Woke up to the Captial FM breakfast crew telling me Tulisa Contostavalos had apologised for her sex video via her Twitter account. They weren’t lying. She did do a video. And – sadly – she does apologise at the end. The apology sneaks in at the end of what I think – up until that point – is a perfect statement on what must be a pretty embarrassing and hurtful thing (I am talking about the video being watched by thousands of people and being leaked by an ex-partner; not the act of sucking a johnson, that should be encouraged). I’m not having a go at her for apologising, she is clearly in a position where some areas of the public eye is criticising her for engaging in a legal consenting act, in private. I just think it’s a bit sad that’s she’s been (a) put in that position, and (b) that’s the bit that all the media coverage has focussed on. The story should be that some sad man has desperately grasped for some sham-fame, more likely a few pieces of silver by exploiting someone he had been in a relationship with.
Why all the fuss about it? If it absolutely had to be released into the public eye then why couldn’t everyone just be more subtle about the whole thing and just watch it and marvel at Tulisa’s tits and blowy-giving abilities? Like I did. Perhaps the answer is for all women to give me oral sex and then I will put those videos on the internet – thus meaning there would be no shame on any women for having a mouth-fuck tape on the internet: just on me for having a small winky. And if that solution seems sexist I will reciprocate the act. Deal?
If I was going to offer any critique of Ms Contostavalos (and it wouldn’t be on her oral sex skills, right kids?) I would say that perhaps the phrase “I’ve never been the type of girl to sit down and keep my mouth shut” might have been best avoided in her statement, we all saw *WINK*
He Did Create Adam and Steve*
I kept meant to do a quick mention of this piece of shit for the last few days but never got around to it. And then I was showing it someone at work today (a Liverpool lad, we both hate The Sun and are pure into equality for all – why were we wasting time agreeing with something? Any time agreeing with someone is kind of time wasted really) and he told me how a friend of his, who I know, agrees with this position (the anti gay marriage position). This man is such a socialist you wouldn’t believe but he is also a Catholic and agrees with the recent stance taken by the Catholic church on gay marriage – they’re not pro it if you missed the news.
I was shocked that someone who puts my Marxist ideals to shame could share opinons with this bastard in The Sun (I still shudder at thinking this is written by a really important person at – by far – the most popular paper in the country). The sentence Logic leads to interesting conundrums is mind boggling when you read on to see where (his) logic leads. Polygmay, threesomes (is this not polygamy?) and close relatives. BOOM! That all but says if you agree with gay marriage you agree with a man marrying his own 6-year-old SON at knife-point. That is what KAVANAGH is implying.
I can’t even carry on with the rest of the article. It is too painful to read knowing that many, many people will agree with the sentiment. I will just say this, to those people who think that ‘it’ is unnatural and (very cleverly) point out that the human race will DIE OUT if everyone was homosexual: what makes you think EVERYONE would become homosexual? Churches saying homosexuals could marry? Is that the only thing stopping everyone from being homosexual? No it’s not is it, you fucking muppets. All that would happen is that people who are gay (which would be the same amount) woudln’t be made to feel different in a negative way or be bullied (to death) or driven to hideous mental anguish, and they might marry other gay people. And heterosexual people would carry on procreating. It would pretty much be the same as it is now, in fact, but just possibly with less hate and negative energy being wasted by fucking dicks.
As you may have grasped I just don’t get it (disallowing gay marriage) myself. Perhaps being someone who doesn’t really believe in marriage or religion means I would not understand people feeling strongly about one or the other – or the mix of the two. I just think that everyone should be able to say and do what everyone else can do. Some say I am a dreamer but I’m not the only one…
*Well didn’t he/she create us all in his/her own image? You do the math.