Archive for December, 2010

Anyone who says, “if you can’t remember anything then you must have had a good night”, is a prat. Why does it mean you must have had a good night? You could have sucked a cock and killed a cat for all you know.

More often than not what happened the night before is you drank far in excess of what you can handle and either threw up, passed out or both. I don’t equate any of those things to be an indication of having had a good night.

The things you do just prior to throwing up or passing out are not things you’d look back on with fond memories even if you could remember. Chances are you sexually assaulted someone’s mum, told your best mates to fuck off, fell over a few times and then spent half an hour chatting to a coat rack. Is that really “good times”?

It’s entertaining for everyone else to watch you humiliate yourself. They probably had a good night. You, however, wake up the next morning with no recollection of anything that happened but feel an overwhelming sense of dread. Over the next few hours the people you were with fill you in on what happened. You feel embarrassed and ashamed but you act in one of two ways. You either lap it up as if it’s a character trait or you apologise to everyone and hope it’s never mentioned again. Embarrassed and ashamed.

The people you were with will laugh AT you (not with) and at least one person that wasn’t there will say, “it must have been a good night then”. It must have. You made a complete twat out of yourself and you want the ground to swallow you up. But you must have had a good night. Must have had a good night. Must have. Must.

No. No you didn’t have a good night. You may have had a good night up to a point but after that point the quality of the night rapidly declined. And yet the people who say, “if you can’t remember anything then you must have had a good night” are suggesting that the reason it was good is because of what happens after that point. The part of the night you can’t remember. The humiliation part.

People that say that should shut up and not speak until they’ve thought long and hard about what they’re saying. There should be a fifteen minute gap between every sentence that comes out of their stupid mouth.

A good night is a night you can look back on with a smile on your face and a story to tell. A bad night is a night you can’t fucking remember because you were too cunted to have any control over what you were doing. And we’ve all been there.

Advertisements

I don’t like pornography. I realise that this is an unusual and unexpected statement for a 23 year-old male to make but it really does nothing for me.

Now, I want to make it clear right away that I’m not some sort of asexual freak-monkey. I do like sex. I’ve even been lucky enough to have done it on a couple of occasions. If you were to say to me about a film that has, say, Jessica Alba naked in it , then I would want to watch that film. Even the seemingly endless supply of celebrity sex tapes are entertaining in their own little way (albeit not always in the way they’re intended). I just want to establish the fact that I’m not repulsed by sex in general. Just porn.

The primary reason porn does nothing for me is the fact that porn stars are generally hideous. The girls wear surgically-enhanced breasts, copious amounts of make-up, fake tan, fake nails and fake fuck-knows what else. I’ve never found any of that attractive. Even the failed actresses and ex-reality TV stars that pose in Zoo or Nuts magazine are total dogs. Fake breasts are a massive turn off for me. I used to fancy Gemma Atkinson when she was in Hollyoaks but as soon as she decided to have those ridiculous breast implants I just wasn’t attracted to her. Fake breasts don’t look real and they’re never in proportion. Same goes for fake tan and nails – they look so false that it’s just not attractive. The likes of Jodie Marsh and Katie Price make me want to vomit. They look like ugly caricatures of ugly women. The men in porn, on the other hand, are roided up freaks with the looks of a radio presenter. They just happen to have enormous penises in most cases.

Secondly, there’s the noises that the girls are required to make. They are utterly ridiculous and totally unrealistic. Which girls can honestly say that they make that sort of racket when they’re having sex? I mean, obviously there’s a fair bit of moaning and groaning going on (oh yes, I’ve been there) but seriously, who screams “Oh yeah, baby! Fuck me good! Fuck my face! Shove your cock down my throat ’til I choke!” at the top of their voice throughout the whole of the love-making experience? They continue to make the ludicrous noises even when the dopey tosser they’re supposed to be having sex with isn’t inside them. They’re not displaying genuine pleasure or emotion, they’re just really bad actresses. The guy, on the other hand, seems only to ever say “Do you like my cock?” every 15 seconds. What a stud.

Thirdly, it’s the things they actually do. It might do it for some guys but I don’t want to see a girl with come all over her face. Nor do I want to see how wide she can open her anus. And when did a man whacking his cock against a girls face become an attractive proposition? It just looks wrong and shows the girls to be nothing but sex objects.

Then there’s the really weird stuff. The stuff you hear about but don’t watch unless you’re warped. People pissing on each other, pregnant sex, cartoon porn, rape, incest, really fat women, really old women, transsexuals and sex with people going through chemotherapy, to name but a few. Actually, I made that last one up but I wouldn’t be surprised if it exists somewhere.

Another thing I genuinely don’t get is the fact that heterosexual men will say they’re able to watch man/girl and girl/girl porn but recoil at the idea of watching man/man porn, which is entirely understandable. Yet homosexual men will say they’re able to watch man/man, man/girl AND girl/girl. How does that work? If your sexuality is orientated to liking men and not women then surely there’s something a bit strange about watching two girls getting it on without a feeling of discomfort? It genuinely puzzles me. Although, I suppose we see animals copulate in wildlife documentaries without thinking too much of it. I’m not sure where I’m going with this bit…

Pornography is always going to remain a multi-million (billion? I haven’t done the research..) pound business regardless. I’m sure most guys (and girls) reading this think I’m mental but it’s how I feel. It’s so superficial and crude and with no sense of eroticism. It’s unattractive people doing unappealing things in my eyes. I just don’t “get it”. Each to their own though, I suppose.

I had a conversation this morning with someone who had laser eye surgery at the weekend. It sounded horrific. And the poor girl looks like she’s been attacked by crows. No wonder she was wearing sunglasses indoors. In winter.

I’ve always wanted laser eye surgery. If I were to win the lottery (which I won’t because I don’t play it) then laser eye surgery would be the first thing I’d spend my money on.

I hate wearing glasses. I’ve had to wear them since a very young age and I’ve done nothing but resent them since. They’re rubbish in the rain because the raindrops on the lenses obscure my view. They’re rubbish in the heat because if I’m walking indoors from the outdoors then they steam up immediately and obscure my view. The lenses smear and get dirty and I find only certain materials are able to clean them effectively whereas the majority of materials just make it worse. I can’t play football in them because whenever I have done I get a ball in the face and the bloody things break. I can’t lie my head on a pillow and watch TV because the frames dig into my face and cause discomfort. And worst of all they make me look like a prat.

It’s okay for girls. Glasses tend to suit girls more often than not. In fact in a lot of cases I’d say glasses improve a girl’s look. It’s kind of sexy. And yet any guy that wears glasses looks like either a geek or a sex offender. Or both.

I practically refuse to wear my glasses in public. And yes, that’s purely vanity. I’m a single man in my early twenties and spectacles do nothing for me. I always go out wearing my contact lenses. Contact lenses that cost a fortune and don’t always keep my eyes in the best condition.

I could go for glasses with thicker frames as they appear to be more ((mum word alert!)) “trendy” but I still very much doubt anyone would ever see me wearing them outside of the house. Laser eye surgery is what I need.

I can’t deny that the horror story I was told this morning was a tiny bit off-putting. Cups on eyes, cutting, scraping, slicing, shouting… And you’re awake during the whole thing. I just about still want to have it done though. It’s either that or look like a geeky sex offender for the rest of my life.

‘Anonymous’ (if that is their real name) left a charming comment on the ‘About Me’ section of this blog last night. It simply said, “self opinionated prick”.

I have a couple of problems with this. The first problem being that this anonymous hero didn’t put a hyphen in ‘self-opinionated’. The second problem being that I’m not entirely sure what this anonymous trooper expects.

By the very nature of this sort of thing, of course there are going to be personal opinions. Some people will agree with them, some people won’t. That’s normal. However, for someone to be so annoyed by something (or all the things) I write that they feel the need to write insults in my comments (anonymously, may I add) must mean they fail to understand the point of what I’m doing. Allow me to explain…

I want to be a writer. Not just as a hobby but as a job. I’m quietly making steps in the right direction with other things I have going on at the moment but this blog is where I get to practise and demonstrate my writing to as many people as possible. My primary aim is to entertain. I post a mixture of opinions and personal stories. Whether I make you laugh or think or just make you angry, as long as I’ve caused a reaction I know I must be doing something right. To call me self-opinionated doesn’t really work as a put down. If I only wrote about things I was ambivalent towards then it would make for one hell of a boring read.

So I share my opinions. That’s what writers do. Some are brilliant (Charlie Brooker, David Mitchell) and some are awful (John Gaunt, Jeremy Clarkson). I don’t claim to be absolutely right about anything, I simply put across a point of view. There’s a comment section under each blog post should anyone want to voice their own opinion or take issue with something I’ve said. “Self opinionated prick” isn’t very constructive though. That’s just an inane insult.

The funny thing is people actually like being annoyed. I’m guessing ‘Anonymous’ must have been quite annoyed to have left that comment. I’m also fairly certain that ‘Anonymous’ is reading this right now. Thanks for reading.

If you’ve been on Facebook recently then you’ll have noticed many people have changed their profile picture to that of a cartoon character. This is as a result of a viral campaign against violence towards children. The idea is that by having cartoon characters from our childhood as our profile picture we will see nothing but an invasion of wonderful memories until 6th December. It’s a lovely idea.

Over time the campaign has been associated with the NSPCC who have stated that they had nothing to do with starting the viral but are appreciative of the recognition it has generated for their work against violence towards children.

It’s actually been quite nice to log in to the social network site and see the various pictures of cartoon faces from the past. Upon seeing Bananaman, for example, on someone’s profile it’s difficult not to have a nostalgic smile smeared across your face. It’s a good idea even without the reasoning behind it. Who wouldn’t rather see a picture of Thomas the Tank Engine instead of the ugly mug that usually occupies that square space? I think everyone should do it permanently and just change which character they display on a weekly basis. Anyway, like most nice things in the world, some thick, stupid morons had to try and ruin it…

“ATTENTION: The group asking everyone to change their profile picture to their favourite cartoon character is actually a group of paedophiles. They’re doing it because kids will accept their friend requests faster if they see a cartoon picture. It has nothing to do with supporting child violence. IT’S ON TONIGHT’S NEWS! Copy and paste this to your status! Let everyone know !”

So paedophiles are forming groups now. I know if I was a paedophile then I’d definitely share that information with other people in the hope that they too would be a paedophile and we could go about setting up a group exclusively for paedophiles. We could then place a piece in the local paper advertising the fact that we’re recruiting paedophiles. We could arrange school trips that would have a completely different inclination to the school trips you go on when you’re at school. Ultimately we’d want to set up a worldwide internet campaign to get people to display cartoon characters as their profile picture so that children will accept our friend requests faster. Oh wait, that doesn’t even make sense. If the theory of having a cartoon character as a profile picture really will entice children to accept our friend requests faster then why would we need the rest of the world to do it too? Surely it would be a tad more inconspicuous if we just kept that theory amongst ourselves.

Incredible, isn’t it? There are so many flaws there that it’s amazing that anyone can think for even a second that it’s true. Even if you read it on someone’s status would you not feel inclined to find out more about it? What news programme was it supposed to have been on? The people who posted this drivel as their Facebook status obviously don’t watch the news.

As true as this all obviously isn’t, I had a lengthy argument with someone who is adamant that it’s distinctly possible. I was desperately trying to appeal to her common sense but she was having none of it. None of the points I made were going to change her mind. That’s when it dawned on me that this was an argument I was never going to win because you can’t win an argument with a stupid person. The situation reminded me of a sketch from ‘Jam’, the Channel 4 sketch show written by Christopher Morris (who coincidentally also wrote the Brass Eye paedophilia special which is another thing that continuously comes to mind when analysing this farce).

The gullibility and stupidity of some people is truly astounding. Especially when it comes to things posted on the internet. I myself am considering making up my own barefaced lie and posting in on Facebook with a “copy and paste this status if you.. blah, blah, blah” line at the end. It wouldn’t even have to be credible for people to believe it and spread the word. All I need to do is include a word that evokes some sort of emotion in (stupid) people even if they don’t understand the context. Something like ‘cancer’ or ‘war’ or ‘dead children’. I would use ‘paedophile’ but that wouldn’t feel wholly original right now.

For the time being just put a fucking kids character as your profile picture and smile about it.