| |
|
| |
The boring life of a goody two shoes |
| |
Archives |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
2003-08-31
Hanging in there
I'm not in a good place by any stretch of the imagination. I feel emotionally and even physically drained to the point where I'm dragging my sorry ass to work by sheer brute force of will. Not knowing the exact reason for this mental exhaustion isn't helping either, although I suspect that being shoved into the position of project manager for three projects running more or less in parallel at work and doing all the house construction related work after coming home from a nine hour day at the office has something to with this. But from previous experience the effect shouldn't be as pronounced as it is.
Our marriage anniversary on September 13 marks the begin of our three week vacation (basically no travel this year, but lots of house related things to do, still this should be much better than having a 42 hour work week in addition to all this), and I'm literally counting the days.
And now I find that Daintily Dirty has stopped blogging. Although I hadn't explicitely mentioned her among my favourite blogs in my last post, in truth she and her blog have been a lot of help in keeping me going these last few weeks. So, DD, if you read this, thanks for sharing what parts of your thoughts you felt comfortable sharing. I understand why you stopped blogging, the tension between privacy and sharing, safety and openness is something all us personal bloggers have to deal with one way or the other. I'll miss you, and although it surprises me a little, it somehow feels like loosing a friend. Oh, and whether that picture is DD, the real you, or someone else entirely, she's a truly beautiful woman inside and out!
But enough of the whining, let's move on to some good stuff! Namely, music. Or more specifically, portable music in the shape of an MP3 player. I've been in the market for one of those gadgets for quite some time, because I love music, and even without the black hole equivalent suckage that is ClearChannel, the FM spectrum in and around Berlin, Germany, is mostly filled with main stream stations with playlists that seem to be no more than 20 songs long. The rest of the spectrum seems to be filled with lots of Rap, Techno, Hard Rock, so called Alternative Rock, and alltogether too little music which I actually like. Heck, I listen to one station mostly for their interesting interviews and because it is the only station here which semiregularly plays "Já sei namorar" by the Tribalistas.
With my hankering for variety it was clear from the outset that one of those memory-based MP3 players with 128 or 256 MB of RAM just wouldn't cut it. Which left MP3-enabled CD players or hard disk based players, of which I preferred the latter, as being able to carry my entire collection of music with me everywhere is one damn fine selling point. The most famous and admittedly sleekest of those is of course Apple's iPod, which shares the typical characteristics of most of Apple's products: sleek, user-oriented design, high usability, and a nice integration into the rest of Apple's line-up. Sadly, it also re-inforces the major prejudice against Apple products, namely a price which is steeper than seems strictly necessary. I'm just not ready to shell out 400 Euros for an MP3 player, sorry guys!
Fortunately there is an almost exact PC equivalent to the Apple iPod, the Archos Jukebox line of portable players. And the similarity to the PC is pretty damn close: they are clunkier than their Apple equivalent but cheaper, they feature more of an industrial look, the UI mostly sucks, the standard OS is buggy and less usable than strictly necessary, and there is an alternative Open Source OS, which is technically superior to the standard solution, available off the net for free. Oh, yes, the CD ripping software bundled with it needs MS IE 5 or better (sorry, I'm running 98lite, no IE for me!), but the freely available CDex does the job quite well and has no such obnoxious requirements.
So I've been busy all weekend looting the in-laws' CD collection as well as ripping my own CD's. I'm halfway through the pile by now, and there's still 18 GB free on the player, so I can look forward to conveniently listening to a great variety of music which I like, and considering how important music is for my continued sanity right now, that's a Good Thing(tm).
2003-08-24
Another Week, Another Cheddar X
If the last two weeks are any indication (and if I take a long, hard look at how things are around here just now there is no question that they very probably are), I won't have the time and energy to deal with the questions of openness, honesty and self-image as they relate to blogging in a way that would allow me to put to writing all that I have to say in relation to Anvita's post about that topic and her comment on my last Cheddar X entry. Instead, I hope to accomplish about the same over the next few weeks, taking the Cheddar X questions as prompts to air out my thoughts in little chunks.
1. What's your worst alcohol related experience?
I don't do alcohol.
(Feel free to interpret that any way you wish as far as the relationship between the question and my answer goes... ;-)
2. What's the absolute dumbest thing you've done?
I'm drawing a blank here for two reasons. For one thing, my brain doesn't work that way, meaning that I am deeply at the perceiving end of the judging-perceiving axis of the Briggs-Meyers personality types, and thus my mind is highly associative but not the least bit categorizing. This leads to occasional embarassment when I can't seem to recall something or other, although I should be able to (like, say, the contents of a lengthy discussion that happened a few hours ago), only to be able to recite passages from that discussion almost word for word at some later moment, only because the first question was worded such that I had no associative links to work with, while the second situation provided sufficient amounts of associated information for my brain to retrieve the discussion wholesale. This sucks, because it is hard, and sometimes almost impossible, to work around that limitation, and it makes me look like an idiot either because I may take longer than commonly necessary to come up with an answer, or because I show the somewhat contradictory-seeming behaviour described above.
Also, I was (and mostly still am) too timid to have done much in the stupidly reckless department. I don't do drugs or alcohol, so no chance for doing something egregiously stupid while being intoxicated either, and I'm also too contact shy and silent to have done much stupidity through talking bullshit. Which reminds me...
When I was 16, our class made a trip to Lithuania together with another class from a different school of our town. For some reason or other several of my class mates decided that the contact shyness of yours truly was too much to bear (I still hadn't had a real girl friend by that time), and attempted not-so-subtly to pair me off with a beautiful blonde from the other group whom I would never have dared to ask out on the assumption that she, being the charming, sympathetic, beautiful creature that she was, surely must already have a boyfriend and wouldn't be interested in me even if she didn't.
I noticed what was happening around the second day, and being the fiercely independent type resented and resisted that intrusion into my privacy, however well-meaning it might have been (and there was also always the possibility they were trying to play an evil game with me). As a result I started avoiding any group of people that contained her, and when talking with her was even, uh, less eloquent than I would have been due to my inhibitions anyway.
Which was pretty darn stupid, because I felt then, and learnt later, that she actually was a damn nice girl. Which meant that she probably wouldn't have consented to that kind of stupid evil game and possibly even was genuinely interested in me - a thought I had filed away in the wishful thinking category at that time.
And thus that episode remains as one of the most stupid things in my life, and a big, missed opportunity that still occasionally haunts my thoughts...
3. What is your biggest crossroad in life? That is, what choice, action, non-action most brought you to where you are instead of where you might have been?
Another one of those hard to answer questions...
I'd have to say it was my decision to not attend the mathematical special school that my school director wanted to send me to when I was 14. That would have turned me into an absolute maths and CS geek, would have improved my chances at a better job than I have now, and would have severely impacted what little social life I had at the time.
And I probably would never have met my future wife three years later.
4. Who are your favorite bloggers and why?
Come on. Guess. And looking at the link list on the left is cheating.
OK. Layne, because of her incredibly great writing, her honesty, her capacity to observe and share, because she got me into this whole blogging thing, and for a million reasons more. Mike and Michelle, what's not to like about hot, kinky sex, deep, heartfelt love, and sharing both with the world? Dirty Whore, because I love how she combines smartness and sex blogging, and how she is able to arouse me and make me think. Donna, because she is weird in a good way, queer, funny, and seeing as I've known her since about 1997, she's also one of my oldest acquaintances on the net. And all the other great people in my link list, of course.
5. What's your best example of ironic justice?
I can't come up with one that actually happened, and I'm too tired to think of one I might wish for, so I just pass on this one.
[Update: While trying to get to sleep last night I remembered something that might just conceivably fit the bill.
Michel Friedmann was a deputy head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, had his own talk show, and was a rather controversial public figure. In his show, he wasn't exactly kind to his guests, especially if he caught them evading an answer to one of his frequently very deeply probing questions. Which, when all is said and done isn't bad, but what I'd expect from a good talk master. The problems started when he would often ask very personal and private questions that he had no business asking in the first place and then still didn't accept from his guests a refusal to answer those particular questions. He was also a very, uhm, outspoken defender of Israel and would loudly and vehemently declare anyone an antisemite and social anathema if that person so much as publically hinted at the thought that not everything Israel did, especially in relation to the Palaestinians, was praiseworthy. He was also, by every account, an arrogant prick. All of which isn't the central point but only serves to underline the glee I felt when he finally got served his comeuppance.
As deputy head of the Council of Jews, he energetically tried to install himself as a moral figure head, claiming the moral high ground whenever he could, and generally putting himself into the position of a defender of the public moral. Which, as attentive readers might have guessed, grated on my nerves. A lot. Until the day he not only got caught sniffing cocaine while in the company of a handful of prostitutes from eastern Europe who were very likely smuggled into Germany by one of those modern slave dealer rings (all of which actions of questionable morality), but offering, even pushing, the cocaine to said women of ill repute, which is simply illegal.
The scandal that followed was a truly heart-warming affair with the hero projecting cast down looks whenever he so much as suspected a camera was trained at him, his wife proclaiming her undying love and support of him despite all this, and finally him losing his talk show and having to resign from the deputy office for the Council of Jews.
Yes, sometimes there's justice. But not nearly frequently enough when I look at what GWB and his cronies are doing to the once proud US of A...]
6. Which is more futile, the war on drugs or the war on terrorism?
What stinks more, a sewer full of poo or a skunk's secretions?
Come on, one is as futile and idiotic as the other. The War on Terrorism can not be won by design, and is therefore futile by design. And the War on Some Drugs, though perhaps winnable in theory is practically unwinnable as well. This is something the US administration with their history of the Prohibition in the 1930's should be well aware of, which makes me suspect that it, too, was designed to be futile from the onset.
7. How many copies of the Sobig worm have you had to delete this week
[Hmm, the set would have been better off without this question, it's the weakest of the bunch by far.]
None. If it weren't for the news sites, I wouldn't even know about that epidemic. Our firewall at work filters the relevant stuff, and my email providers seem to have their filters setup alright. OK, maybe some of the stuff I deleted because I classified it as spam from looking at the header and sender was actually Sobig.F, but from the descriptions I've read about that thing I should recognise the sender adress as being that of an acquaintance, so the chance for this is pretty slight.
Next up: more pictures of the house, probably.
2003-08-19
A Couple Thousand Words
Not being able to relax on a weekend sucks. Mightily. Even if that means that some nice progress has been made with regard to the house construction. Of course, the fact that we haven't had a nice, relaxing vacation in two years has quite a bit to do with this as well.
So instead of following the idea for a blog entry which Anvita has given me with her comment to my Cheddar X post, I'll go the cheap way and post a few more recent (as in 30 minutes old at the time of writing) pictures from our as well as the in-law's house.
- The view from our small balcony.
- The floor tiling in the living room. This is where we plan on placing our dining table.
- The floor tiling in another corner of our living room, as seen from the entry hall.
- The court yard of the in-law's house. I just love this place. Sadly, the photo doesn't do it any justice. The bushes behind the table are roses, which carry far more flowers than can be made out in the picture. (Yes, I'm still trying to get the hang of that digicam, it's so bloody different from our reflex camera.)
2003-08-15
Good on a Cracker, Better on a Blog: This Week's Cheddar X!
This one's a first for me, and I don't think it'll become a regular feature, but the recent heat wave (temperatures of about 95F and 85% humidity are basically unheard-of around here for more than, say, two days at a stretch, and we had more than two weeks of that until this Tuesday) and the house construction have reduced my blogging time and energy to basically zero, so I'll grab the chance and do at least some blogging before a weekend filled with plasterboard walls and nails and laths and lots of sweat and whatnot.
1. How do you relax after a difficult day?
That depends on a lot of things. If I'm drained, listening to some good music or lying in the hammock for an hour or two usually does the trick. If I'm stressed out, walking with my wife through the woods around here, or doing a nice 20 mile bicycle ride if I need some alone-time, usually brings me down to a level where I can be sociable again. And sometimes, nothing helps as much as firing up the computer, surfing for porn, and doing a nice, slow, extended masturbation session...
2. What's your favorite form of transportation?
Hands down the bicycle, preferrably the recumbent variety. I wish more shops and facilities were closer to our home, so I could do more things with the bicycle. Cars are OK, as long as I don't have to do most or all of the driving, and as long as we are talking overland travel. Driving a car in a city? *shudder* And lastly, for routes exceeding a couple hundred miles, nothing beats an air plane, although I wish the check-in procedure were a bit less inconvenient and time consuming...
3. What is your worst travel experience?
I haven't had any really atrocious travel experiences yet, so let me think about it for a moment...
Ahh, yes. During our student days, my wife and I had booked a one-week bus trip to London, and the hotel, situated in the not-so-respectable London quarter "Elephant and Castle" was the worst we've ever stayed in. The carpets in the corridors were so threadbare as to be actually worn through to the floor boards, resembling an ugly, moldy swiss cheese more than anything else. Breakfast was a depressing affair of exactly one cup of scalding hot, thin coffee and a sad little scone that seemed to have been left behind by the Norman invasion of 1148 or thereabouts. Hey, if even my wife, who is a foot shorter and 40 pounds lighter than myself got up hungry from the breakfast table, think about what it did to quell my hunger... The rooms were equally shabby, and left a decidedly unclean impression that extended from the carpeting via the shower to the bed sheets. If you wanted to have a look outside, you had to open the window, as looking through the grimy glass was simply impossible.
4. When did you know you were an adult? I.e. what event made you stop and recognize that you were no longer a member of "those damned kids"?
I'm an adult?! Oops. I guess that moment has yet to arrive. But then, I never really felt like a member of "those damned kids" in the first place, and consequently, I was rarely in much of a hurry to grow up already...
5. Why do you blog?
Hmm, that's a tough one. Sometimes, I just blog in order to dump things out of my brain, to pack them up and get them out of my system, a sewer system for thoughts, if you will. (That was part of the motivation for that Vatican post, e.g.)
I don't fancy myself much of a writer, so the main reasons are all of a social nature. I like to use my blog as a sounding board, reflecting my thoughts off people who are not from my own culture. This, and my desire to improve my English writing skills, are why I'm blogging in English instead of my native German. Also, thanks to that "Interweb" thingy (who the hell has come up with that atrocity of a word?!), I've gotten to know some pretty damn amazing people - see my link list for details - and I like sharing my thoughts with those people who, some way or another, I have come to regard as friends.
And to a very small part, what and how I blog is influenced by my desire to fuck with people's assumptions and expectations. Gudy Two Shoes is overwhelmingly a personal diary type of blog. It is certainly not a sex blog in the usual sense, but I write openly about sex, my sex. It is even less a political blog, but I occasionally write about politics as well, especially as they pertain to sex and sexual discrimination.
6. How does your real life persona compare to your blogger one?
The problem with answering this question is that I'm a walking contradiction. I can be incredibly selfish and egotist as well as selflessly caring, I can sometimes look like an extrovert although I'm a contact-shy introvert at heart, I can be an emotionally cold, cynical intellectual as well as a very emotional guy who gets shoved to the brink of tears by witnessing something sad or tragic at the personal level. (Like the one time where I witnessed a teenage girl storming out of one of the residential buildings near my work place, book bag slung over one shoulder, tears streaming down her face, followed by her angrily shouting mother, who was demanding in extremely rude and unkind words that her daughter come back, who just shouted back "But I want my breakfast!", and passed me by. That was, in a strange and profound and personally touching way, one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed. Remembering the look of anger, frustration, sadness and loneliness, of not being loved, on the face of that girl as she stormed past me still makes my eyes wet more than a year later.)
I try to not assume a certain persona and instead be myself when I blog. But I do often censor out or suppress those parts of me that I don't like myself, like the egotist, or the cold, cynical intellectual, remnants of things gone wrong in my childhood and teenage years, and very much an integral part of what I am today.
In short, my blogger persona is a real subset of the true Gudy. And I expect that as I get more comfortable with blogging, I'll reveal more about myself, more of myself, here.
2003-08-07
Topping off GWB in the Nauseating Department
I've just read through the Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. And it makes for recommended reading if your objective is to loose a few pounds - first, it so nauseating it makes you worship the porcelain goddess until there's nothing digestible left in your intestines, and then it leaves you sick and without any desire to ingest anything for about a week or so. Reading this bileous piece of writing has left me with a lot of anger, so I'll try to work it off by attempting to dissect some of the highlights (or should that be lowlights?) of those Considerations, although I'm afraid that Ryan is much better at such things than I could ever hope to be. (And yes, I'm aware that I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, but indulge me, please.)
One thing more, before I start. Layne, if this is even remotely similar to what you and your sister have to work through, you two have my absolute and infinite admiration and compassion.
I'll skip the Introduction, because it just contains a lot of hot air about how troubling homosexuality is and how these Considerations try to help maintain the Dignity of Marriage etc. ad nauseam...
[...] No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
Well, if that certainty were as unerasable as that, we wouldn't see any of those proposals to give legal recognition to homosexual unions now, wouldn't we? And here we also immediately encounter the procreation issue, which is so easily refuted by all the childless marriages (whether by choice or biological necessity) in the western world, about which I'll say more later.
[...] Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. [...]”
And just what is a natural moral law? Last I looked, morals where what society imposed on its members to compel them to behave according to some mostly unwritten and often arbitrary set of rules that is in accord with the sensibilities of the majority, or at least the rulers. But that second sentence is even better - it's the first outright non-religious insult to homosexuals in these Considerations, saying as it does that homosexual acts have nothing to do with genuine affection.
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as a serious depravity [...] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. [...]
Sacred Scripture is roughly 2000 years old. People at that time didn't think twice about slavery and compulsory labour, torture, not giving women all that many rights, and any number of other unpleasant things. I would hope that humanity has evolved at least a little since then... But then, I forget that we're dealing with the Catholic Church here.
And as far as I can see, most homosexuals do not suffer from their homosexuality, but from the stigmatization, discrimination, prejudices, and outright hatred they face, which have their cause in the same narrowminded idiocy which is so amply displayed in these Considerations.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. [...] homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity.
I would very much like to see those first two sentences in operation, especially in the face of what is being said in the rest of the Consideration... As far as chastity is concerned, I'll assume that what they mean with this is to not have sex outside of marriage, because all other definitions I can think of are absolutely nonsensical in the context of this paper. Quite apart from the fact that I find the idea deeply laughable, and utterly fail to see the virtuosity in this, there is a simple remedy for all those homosexuals which doesn't condemn them to that most unnatural state of celibacy - just let them marry. Oilá, problem solved...
[...] discreet and prudent actions [against the legal recognition of homosexual unions] might involve: [...] reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
Safeguarding public morality, huh? It doesn't get much more hilarious than that. Public morality is going down the drain, thank god for that. The problem is that it seems to take ethics down with it, but at least homosexuality (as opposed to, say, greed) has absolutely nothing to do with this. But trying to "contain the phenomenon" is even better... As far as I know, no-one is quite sure what causes homosexuality, but indoctrination doesn't seem to figure into the equation at any point, and the same seems to be true for contagiousness. So how exactly is anyone supposed to "contain the phenomenon"?! Unless they mean something more insideously evil, about which there is more in the last paragraphs...
And here's insult number two: homosexuality (and by extension the homosexual side of bisexuality) is evil. Tell you what, Cardinal Ratzinger. I'd rather hang out with wonderful, "evil" people like Layne, racheal, Tracy, or Donna for the rest of my life than spend even on second in your pompous, self-righteous, love and sex-deprived company.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. [...] Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
And there I had such high hopes after that first sentence, because, as far as I can see, that's (part of) the crux of the matter. And there they go on about obscuring certain basic moral values (Which ones? Pray tell!) and devaluating marriage. As if two loving homosexuals marrying would devaluate marriage more than those all too many heterosexual marriages that are founded on anything but true affection...
Homosexual unions [...] are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race [...] Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
Should we ban infertile people from marrying, then? And what about childless marriages? Should they be dissolved after a number of years, because they are apparently not "open to the transmission of new life"? Does anyone in the Vatican actually think through what they are writing here? Or am I assuming too much in attributing these guys with the ability to think? I'll leave aside the matter of artificial insemination etc. We all know what the Vatican thinks of that, and it isn't really at the core of the problem...
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons.
I'm letting that sentence stand on its own, because it's important, and the rest of that paragraph isn't all that interesting. Let's stop for a moment and read it again... These guys are so desperate to convince others of their ideas that they are tripping themselves up by trying to create a connection, any connection, between reality and the strange realm of their fantasy. What we have on our hands here is as close to a factual lie as they dare to go. As far as I know, there is no experience, no evidence whatsoever to back up such a claim. Quite to the contrary, in fact. Recent studies (in Germany, I think, but I'm not sure) have shown that children growing up with their parents living in committed, loving, homosexual relationships develop absolutely normally. What obstacles they face are based solely on the discrimination and injustice that the rest of society is levelling at the homosexuality of their parents.
[...] The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.
"And some say that this has already happened". 'Nuff said. (With apologies to Douglas Adams.)
[...] It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. [...]
So you say that people living in loving, committed relationships are not a significant and positive contribution to the development of humans in society? Would it be better if they lived all alone and miserable and unloved? What a cold, cold world devoid of love you must live in then. I pity you.
Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
The biological argument just recently got a thorough thrashing over at Plain Layne, and I've said some things about it already so I'll not reiterate them here. What about mutual love and caring? If procreation is really your best and only argument for marriage, you are truly a bunch of sad SOBs. But let's read on.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. [...]
Most western societies do in fact have some special privileges they only award to married couples as opposed to any old couple, like common custody over a child or mutual power of attorney, the right to silence before a court, the right to medical information should the partner get incapacitated, etc. You could, of course, give all those rights to something you call, say "Civil Union" which can be extended to homosexuals as well. But if it looks like marriage, feels like marriage, is in fact marriage in everything but name, why then not just call it marriage and be done with it?!
It should not be forgotten that there is always a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law. (from the footnote to the paragraph above)
Heaven forbid that those damned homosexuals come out of their closets, shed the anguish such smallmindedness causes them, and actually try to find a partner and live a loving, joyful life according to their nature! Does it get any more mean-spirited than that? *shudder*
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003 [...]
Perhaps one should keep in mind that the Congregation is the institutional successor to the Roman Inquisition...
2003-08-06
Sexual Mishap
[I've got a lot of waiting to do at work today, waiting for program builds to finish, waiting for those damned 180-odd page MS-"let me reformat this for you in the most inconvenient and harmful way possible"-Turd print jobs to finish, so I can find out that the stupid git of a word processor has once again managed to mess up a handful of screenshots which were just fine a second ago. So I might just as well not twiddle my thumbs and fume in silent anger in the mean time, but blog instead.]
I'm horny. It's not as if this were an infrequent occurance with me, but I'm exceptionally horny these days for two reasons. For one thing, it's that time of the month for my wife, and for some hormonal reason or other were are both at our horniest during that time. This doesn't make sense to me from a biological standpoint, because you can't easily get pregnant during that time, so why would mother nature in her infinite wisdom arrange for us to feel like little rabbits during a time when this can't possibly further her cause?
It's also cruel, because even after all those years, her period is the time when I can only very rarely make myself give her the usual oral carress to her nether regions we both like so much. I know this is fucked up, after all I'm perfectly OK (understatement alert) with rimming her butt hole just about any time I get the chance. Additionally, ever since she's been taking the pill her bleedings have been light enough that O.B. minis are sufficient during the entire time, so it's not like we are talking torrential floodings here or something. This issue is slowly getting better, but I'm still not halfway where I want to be.
Despite this, Sunday afternoon saw some action. All morning we had been nailing wooden slats to the inside of the roof construction of our new house, on which to later fasten more gypsum plaster boards. During our noon meal we kissed a lot and my wife told me that she almost would have ripped off my clothes during our work in the house. She shrugged off my teasing question as to why she hadn't just done so (after all, she's the one who thinks that having sex only in the bed is boring), winked meaningfully at me, and went to clean the dishes, while I just shrugged, went back to our house, and finished the work we had begun in the morning.
When I came back two hours later, all dusty, dirty, sweat-drenched, and generally icky, I directly went to the bathroom, shaved (which I had forgotten that morning) and showered. Only after I had finished towelling myself off I then entered our room, still completely naked. Only to find her lying naked on the bed in the one pose that always and invariably diverts copious amounts of blood away from my brain and into my crotch: on her belly, her head resting on her hands, her legs slightly spread with her lower legs pointing to the ceiling, nicely accentuating her buttocks in the process.
She closed the book she had been reading, smiled up at me, and asked "What took you so long?" As an answer I just flopped down beside her, propped myself up on my left ellbow and started nibbling on her shoulder, neck, and ears while my right hand started carressing the small of her back, her butt, and her inner thighs. Soon her breathing deepened, and she closed her eyes in contentment.
Without further ado I kissed my way down her back to the twin globes of her butt and started some serious butt kissing and licking while stroking the already wet folds of her sex. In a breathless whisper she soon demanded more and spread her legs in invitation, so I entered her with two fingers, began massaging her g-spot and watched in contented delight as she quickly zoned out into her world of pleasure. Continuously keeping up that stimulation, I then proceeded to give her what must have been her longest rim job yet, answering her occasional demands for more by inserting another and yet another finger into her pussy, intermittently inserting a thumb into her butt so that sometimes all five fingers of my right hand were busy giving her all the pleasure I could.
When a few orgasmic waves had washed over her, she finally demanded my cock. Keeping in mind that she had taken an antibiotic barely a week before to get rid of the trouble with her wisdom teeth, I fished around in our earthenware condom jar, clothed up my cock while she rolled onto her back, entered her and began stroking, confident that this time I would be able to last much longer than the weekend before. Except this was the moment when everything ground to a halt.
My wife reported a strong burning sensation coming from the place that should have exuded nothing but pleasre at that moment, so I pulled out, and we looked at each other with disappointment, worry and puzzlement warring for domination of our facial expressions. When I looked at the condom package I saw that I had gotten a condom from a brand we don't usually use, and had been a gimmick that came with something or other we had mail ordered some time ago. Seeing this, we then concluded that it must have been a mix of some minor lesions caused by the intense four-fingered stimulation which we hadn't done before, at least not for such a length of time, and the lubrication on that condom.
But now I'm not so sure. Her pussy is still burning (which, if you have been following along, is reason number two), albeit only midly, and her inner lips were all red, dry, and extremely sensitive yesterday evening, and this can't possibly have been caused by that condom and the stretched tissue. Or can it? I don't know, but if things don't improve quickly I'll probably suggest a trip to the ob/gyn on Friday.
2003-08-04
House Pics
In my neverending quest to please my readership I present here and now a handful of pictures of our shiny new house, and, because I really like it as well, some pictures of the in-law's house, too.
More pics if and when I find the time to post them. And if you're really lucky, I may even find the time and energy to make a proper gallery page, thumbnails and all. For now, it's too damn hot and stuffy to even contemplate the thought without breaking into a sweat...
|
|
