisa: it would've been nice if you'd actually got the point of what I was saying.

BloodSoakedMisa: Honestly, you sound pathetic.
Guest_Ar1ful: what part of it sounds pathetic ?
BloodSoakedMisa: your whole ignorant perceptive.
Guest_Ar1ful: ignorant about what ?
BloodSoakedMisa: life
Guest_Ar1ful: im not ignorant......
Guest_Ar1ful: i take it inside....so that a fire burns inside my soul....and the fire grows by the years....and then the blaze on those who burned it
Guest_Ar1ful: the fire has grown, the blaze is the only thing left to show those guys...my wrath is complete
Guest_Ar1ful: but i'd certainly like to helop those who are being bullied now
BloodSoakedMisa: Honestly, I'm sure you're an idiot even more now.
Guest_Ar1ful: ok...now what :P?
BloodSoakedMisa: Have you ever thought through your own faults, and their lifestyles before assuming things were entirely either one persons fault or the other?
Guest_Ar1ful: i had no faults ....none....because..i never really was a talkative fellow
Guest_Ar1ful: by the years they had grown the pride....and felt ignorant on giving me any value....
Guest_Ar1ful: finding me innocent they bully me....
BloodSoakedMisa: Honestly, you have 'no faults' at all?
Guest_Ar1ful: none that i could think of....nope

Guest_Ar1ful: never thought of it that way
Guest_Ar1ful: so u think urself as not the better one ?
Guest_Ar1ful: the one who was supposed to be bullied
BloodSoakedMisa: what do you mean?
Guest_Ar1ful: do u think u deserved to be bulllied in ur skul life ?
BloodSoakedMisa: I didn't deserve it
BloodSoakedMisa: But I had my faults, and the people I met had theirs.
BloodSoakedMisa: It was unfortunate what happened, but of all the people that could have been in my place, I'm glad it was me over them.
BloodSoakedMisa: because I'm strong, intelligent and independent enough to understand why it happened, and forgive the people who did it to me.

Guest_Ar1ful: changing society.....
Guest_Ar1ful: yeah right....society will go its way
Guest_Ar1ful: u can never change it....
BloodSoakedMisa: If that is so, how is it different now then it was say... 50 years ago?Guest_Ar1ful: because it has been developed for generations
BloodSoakedMisa: by being changed
BloodSoakedMisa: By people
BloodSoakedMisa: It didn't just change magically.
Guest_Ar1ful: society,,.,,its flowing its own way.....wth different colours
BloodSoakedMisa: People decided how they wanted things, and changed it
Guest_Ar1ful: but u can't guide it
Guest_Ar1ful: no one's guiding the society
Guest_Ar1ful: its the ultimate combination of ppL uniting sumwhere
BloodSoakedMisa: You've just ruined your own point.
BloodSoakedMisa: You just said thatsomewhere, people are changing it.
BloodSoakedMisa: did you not realise that?
Guest_Ar1ful: ryt....but that my friend is for one day
Guest_Ar1ful: do u know the other ?
BloodSoakedMisa: what?
BloodSoakedMisa: That made no sense.

BloodSoakedMisa: But if that's the only reason, why do plants and simpler animals bully each other?
Guest_Ar1ful: why would i be bothered about animals, and plants
Guest_Ar1ful: how can u surely say that's even true
Guest_Ar1ful: plants being bullied, are u serious
BloodSoakedMisa: yes
Guest_Ar1ful: never thought from animals perspective
BloodSoakedMisa: Let me find you something to read on the subject...
Guest_Ar1ful: and shouldn't either....im a human, i knw only humans not plants
Guest_Ar1ful: not animals
BloodSoakedMisa: No, it's important to know about other life forms in this
Guest_Ar1ful: ok whatever
Guest_Ar1ful: listen...i really have to sleep
BloodSoakedMisa: http://www.ehow.co.uk/facts_5874074_wisteria-vine-damage.html
BloodSoakedMisa: Glance at that for a moment
BloodSoakedMisa: the 'other plants' section
BloodSoakedMisa: its a few sentence that you may find interesting or at least useful to increasing your intelligence.

Guest_Ar1ful: having different opinions shouldn't cause hatred
Guest_Ar1ful: we are right and wrong in our own ways
Guest_Ar1ful: and will be rewarded or punished in our own ways
BloodSoakedMisa: I'm not talking about different opinions
BloodSoakedMisa: If you had anything intelligent to say for your opinion, I would respect it

BloodSoakedMisa: do you even know what 'misanthrope' meant, when I used it earlier?
Guest_Ar1ful: nope
Guest_Ar1ful: oo....now i get it
Guest_Ar1ful: u hate humans right ?
BloodSoakedMisa: I think the whole race is pathetic and needs reshaping, yes.
Guest_Ar1ful: ur killing urself inside
Guest_Ar1ful: nothing else
BloodSoakedMisa: heh
BloodSoakedMisa: No
Guest_Ar1ful: have u ever known the value of emotions
BloodSoakedMisa: I'm using that dislike to drive myself to change the race.
BloodSoakedMisa: And yes, I do know the value of emotion, more then most.
Guest_Ar1ful: the human race has in fact changed, in a bad way, but it does not need reshaping in ur way
Guest_Ar1ful: that im sure of....
Guest_Ar1ful: it needs reshaping in a religious perspective, which will never happen
Guest_Ar1ful: because its a prophecy
BloodSoakedMisa: ...
BloodSoakedMisa: What?
Guest_Ar1ful: yes....the human race shall slowly turn into non believers of God's existence and then will He let his prophets down to Earth,,,,
BloodSoakedMisa: Right. I'm agnostic
Guest_Ar1ful: as a preparation for doomsday
BloodSoakedMisa: I believe in science, the real thing.
Guest_Ar1ful: science is real but there's a lot science was not able to discover
BloodSoakedMisa: and I think religion is a way of controlling society and binding it to behave certain ways that may not be good for it's existance.

BloodSoakedMisa: I was raised religious, and decided through experimentation and intelligence, that it wasn't correct in the slightest.
Guest_Ar1ful: because science was never in corresspondence with Christianity
Guest_Ar1ful: but my religion, every scientific detail is true
BloodSoakedMisa: what is your religion?
Guest_Ar1ful: every prophecy has come true
Guest_Ar1ful: and the prophecy of doomsday, by the look of this Earth, proves that it will be true
Guest_Ar1ful: my religion is Islam
Guest_Ar1ful: and until today i have found no mistakes
BloodSoakedMisa: I am physically in pain from laughing.

Guest_Ar1ful: well u believe its not true....make me disbelieve it
Guest_Ar1ful: lets see....
Guest_Ar1ful: how u do that
BloodSoakedMisa: Sorry
BloodSoakedMisa: you'd have to be an intelligent individual to do that.
BloodSoakedMisa: Error.
Guest_Ar1ful: giving up
BloodSoakedMisa: No
Guest_Ar1ful: ur giving up
BloodSoakedMisa: Just have a system error
Guest_Ar1ful: thats what it is
BloodSoakedMisa: logic and idiocy do not compute.
BloodSoakedMisa: Please enter a new formula and try again.
Guest_Ar1ful: u can find no mistakes in Quran,,,,,,the Holy book,,,,everything written there is becoming true

Guest_Ar1ful: funny isn't it that the whole part of our body is water.....
BloodSoakedMisa: ...
BloodSoakedMisa: You know, there's a very good reason why a high percentage of water is in our bodies
BloodSoakedMisa: Mostly that it's a good way to survive out of water, and we have amphibian ancestors.

BloodSoakedMisa: Your inability to type makes your point even more invalid.
Guest_Ar1ful: http://www.muslimconverts.com/quran/NobleQuran/translation/surah55.html
Guest_Ar1ful: read this
BloodSoakedMisa: I am
BloodSoakedMisa: that makes no sense in the slightest
Guest_Ar1ful: read it....and tell me
BloodSoakedMisa: the translation and format are pathetic

Guest_Ar1ful: ur just ignoring the power of Islam
BloodSoakedMisa: I'm not ignoring it
Guest_Ar1ful: yes you are
BloodSoakedMisa: I'm telling you that because people are stupid, I ignore stupidity
Guest_Ar1ful: u stilll did not find a single mistake about Islam did u
BloodSoakedMisa: Oh, I did
BloodSoakedMisa: I definitely did
Guest_Ar1ful: tell me 1
BloodSoakedMisa: If I did, you wouldn't understand, as you didn't when I did tell you one.
Guest_Ar1ful: ok tell me one
Guest_Ar1ful: one single mistake
BloodSoakedMisa: The inconsistancies in the book.
BloodSoakedMisa: I said it before
BloodSoakedMisa: And you gave me stupid excuses, not reasonable arguments why it's untrue

BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 7: 54 Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?
BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four days…
BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …
BloodSoakedMisa: two plus four plus two is eight.
Guest_Ar1ful: that is not even a reason
BloodSoakedMisa: It is very much a reason.
BloodSoakedMisa: It's an inconsistancy

BloodSoakedMisa: Do you believe a story if someone tells it incorrectly the second time? Let me give you an example.
BloodSoakedMisa: "I didn't spend your money on other things, I went down to the shop and bought what you asked me to, then when I was walking home, a guy in a blue shirt told me that if I didn't give it to him, he'd hit me."
BloodSoakedMisa: "I didn't spend your money on other things, I went down to the shop and bought what you asked me to, then when I was walking home, two guys told me that if I didn't give it to them, they'd hit me."
BloodSoakedMisa: If I told you both those stories, would you believe me?
BloodSoakedMisa: You'd instantly think I was lying about something.
Guest_Ar1ful: use some sense would ya
Guest_Ar1ful: ur not using any sense at all
BloodSoakedMisa: Of course I am.
BloodSoakedMisa: also, I'd like to disprove your point earlier
BloodSoakedMisa: you said that your religion made perfect scientific sense.
BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 31: 29 Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and He merges Day into Night; That He has subjected the sun and moon (to His law), each running its course for a term (time) appointed.
BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 21: 33 It is He who created The Night and Day, And the Sun and Moon; each of them Swim (float) along in its own course.
Guest_Ar1ful: and as for ur shopping, those things have been proven not to be thought as a lie

BloodSoakedMisa: Quran 15: 19 And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon Mountains firm and immovable;
Guest_Ar1ful: so wats wrong about it
BloodSoakedMisa: ...
BloodSoakedMisa: Well, the earth is round.
Guest_Ar1ful: so?
BloodSoakedMisa: So that states that the earth is not round.
Guest_Ar1ful: not at all
Guest_Ar1ful: Earth is round
BloodSoakedMisa: do you know many round carpets?
Guest_Ar1ful: that is ofcourse mentioned
BloodSoakedMisa: at the time the book was written, people thought the earth was flat
BloodSoakedMisa: there was no reason not to believe this
BloodSoakedMisa: so whoever wrote the book wrote that it was
BloodSoakedMisa: Now we can disprove that, and move on from 'religious' writing.
BloodSoakedMisa: also, mountains do move.
BloodSoakedMisa: Plate tectonics.
Guest_Ar1ful: mountains don't move
BloodSoakedMisa: ... Oh damn it. How are you so stupid?

Guest_Ar1ful: http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=87767
Guest_Ar1ful: Even if there is a theory which suggests that the Earth is flat, it is confirmed today that the Earth is round without doubt. It is confirmed long ago in the Qur'an that the orbits are round-shaped.
BloodSoakedMisa: no, it really isn't.
BloodSoakedMisa: "Millions of years ago India and an ancient ocean called the Tethys Ocean were sat on a tectonic plate. This plate was moving northwards towards Asia at a rate of 10 centimetres per year. The Tethys oceanic crust was being subducted under the Asian Continent. The ocean got progressively smaller until about 55 milion years ago when India 'hit' Asia."
Guest_Ar1ful: and the flat thing,,,,,it was how the person thought the Earth is like....not how Allah has described it
BloodSoakedMisa: "There was no more ocean left to lubricate the subduction and so the plates welled up to form the High Plateau of Tibet and the Himalayan Mountains. "
BloodSoakedMisa: That is how mountains are formed, by moving.
BloodSoakedMisa: By tectonic plates moving causing land masses to connect, and force into each other
[Insert 10-15 minute wait.]
BloodSoakedMisa: Reply would be nice.
Guest_Ar1ful: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1776088/the_moving_mountains_and_miracles_of_the_quran/
Guest_Ar1ful: it has been indicated in the Quran that mountains move
BloodSoakedMisa: and yet it very clearly said that they don't.
BloodSoakedMisa: they don't pronounce Wagner's name right
Guest_Ar1ful: wait i'll prove it to u
BloodSoakedMisa: That video doesn't prove the book's validity in that sense.
BlGuest_Ar1ful has left the chat

That was far too long, but I think it shows more then enough about this guy's knowledge of his religion.

The Cycle Of Panic Attacks (Part Four)

2010-05-03T02:59:00.000+01:00

I almost lost this file, almost. But I managed to retrieve it, so it’s okay still!

Okay, definition, symptoms, causes, etc. Seriously, you’d think we’d be on solutions or something by now, wouldn’t you? We’re getting there. Solutions should be the next one, I promise. Then it’ll only be… just over a few more, I hope. But for now we’ll start on this one, which is why panic attacks reoccur. It may not seem important, and I almost skipped this section, but it’s important to know why panic attacks repeat, and perhaps get an idea of how to stop them doing so.

I’d like to start with a diagram from the book I mentioned in the first blog, however, I can’t find a picture of it online, and I have no scanner, but it’s very useful, and can be found on page 49 of the book.

I’ve mentioned the first panic attack over and over again, but I’m unsure as to how much I’ve explained on it particular, so I’ll do a little more explaining here. Now, I mentioned before that panic attacks are very similar to the response of the ‘fight or flight’ response, except that panic attacks aren’t provoked by actual present danger. Adrenaline is released, muscles prepare for action, and breathing becomes more laboured. Also as I’ve mentioned before, all these are the body preparing to protect itself, and is nothing to be scared of. Though during the first panic attack, when these things remained unknown, and it was a complete shock, the feeling of it was probably very powerful and terrifying. After that first experience, just the thought of another is a horrifying idea, and that would be the same for anyone who has experienced one. Some powerful happenings can create a conditioned response in people, which is a response of fear to anything related to the happening even just being mentioned sometimes. After the first panic attack, it’s common to get a similar situation to this, because of how bad the first was, and fear another. This is called anticipatory anxiety, worrying over when the next will be, where you’ll be at the time, etcetera.

The physical effects of the first panic attack are very shocking and leave you feeling weaker then usual. I was terrified, and it affected my life. I was scared that if certain subjects ever came up, I would deteriorate into another, therefore I was watching conversations carefully, and as my fear was of what it was, I was clawing at myself until I bled, cutting myself to make sure there was nothing under my skin, taking cold baths to calm myself down. Just typing this, I’m becoming very scared that I will have a panic attack, as this isn’t a subject I readily approach. Whenever a part of me itches that I can’t see, or if I touch part of myself I can’t see and feel something I don’t know what it is, etcetera, I automatically think that it’s something involved with my phobia. This was a lot worse after the first one, I can now stop clawing myself before I start to bleed, I no longer feel the need to look under the top layers of skin by breaking them, and I can talk about it if I really wish to for a limited time. I felt like that because I was over-sensitized out of fear and anxiety.

I’m going to stop talking about my own phobia now, because it’s making me feel a bit anxious right now.

Anyway, going back to people in general, the general reaction of becoming sensitized to bodily behaviour is suggested that it’s that the hypersensitivity to this behaviour could possibly be the result of suppressing emotions, emotions that may be unpleasant to acknowledge, because they are personally scary, or that the person may think that other people will find those emotions are wrong or unacceptable. The suggestion is that if the emotions are ignored, in theory, you have more time, energy and mental ability to concentrate on what the body is feeling instead of focusing on the emotion that it would rather ignore.

So with all the background anxiety, worry about the next panic attack, and hypersensitivity on body signals, you’ll probably be questioning yourself a lot, and questioning when and where you’ll have another panic attack. With all these thoughts going around one’s head, even if they aren’t fully aware of it. It’s always good for someone to stop for a moment, and relax themselves physically. The body responds accordingly to whatever situation the mind puts it in. If you watch something comedic, you’ll laugh, if you watch something shocking, you’ll flinch. This is the same for when you question yourself; you will become tense and strained. When someone worries, feelings of anxiety start to prepare the body for fight or flight. The body can’t tell if the worry is over what happens at the end of a book, or if it’s over a suspicious noise downstairs that certainly may lead to something. Either way, it begins to start producing hormones to protect the person from whatever the worry is, adrenaline is released into the blood stream. The amount of adrenaline released is not particularly much, but enough to make someone alert and tense over the situation. So as you continue doing whatever you may be doing, slightly aware of the anxiety, you feel slightly troubled, and check to see if you’re about to have another attack. Usually the answer to this is that you aren’t, and that you’re currently absolutely fine.

Another thing is stimulation, especially stimulating situations. Anywhere with bustling/busy/crowding/bright/bold surroundings the system may become overloaded by stimuli. As the system already has more adrenaline then usual in it, and one of the effects of adrenaline is to heighten the senses, so that the first sign of real danger is seen easier. If you were walking down a dark alley in a known-dangerous part of a town, you would be extra-sensitive to every noise around you. Now, in their usual way, supermarkets aren’t something to be feared, but as they’re very visually stimulating to try to get you to buy things, automatic excitement is felt, which releases adrenaline which causes over-stimulation and starts a panic attack.

You could replace the supermarket in this example with anywhere you feel stress, anywhere the provocation is enough to cause systematic action.

It only takes a small amount of adrenaline released to cause small changes like heart beat quickening. People are on constant sub-conscious watch of how their body feels in case they feel another attack coming on. General unease at being somewhere can quickly become something physical- heart beat increasing, and instead of realising there may be another reason for it (Excitement, as well as possible other things), the sign is misinterpreted, and the trigger to a panic attack is set off. Another example is laughter. Laughing raises the body temperature, which causes self-questioning as to whether that is leading to a panic attack, and then the trigger is set off again.

So cut down to the most basic way of saying it, it isn’t where someone is or what they’re doing that causes a panic attack in the end, it’s their thoughts that do. They, more then anything else, give themself a panic attack.

I’ll go into that in more detail in another post.

So a panic attack happened, and thinking back after it, the most significantly remembered things are where and what was happening at the time and those things become associated with panic attacks. Because of what happened, a person does two things, associating places or situations with the panic attack, and because of that, the amount of fear increases. Someone may have panic attacks in various places, and begin to question why, and realise it could happen anywhere. After assuming no where is safe from panic attacks, and there’s no ration excuse for the panic attacks, things become more frightening as its unknown. So there there’s more anxiety about the next, and the person becomes completely convinced they will have another, with the location and situation being completely unknown. This will make it even easier for the person to have a panic attack.

Anyone who’s had a panic attack has ‘triggers’, things that will set them off, that some know what they are, and others don’t. I’ll provide a list of possible common ‘triggers’ below.

Coffee– Drinking more then two cups of coffee doubles the amount of adrenaline in the bloodstream and some are more sensitive to the anxiety effect of it then others, tea has half as much caffeine in then coffee, so drinking that won’t help either.

Alcohol- It’s unclear whether drink makes people panic, or vice versa but there’s a significant rate of panic disorder in alcoholics.

Drugs- Quite a few drugs have been linked to the bringing on panic attacks, specifically cocaine, marijuana and LSD, among many others.

Smoking- Smokers say that it eases the anxiety, though the anxiety they feel may be from trying to stop smoking, as opposed to anything else. Smoking increases the adrenaline up to 70%, and therefore could cause panic attacks.

Cold medication- A lot of medicine for colds contain caffeine, which as I’ve said before, increases adrenaline levels.

Dieting- Missing meals can make people feel quite jittery, possibly because of the liver releasing glucose directly to the bloodstream when the body needs energy that would be previously gained by the now missed meals, which could be misinterpreted as a panic attack starting.

Inadequate sleep- Not getting proper sleep can cause various things which can also be misinterpreted as a panic attack beginning, missing sleep puts a lot of strain on the body, which can set off hormones that the body can’t tell are from not sleeping and not actual danger.

Exercise and relaxation- Exercising can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood, and that can cause symptoms associated with panic, and relaxation can remove the barriers that stop people feeling the amount of anxiety they’re under, or can give people a chance to focus on the bodily sensations which could be misinterpreted.

Laughter- When people laugh, their breathing becomes more rapid, which can provide the same effect as hyperventilating.
Florescent lighting- Adrenaline makes the senses more sensitive, which means something like florescent lighting could cause a system overload, and stress someone into a panic attack.

Being aware of those may help, in order to stop panic attacks, knowing the ‘triggers’ is essential.

I’ve said a lot about panic attacks over the last few blogs, so hopefully that’s allowed some understanding and possibly improvement. Next week, however, I will actually go into ‘solutions’ and more along that path then the ones I’ve previously gone over.

I’ll add a summary here, as I’ve gone over quite a bit.

People can have a lot of background anxiety without realising it.
A lot of situations cause stimulation or excitement, which can be good or bad.
Stimulation causes adrenaline release.
Misinterpreting feelings makes things feel worse.
Thoughts
Learning about panic attacks makes it easier, learning cues and triggers is important.

The Cause Of Panic Attacks (Part Three)

2010-04-26T00:53:00.000+01:00

Wow, do I suck at updating? I totally do. I have no excuse. I always think when I update “Okay, this time, I’ll get started on the next one tomorrow, then post it whenever.’ And I never do. I’ll get there one day, promise? And by the way, this subject is going on much, much longer then I thought it would. Prepare for another… 3 posts on it or so.

So, emotional, physical, consequences… What’s next? Solutions? I wish. Maybe then I’d have something new to write about… That was… Partially serious. But yes, what am I adding to it all today? I’m going to go more into causes of panic attacks, and we’ll see how it goes from there, shall we? And… Go.

Over the last two posts you’ve hopefully got some idea as to what panic attacks are, over all, and why they happen, but aside from the things I’ve already mentioned, there is no clear reason why some people get panic attacks, while others don’t. Generally on this front, researchers are split between the psychological approach, and the physical approach.

First, we’ll start with the psychological approach.

The psychological interest in panic attacks most probably first started with Freud, and the psychoanalytic interest in ‘neurasthenia’ which is probably the same as panic disorder.

Modern day research on the subject continues to study the underlying causes and treatments from the psychological point. Through various therapeutic treatments, results have been achieved without the use of medication, this shows that psychological factors must be one of the reasons that panic attacks happen.

Some of the factors that have been considered contain:

Personality

It’s thought that perhaps there is a ‘panic attack personality type’, which would explain why some people have them and others don’t. Research does appear to confirm this, suggesting that those people’s anxiety could lead to development of panic attacks at a later stage. Others observed that people who do experience panic attacks share characteristics with others that also do. Over-criticalness and self-disapproval is common, as well as tending to having an overly high expectation of themself.

They also tend to have a lot of ‘should’s and ‘must’s in their life, from early childhood having strict parents, which they would be pushed to fulfil, for risk of losing the important relationships with their parents. Though as an adult, this thought pattern is inappropriate, the way of thinking is already set in from childhood, and now the person isn’t even aware that they are still striving to fulfil these ‘should’s and ‘must’s in life.

Another characteristic is the tendency to recognise others success, but only their own part in failings, basically blaming themselves whenever something doesn’t go as it should. Also, while the individual may be introspective, they will easily involve themselves in others problems and respond immediately to their needs and wants, though they may find it difficult to express their own needs. They would immerse themselves in another’s problems, and bury their own problems under the other’s, semi-effectively ignoring or denying they have problems of their own.

Childhood

Parents often forget how vulnerable children are, and unwittingly say or do things carelessly towards them, psychodynamic theories suggest that when a frightening situation makes enough impact on a child, the feelings and thoughts can be rediscovered in adulthood, when they find themselves in a situation similar to the first terrifying situation. It needn’t even be a physical thing, perhaps part of a fantasy, dream or just emotion. Disapproval, physical threat and overwhelming situations could all be perceived as a situation of potential danger. Another area that is very frightening for a child is a risk of separation from it’s mother figure, this may show in a school phobia initially.

In later years, the anxiety from this can be reawakened when the person find themself in a situation that is a reminiscent, possibly subconsciously, of that same threat, sometimes panic attacks occur after the actual threat or loss of an important person or support system. It may be a recall of those early unresolved fears, but although these links have suggested it, there’s no proof of whether or not panic attacks are always linked to anxiety of separation early in life.

Despite the lack of stone evidence between panic attacks and childhood separation anxiety, losing important relationships or any other type of support does appear to make some people more prone to panic attacks.

Whether or not someone develops panic attacks later in life could be down to incidents in childhood, the way they were brought up and the way they were taught to think of themself.From very early in childhood, subconscious worries and fears can build up to make subconscious anxiety much more prominent than that of people with less of the aforementioned worries and fears, and as these would have been there effectively since ‘forever’, the person is almost always unknowing of them.

Life changes/events

A lot of research has gone into stress and stress management, so that it now appears that as well as bad changes causing stress (losing a job, bereavement) pleasant changes are also causes of stress (holidays, marriage, new employment), though they’re all quite pleasant experiences generally.

With this in mind, some people experience their first panic attack after important event in their life have happened. It’s already identified that loss of support can cause the onset of a panic attack, heavy debt, moving house, divorce and any other major changes in life may also be an onset, especially if the person is already under stress/anxiety, which they may be unaware to, and not know how much stress they are actually under.

Lacking ability in problem solving

On the note of the last point, perhaps it’d be better to say that an incorrect reaction to life events and major changes may provoke panic attacks. Bad problem solving skills would make dealing with life’s ups and downs much more difficult, causing more stress, more anxiety and more worry. Unless by worrying about a situation, positive action is taken (Resolving the situation, accepting it as it is, or seeking help on it), worrying will only raise anxiety highly, and may cause a panic attack. By not reaching this point, the level of anxiety is often raised and maintained which can overload the system, especially while there’s also background anxiety and stress.

Background anxiety

People who experience panic attacks usually have a higher level of anxiety, even while not under pressure or stress at that moment. This may be from any of the aforementioned reasons, but as I explained before a panic attack is the result of the flight or fight response. The whole nervous system is alert and highly sensitive, thresholds for coping with excitement even in pleasant situations. Anything that encourages stimulation also releases adrenaline, and makes it easier for a panic attack to occur. Though, relaxing will possibly cause the blocked response to heightened sensitivity making a panic attack also likely.

Misinterpreting bodily sensations

Because of the highly aroused state, research also suggests that the body becomes more sensitive to bodily sensations as the person is unknowingly searching for cues to respond with fight or flight. Following this, a chain of events can happen that lead to a panic attack. For example, you may notice your breathing and think it’s faster then usual, link this to that you may be preparing for danger and therefore set off a panic trigger. This is the overreaction to a harmless sensation that causes a person to try to protect themself from an imaginary danger, and causes panic.

So alongside the psychological reasons, as usual there are physical reasons also though no single physical cause has been discovered yet, and those that have been discovered are more of a result of anxiety then a cause of it, despite a lot of research being put into the subject. Some suggest that because panic attacks respond to medication, the underlying cause must be physical, which is a hypothesis with many flaws, and the research is worth little particularly, but I’ll list them without going into detail, and self-research can be done if anyone is particularly interested.

Heredity
Organic Brain Dysfunction (OBD)
Mitral Valve Prolapse
Central Nervous System (CNS)
Locus Ceruleus Theory
Carbon Dioxide Sensitivity
Hyperventilation

All of these are near impossibly inconclusive as of yet, but still being researched on.

Although the symptoms of panic attacks are clearly decided, the causes are currently quite unfathomable, though I can look at my own experiences and connect them to research that has been done, and decide for myself if that’s related to my panic attacks, and once that starts to make a little more sense, it becomes easier to deal with.

2010-04-25T15:37:00.001+01:00

The Effects Of Panic Attacks On Life (Part two)

2010-04-18T11:50:00.000+01:00

So, we’ve established that panic attacks are one hell of an chemical and physical tornado, but what impact does that have on your emotions, your social life, and your health, and we’ll also clear up one or two urban myths on panic attacks at some point in here also.

Well, for one thing, there’s a general assumption that, as I mentioned before, no one will understand. This makes talking about it really, really difficult, especially to people you don’t know very well, let’s say… Doctors, perhaps? It might seem risky to mention in hushed tones in your lounge to that one special friend that you’ve been having some ‘unusual feelings’ (And ‘God’ forbid he or she gets the wrong idea on that.), and if all goes well, they may also have these ‘unusual’ things happen. (Let’s stay on track please on what type of ‘feelings’ I’m talking about… I think this is just me that’s thinking along these lines.), or may know someone who does.

Now, I’ve been interested in these things before I had a panic attack, which made the whole experience easier to deal with, but I, most probably, wouldn’t have told a doctor, therapist or anyone else in that type of profession, had I not know.

But, since I did know, my therapist does know, and I should be getting CBT for it eventually. Panic attacks are not a sign of insanity, and no one has ever been diagnosed as insane from a panic attack, or gone insane from them either, so you shouldn’t fear that as a reason not to question on it.

(Right now, I’m rather warily eyeing a spider on the wall every few moments, as I would not like to lose sight of it, as the thought of not knowing where to look for it is quite horrible.)

The whole concept of panic attacks is quite a scary one, especially after knowing what they feel like, your life can be completely changed from one of a carefree and out-going individual to an extremely fearful agoraphobic. Because after you have your first horrifying experience of one, you’re going to feel very opposed to doing anything that may cause another. This process is generally called sensitization, and because of it changes may occur in your life, things like:

Losing your appetite
Significant changes in your eating pattern
Sleeping less
Exercising less
Being less sociable
Decreasing libido
Losing concentration
Becoming demoralized
Losing confidence
Becoming depressed

In fact, the only thing that is significant increased by this is smoking more (If you are already a smoker.) and drinking more alcohol.

But despite all this, you will most likely manage to cope with life, even if it may seem like a huge worry in itself. You may not have as much fun in life as before, but you will manage to cope. Overall, people who have panic attacks still manage to keep their professional lives and their personal lives quite intact. In fact, it’s quite amazing how most people cope so well, despite the terrific amount of stress their body is under.

As it’s generally (As I’ve said a lot before,) a very frightening experience, you will almost certainly not want it to happen again, and as humans, we try to see patterns as often as we can- which does involve in this circumstance. Now, as mine was over something I was watching, I’ve just avoided watching that particular part of that anime, which leaves out a whole plotline I haven’t been able to understand properly further on in the program. This is a good example of avoidance, which is exactly what we do to avoid it happening again.

Often people associate panic attacks with suicide, now just to clear things up a little, there’s absolutely no proof that the two are linked at all. The suicides are most likely a result of alcoholism which is used as an escape from the panic attacks (misguided as that escape is, obviously due to suicides…). Although, if you are feeling suicidal, the best thing to do would be to visit a doctor or therapist and explain how you’re feeling.

Another worry of panic attacks, is heart attacks. No one has ever come to any harm from a panic attack, and neither will you, which includes heart attacks, fatal or otherwise. The urban legend that panic attacks cause heart attacks, is most likely from research that a high number of people that have panic attacks have a condition called mitral valve prolapse, which is a mainly hereditary condition, where the mitral apparatus becomes affected by myxomatuous degeneration (in which the structural protein collagens form abnormally, and cause thickening, enlargement and redundancy of valve leaflets and chordae.) Then the redundant leaflets prolapse (fall backwards), when the ventricles contract, into the left atrium, sometimes allowing a leakage of blood through the opening of the valve, called mitral regurgitation, which can lead to heart failure.

Now, as much as this may sound horrible and quite fatal, on it’s own, it isn’t at all. It’s more that people with the condition lead unhealthy lifestyles or alcoholism that they die from. Generally, people with panic disorders are of normal health, so that shouldn’t stay on your mind too long. Though, if you do have a general worry about your health (From panic attacks or anything else, despite that panic attacks pose no threat to your health at all) there is nearly always a local GP that will answer any questions you have.

Now, I know I have just said that panic attacks do nothing to your health, and they don’t, but things related to them may. For some reason, people don’t seek help for this problem, and then develop other problems that do need treatment, but because they haven’t acknowledged that they have panic attacks the doctor cannot cure the reason for the problem (E.g. The panic attack, and the problem doesn’t get fixed.

For some reason, instead of doing the aforementioned acknowledging, people try to ‘self-medicate’, and as generally humans tend to screw up when they don’t know the correct way to do things, they do it wrong. There is almost no correct way to ‘self-medicate’ for almost anything, including this. Most people who try to ‘self-medicate’ attempt to do so using alcohol or illegal drugs which have a calming effect, there is research that confirms the link between panic disorder and alcoholism. I will put more about this another time, but for now I’ll leave it with stating that the relief from any of this ‘self-medicating’ is very temporary and will do more harm and leave more problems in the end. Drug and alcohol abuse will not only affect your health, but your personal, professional and even put your life at risk. ‘Self-medicating’ is not the way forward for anything, and will have devastating effects on your life.

Now, a quick lightening of subject, panic attacks can have positive effects in your life. No, really. They are a subconscious message that everything is not okay, and that something must be sorted out. I only recently looked back and realised that every time I’ve had a panic attack, I’ve been stressed over something else also, which means I’ve had to change parts of my life over it. Things that just thinking about, would have made me have huge panic attacks, now are just very unpleasant to think of. They are just your body’s way of telling you that you need to re-evaluate, and correct things in your life. Some people are actually glad to go through them; I haven’t reached that point of closure yet, but I’m sure I will one day. The important thing to realise is that they are not trying to force you into a corner, they’re trying to force you out of the corner, if you respond the right way.

So, let’s just quickly summarise this blog again.

You are not going crazy if you’re more easily anxious, uneasy or confused, you’re just going through sensitization.
Despite the worry, constant stress, and anxiety, you will be fine, and you’re doing very well overall.
Feeling depressed or unconfident is understandable, you’re not alone or abnormal for this. This happens to a lot of people.
No one has ever died from a heart attack or anything else as a result of a panic attack.
‘Self-medicating’ is not the answer, ever.
Panic attacks can be positive in life, if you choose to learn from them.