Showing posts sorted by relevance for query paris hilton. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query paris hilton. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, December 04, 2008

[nuts and bolts of films] best, worst

The bad

When you see: 'Produced by Philip J. Roth, Directed by Philip J. Roth, Written by Philip J. Roth, you know you're in for trouble.

So it is with Total Reality and The Last Line of Defence. Rather than trash these movies with a thousand adjectives, better to mention a few of his other great works: Boa vs. Python, Locusts: The 8th Plague, Dragon Dynasty, Dragon Storm, Dragon Fighter, Phantom Force, Interceptor Force 2, Interceptors and so on.

The best way to describe these movies is with an analogy. Imagine you were shooting a film about basketball. Now, as every adolescent knows, you're only interested in the slam dunk [the finer details of how the ball made it to the net in the first place inconsequential] but even Philip J Roth knows he can't fill a movie with only that, so he inserts scintillating, connected dialogue like: "Pass me that ball." "Oh yeah, come and get it!" "Listen buddy, do you know who yer talking to?"

The woodenness of the cast in each of these films is a Roth trademark and makes Steven Segal look positively animated. The scenes seem to be ... well, they're difficult to describe. Imagine a clearly minor character who is never going to win the girl [Roth is nothing if not melodramatic]. This character puts his hand inside an erotic bomb which will destroy the universe, becomes all powerful, suddenly obeys stage directions to get angry and does so until told to switch it off and that's how it continues.

Now, some of you will see this as being in the genre of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, in other words, quite watchable in a macabre way and with a modicum of humour.

No, sorry, the Roth films are just plain bad, failing to engage the viewer in any significant way.

Not as bad though as my candidate for Worst Film of All Time: The Hottie and the Nottie, Executive Producer Paris Hilton, starring Paris Hilton. The tagline is "That's hot. That's not."

The plot is that there is a Hottie, Paris Hilton, who gets all the boys. Out of a sense of altruism, she refuses to go out and party unless her ugly ex-school chum, the Nottie, also gets a date but ... surprisingly, all the boys recoil from her.

Slant wrote:
[T]he film's disingenuousness is as transparent as executive producer Hilton's nightie, which she wears with more conviction than dialogue like, "A life without orgasms is like a world without flowers."

That's it.

With it's opening weekend smash takings of $27,696, for an overall outlay of $8 million, one can only surmise that Hilton was trying to undershadow Gigli, which set a record for the biggest second-weekend drop in box office gross of any film in wide release since that statistic was kept.

The good

Maybe we can agree, to an extent, on the most horrendous films but it's probably going to be tough to call the best movies ever. It completely depends, does it not, on what you see as a great movie.

For me it needs a blend of elements, no one element dominating - a bit of action [well, a lot really], believable and intelligent dialogue, wrily humorous moments, a romantic sub-plot which affects the main plot direction, actors who can act and who believe in what they're doing, great production values and with lines and scenes which remain with you ever afterwards, e.g. play it again, Sam.

Of the modern crop, I'd put Casino Royale right up there and from the olden day crop, perhaps The Third Man.

Friday, June 08, 2007

[paris hilton] justice in the world

The release of this sad monstrosity, even if she has been dog-tagged, is a clear travesty but even more nauseating is the way groups have jumped on the bandwagon:

Civil rights leader Rev Al Sharpton condemned the release as showing the "double standards" of the US legal system.

"This early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favouritism that is constantly cited by poor people and people of colour," he said. "There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions that are not released."

This blogger, stangely, feels a sort of pity for her - she can't help her roots. Nevertheless, in a week of Awards, Paris is hereby presented with the Liz Hurley Award, in the category: "Famous for being Famous". Well done, Paris!

Saturday, February 02, 2008

[anagrams] ten to titillate

Paris says: 'If I can do them, you can do them but I can't really do them, you know. Let's make a video together instead.'

1 'In his patrol.'
2 'Now more grand jobs.'
3 'Blush, war geek ogre.'
4 'Unhappily ransacks zealots.'
5 'Do hot crow.'
6 'Slow sleek melancholic.'
7 'Only I can thrill.'
8 'I join anal glee.
9 'Aha! Demi-human, odd jam.'
10 Shh! Image jam.'

a 'Doctor Who'
b 'George Walker Bush'
c 'Hillary Clinton'
d 'Paris Hilton'
e 'Angelina Jolie'
f 'James Higham'
g ''James Gordon Brown'
h 'Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy'
i ''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'
j 'Welshcakes Limoncello'

No peeking now!

1d, 2g, 3b, 4h, 5a, 6j, 7c, 8e, 9i, 10f

Bonus anagram

'Feminism' anagrams to 'I'm fine Ms.'

Thursday, September 24, 2009

[yesterday's news is old news] see how you do

1. July 2008 - last month, the news broke that Gordon Brown was making phonecalls to unsuspecting members of the British public. Now, the News of The World has reported that The Queen had been thinking about setting up premium rate phone lines to allow the British public to call and get a message from the Royals - for what purpose?

2. September, 2008 - a "lady' burst on to the scene, calling Paris Hilton "a piece of sh-- who looks like a tramp". Then she impersonated a presidential hopeful. Who is she?

3. October, 2008 - there was a real stink when a prank resulted in one man having to depart but the other golden boy only got 12 weeks. A lady called Lesley also had to resign over the affair. Who was the prat who got 12 weeks?

4. November, 2008 - one which has died away of late but at the time, this sort of thing was said - it is better for Saudi Arabia and the company to pay out a few million in ransom and save the 995 million left over. What was the issue?

5. December, 2008 - someone significant connected with Watergate died. Who?


To help pay for the double glazing at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, Tina Fey, Jonathan Ross, piracy, Mark Felt

Monday, July 20, 2009

[schlock films] so bad that they're good

Schlock, in this sense, means a movie that holds you spellbound in horror. The original plan was to do cult movies like Mon Oncle and La Cage aux Folles but the shlock seemed more of a challenge. Gigli, for example, was so bad it was bad and so it couldn't go in. The Creature from the Black Lagoon was just too good anyway.

My list has these, in no particular order:

1. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

The plot is simple: tomatoes suddenly turn into bloodthirsty monsters. Housewives are mauled while putting away the groceries, old folks stare in shock as a huge Brandywine gobbles down their grandson, and the police discover that buckshot is useless when a horde of rampaging Rutgers suddenly erupts from fields gone wild. The tomatoes even take out a helicopter!

2. Blood on Satan's Claw

Sort of like what a juvenile delinquent movie would be if it was a horror film set in seventeenth century England ... it's known for the nude scene and rape scene of Zoe from Dr Who. Not strictly in the bad category, the dialect sinks it.

3. Battlefield Earth

Using CGI effects
of the sort now commonly seen on syndicated television shows, we zoom from an orbital view of Earth to a series of no doubt expensive helicopter shots portraying various mountainous settings. Here a last expositional sentence appears. "Man is an endangered species," it announces. This helps to clarify things for those viewers confused by the assertion, seen ten seconds ago, that Man is "on the verge of extinction."

4. The Hottie and the Nottie

James Berardinelli described the film's comedy as "about as funny as the anal rape scene in The War Zone". There are two girls. One is hot, the other is not. Paris Hilton is one of the two. Which one? A true horror flick.

5. Showgirls

Nomi is so unlikable and, frankly, untalented, that you never buy that all the other characters keep chasing after her. One guy thinks she's selling out her great dancing talent (!), Molly is afraid she'll "become" corrupt, and everyone else, male and female, wants to get her into bed. Frankly, considering the tons of attractive (not to mention naked) women in this flick, Nomi just really doesn't deserve all the attention she's getting.

Honourable mention to Ecks v Sever:

No one expects action movies to be brilliant, but Wych Kaosayananda's Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever, which is based on a GameBoy game—A GAMEBOY GAME, folks, not even full fledged Nintendo—couldn't be more cartoonish if it were painted on acetate. It's loaded with two-dimensional characters, mindless violence set to pounding music, and a story so ridiculous, so incomprehensibly stupid, one can hardly find adequate words to denounce it. Antonio Banderas, Lucy Liu, have you no pride? Have you no standards? Have you no shame? Don't you pay attention to what's written on the papers you're signing?

So, which are your five "so-bad-that-they're-good" movies?

Saturday, November 29, 2008

[the metal tub test] who would survive

There is a storm in the South Pacific and a cruise ship goes down. You rush to the kitchen to grab food to stuff in your pockets and you suddenly see two metal tubs, each capable of supporting the weight of either a man or a woman and baby. You take them and rush up on deck. To your horror, only two people are left there, so you throw one of the tubs to them.

Time is running out but you see a crying baby. You also see a dead officer and he has a gun. Thinking quickly, you put his gun in your belt then, scooping up the baby, you clamber into the tub, it slides into the water and you quickly find yourself and the baby a short distance from the ship.

You see the two people left on the deck fighting over who will take the tub and you know you can use the gun to ensure the more worthy of them gets to escape in that metal tub.

Who do you save if the two people were:

1. Gordon Brown and a little child;

2. Jonathan Ross and a BBC producer;

3. A banker and a lawyer;

4. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton;

5. Polly Toynbee and a garbage collector;

6. A war veteran and Paris Hilton;

7. Posh Beckham and a lap dancer.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

[tina fey] darling of the american heartland

... the younger American heartland, anyway. She called Paris Hilton a piece of sh-- who looks like a tramp. Judge for yourself.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

[personality legs] p is for pics of them

The idea is to match the legs with the names at the foot of the post. There are also clues in the wrong order, just to help. Good luck!

1. She was better at turning heads than winning matches.

2. She's currently the front runner.

3. Those legs weren't so coy in her video.

4. She doesn't bounce on celebrity couches.

5. He couldn't keep her by his side.

Answers - 1. Katy Holmes 2. Nicolas Sarkozy 3. Hillary Clinton 4.
Anna Kournikova 5. Paris Hilton

Thursday, October 25, 2007

[world’s unsexiest] why is it so?

As you know, this blog is not into “celebrity” in any worshipful sense of the word; in fact higham feels the deepest sympathy and pity for those empty shells and hopes earnestly that they can find that for which they seek.

Australian pop singer Kylie Minogue has revealed she would like to have a baby.
This is not new. Months ago she was looking for a good man and at the time:
Word on the street is that Kylie Minogue has hired a team of assistants to help find her a man.
I commented that she was fishing in the wrong pond.

The answer is there, if people would only look. They insist on trying everything except the efficacious and then walk around, sadly resigned to the inevitable that they’ll never find what they long for.

They can find it tomorrow if they fished in the right pool. And so to celebrity beauty - typically shallow journo article:
Charlize Theron, Jessica Alba and Halle Berry are regularly named the world's sexiest women. But who are the unsexiest women alive? A men's magazine decided to find out. The list, published in the latest edition of Maxim Magazine, named Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker as the No. 1 Unsexiest Woman Alive. The magazine said Parker was the "least sexy woman in a group of very unsexy women" that ironically starred in a show with the word "sex" in the title.
The article then goes on to list poor physical attributes like hair and skin but predictably misses the core reason people are attractive – the harmonious combination of spirit, balance within themselves and all of this exuding itself in their physical presence.

Even 20 year old Russian girls understand this principle – why can’t the Anglo-Saxon?

My lowest five celebrity unsexy women? In no particular order, Miss Dirty [Angelina Jolie], Miss Airhead [Paris Hilton], Miss Anorexi-avarice [Posh Spice], Miss Boobs [Pamela Anderson], Miss Lost Her Way [Anna Kournikova but at least she looks OK facially] and Miss All at Sea [Britney Spears].

I have my own issues onside me but these lost ladies have issues beyond. Hope to goodness that someone they accidentally meet up with points them in the right direction.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

[current list] total horses' backsides

Just got down to the serious task of my Top Ten Total Horse's Backsides.

Barry Humphries called this sort of person a "ratbag", a total waste of space, a useless person who nonetheless gets in the way and feels his/her position is of great importance.

You get the idea.

This thing needs to have some limits, some rules perhaps. For a start, they need to be living - you can't very well put in Messalina or Napoleon, for example. Nor can you put in Jimmy MacDonald of Strathclyde, whom no one knows from Adam. They don't need to be celebrities either but neither can they be total unknowns.

Another factor is if they are deliberate AHs or accidentally so and the level of damage they inflict on the world. Right, with that in mind, go to it! Here are mine [always reserving the right to add to or delete from the list, of course]:

"Total Horses' Backsides" Currently Inflicting Themselves Upon Us

1] Financial cabals leading us into the new feudalism and the next war [Well aware]

2] Pornographers and slavers financing the cabals [Well aware]

3] Spammers [Well aware]

4] Stock photo sellers on the web who put logos through the photo [Well aware]

5] People who waste your time or take the p--s [Often aware]

6] PCers and moral relativists who have destroyed education and society in general [Mostly unaware]

7] Madonna [Half aware]

8] Chinese coalburners killing the atmosphere [Totally unaware]

9] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [Totally unaware]

10] Paris Hilton [Totally unaware]

I couldn't quite fit in climate sceptics, humanists and a certain type of unreasonable girl [see post below]. Not to worry. Tomorrow, if the flat's still intact, I'll post the Top Ten Good People.

Who's on your list?

Friday, May 11, 2007

[old poll down] new poll up

Old poll

Paris Hilton wants to stay free from prison because she says she brings colour to your otherwise drab life. She should:

# serve her time 25%

# be freed 5%

# have her sentence extended 70%

20 votes total


Posted by Dave Petterson on May 10, 2007 at 4:05 pm.

Sadly people like this are above many laws. Not legally but by the power that is wielded by them or their protectors. In many cases the payments made to protect them are more than you would expect from a fine or, if incarcerated, the benefits for the cost.

Every now and again a case is made and one goes to jail but it is rare for cases like this. Clearly her parents could not see any other options and good on them.

Posted by James on May 9, 2007 at 1:04 pm.

Though the woman is a zero, she's sadly not inconsequential. I don't think she needs to be a role model but justice needs to be done and she's in contempt of court for this.

New poll

Is cancelling a sports tour to an iniquitous regime ever justified?

# Of course

# Never

# Sometimes

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

[summary] ten points to put you off your breakfast

[Update: interesting little addition to this post. A few seconds after posting it, I went to the kitchen and reached for the ladle to scoop some soup into a bowl. The ladle has a hole at the end of the handle and embedded in this, by accident, was my carving knife. So, as I whipped the ladle out of the pot, the knife came too, it span in the air and the point went straight for my Crown Jewels. I jumped and it missed. Don't worry, I'm not relating it to the post below, of course. Even I'm not that crazy.]
Let me apologize in advance for this post. Basically, I've tried to catalogue the current direction of society and had to stop at ten points. I couldn't take any more:

1] The debt economy. We are in hock as people weren't in the 50s and 60s. This gives the financiers enormous leverage into every household. We are suckling piglets on a bloated mother pig and it's worsening. It makes the average household economics-sensitive. Half a percentage point change can tip the average person over the edge.

This was never the case earlier. Apart from the mortgage and car, that was basically it and banks were still friendly places one went to chat to the teller.

2] The credit binge, which CityUnslicker mentioned, is a component of this. Inch by inch, while the Fed [see my recent posts] artificially holds interest rates, as they've stated themselves [October 2006], until 2011 and other central banks [this is an assertion in the case of the New York controlled Fed] follow suit, the scene is being prepared.

3] The move to the tightening of security and militarization of society. Biometrics, fingerprinting, the surreptitious ID card. And for what? Fear of terrorists? I ran a poll where the vast majority of respondents said Blair knew before 7/7 and many claim to have evidence of the same in the US. The pollies can't have it both ways. Either it was gross incompetence in the face of an obviously developing scenario or else it was something else.

Then there is the increasing presence of troops on the street or newly armed police virtually as troops, at all points of access and egress, in shopping centres, in all public places. The people are becoming more and more used to it.

4] The introduction of seemingly insane legislation, e.g. in Britain with the 'schools lottery' and a host of others [just click on any website] impossible to even start to cover here. And all with the agenda to progressively control and direct more and more and to reduce choice.

5] The deterioration of health services, e.g. the NHS, the 'dumbing down' of education and the employment of moral relativists at all levels to ensure its ongoing deterioration, together with moves in social security which attract less press.

6] The descent into, not just tolerance of but an embracing of, porn, deviance and the raising of the high prostitute, e.g. Paris Hilton, to a place of pre-eminence and virtual adulation by the young. It happened with Tiberius, then Caligula, then Messalina; it happened in the French revolution when a prostitute was placed on the altar at Notre Dame. It's happening again.

The resigned tolerance of the middle generation for what youth is doing is galling and they're doing far more than we did, e.g. the Chav. The unprecedented smothering and extinction of the Cross and attempts to wean the average person away from a moral code and into the worship of wealth is a central tenet of this in western society, whose moral code wouldn't have tolerated these things 30 years ago.

7] The marginalization of dissent. Guido wrote on this phenomenon. Why so surprised? It has always been the way to go - marginalize, vilify, isolate and then spirit the person away. The laughable Petitions to the PM are just that. No one in his right mind thinks anything will come of it. Except for one thing - you're all now on file.

Posts such as this are a perfect example. They deny the blogger access to the Thinking Bloggers Club and consign him to the outskirts of the kook internetter.

8] The inexorable move to war. Merkel's recent comments underline this. No one had been openly talking of war but she introduced it into the European 'think space', in her bid for a German led European Army. Buchan's 'very dangerous people' [from below], who have never altered, it being inter-generational [see Jeckyll Island for evidence of that], are itching for a conflagration.

And why not? Defeated in the referenda, trying to get the constitution through the back door - it's immensely frustrating. But these are patient people who are acting a trifle less patiently just now and for what reason? Why at this time?

9] The open lying by Blair, Bush and the EU. Caught many times in lies, they're either incompetent, arrogant or both. The arrogance betrays the power behind them, rather than them themselves. The EU's attitude towards its auditing procedures is staggering [see Euroserf's articles on this].

10] The immense governmental wastage and the dearth of effective policy. No need to explain. The dearth of competence in leadership is related to this. Can you name a single competent leader, on either side of the Atlantic, who will not be marginalized or go the way Blair and Bush have gone? Transvestite Rudy?

This blogger asserts that there is absolutely no accident in any of this. Society follows the lead of the leaders, no matter how they might think otherwise, e.g. carbon dating, e.g. the Vietnam War. The people have no power - it's not been wrested from them - they never had it in the first place. democracy is a fear-dulling, calming delusion.

John Buchan, British MP and Governor General of Canada, in his '39 Steps', was introducing the character, Scudder, upon whose revelations the plot developed:

… [Scudder had] spent a year or two in South-Eastern Europe. I gathered that he was a fine linguist, and had got to know pretty well the society in those parts. He spoke familiarly of many names that I remembered to have seen in the newspapers.

… I read him as a sharp, restless fellow, who always wanted to get down to the root of things. He got a little further down than he wanted.

I am giving you what he told me as well as I could make it out. Away behind all the Governments and the armies there was a big subterranean movement going on, engineered by very dangerous people.

He had come on it by accident; it fascinated him; he went further, and then he got caught. I gathered that most of the people in it were the sort of educated anarchists that make revolutions, but that beside them there were financiers who were playing for money. A clever man can make big profits on a falling market, and it suited the book of both classes to set Europe by the ears.

He told me some queer things that explained a lot that had puzzled me—things that happened in the Balkan War, how one state suddenly came out on top, why alliances were made and broken, why certain men disappeared, and where the sinews of war came from ...

Leaving aside the year, 1915 - an interesting year for such fiction to be published - what of the assertions through the mouth of Buchan's character? I'd have dismissed them as mere imaginings, if my wider reading hadn't turned up things which became more and more dire as the material went on.

In 2002, my friend was in America when the June 2003 withdrawal from Iraq was being mooted. Being of a pragmatic, military frame of mind, he didn't believe when I said there was not going to be any withdrawal, especially given the 1990 version of the same. 'Oil?' he suggested. 'Only partly. The agenda's to destabilize the region and set it by the ears.' I provided material to back this up.

When I later suggested that Abu Ghraib was no accident and that the infighting was only going to escalate and swamp the US, in the end he jumped ship and put it down to my fertile imaginings. He now says that it's not that he doesn't accept it but that it's too dire to contemplate, if it is so.

You can see from the blogosphere that everyone with a computer has his own 'take' on events and isn't really interested in anyone else's, except insofaras it supports his own conclusions. Also, there is a tendency to see events in isolation, even though they never ever are - there is always cause and effect, always an agenda behind them or at least behind their root causes.

And it filters down from above and covers us with its ordure.

Have a lovely day.

[Update update: now I've just gone to pour a little sauce into the soup. The sauce bottle slipped and the contents went into the sugar. Then the toast burned and the e-mail provider was down. I'm having a lovely day and it hasn't even started.]

[Update update update: regular readers would know that, though I might put strange interpretations on events, I never make them up. Just now I walked into the only cupboard door in the house with a corner on a line with the forehead. The bleeding's slowing but what the girls will make of the scar today I don't know. Oh, and the water supply has been cut off. Zilch. No water. This happened twenty minutes ago [now 09:34]. Later I am travelling to the centre to work and that should be more than interesting. Oh, the container of water I had has now fallen over and spilt. this is getting interesting. Who needs Final Destination?]

Monday, April 02, 2007

[apology] really so very sorry … no, really

... the next person who apologizes for absolutely anything or who denies the holocaust, that the grass is green or that the ice is melting, the next person who dares to call a spade an inclined, long-handled digging tool or who calls the eu a philanthropic society dedicated to the welfare of its citizens or who spells 'lose' as 'loose' when meaning 'not to be able to find', the next person whose ringtones are greater than 20 decibels or who writes 'everyone must have their way' instead of 'his or her way' or who seriously entertains the idea that angelina jolie or paris hilton are good role models, the next person who rabbits on about carbon trading or who quotes polly pendant or who wants to bed michelle malkin or who refuses to use capitals in his posts … oops …

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

[president] which lady would win

The question asked, ‘Imagine that these were the only candidates [for President] - whom would you vote for?’ Results [28] were:

Condoleezza Rice.......14%
Hillary Clinton..............14%
Segolene Royal..........43%
Paris Hilton..................29%

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

[alienation] couldn't care less

The Pub Philosopher brings our attention to the appalling young woman who did this:

Sitting through a murder trial listening to an iPod, hidden under a hijab, shows nothing but contempt for the judicial process.

He was referring to this:

A Muslim juror was thrown off a murder trial when she was caught listening to an MP3 music player under her headscarf.. Ruhela Khanom, 20, was exposed by another juror who spotted headphone wires around her neck. At the time of the discovery, the defendant was giving evidence from the witness box. Legal experts described the incident - which took place 13 days ago - as 'astonishing' and 'unique'.

The prosecution went on to say:

"If contempt is upheld, I would have thought that prison would be the likely outcome."

Before I even looked at the article I surmised it was a young woman. The hijab reference told me it was a Muslim but that was hardly relevant. The thing is, most regular readers know I'm dealing with upwards of 100 girls a week in this age range and the signals were so clear that this was one of those.

I have a lot of good things to say about young people today but I also have some negatives. One of those is the change which is coming over girls of 19 to 22 now. I see it everyday. It's a combination, it seems, of two things:

1] Alienation from the mechanisms of society so that the girl is now reacting more than ever in a closed circle only of other young people where certain behaviours are acceptable. It's a conscious resistance to the "old ways", to the grandparents, to the old traditions and then it slides into a sort of self-contained self-centredness of looks and clothes, music, shopping as an end in itself and the "it's all too much trouble-why do you bother me with your demands" way of operating.

2] It's a lifestyle bereft of constraints - sexual, in mores, in responsibilities - in other words, the life of a teenager is being prolonged past a reasonable age into the 20s and when the adult world makes demands, such as jury service, these demands are met by a teenage mind. She doesn't care, she's not part of it all, she has her ipod to keep to her reality. She's so easily b-o-o-o-ored, you know. She really, truly, believes she's done nothing wrong but will burst into tears that people are being "mean" to her.

Where do we start? Parents and teachers throwing up their hands and crying, "Kids today!" without actually getting down and doing what is necessary - bringing the kids up with strong societal values, making constant demands with no apology, insisting they take their place within the family and so on and so on.

And where are the parents? Out working. And why do the teachers do nothing? Because the majority are PCers who are too frightened to insist on things with the kids [this is a former head teacher saying this]. Too frightened they'll cease to be seen as "cool" and relevant without recognizing there must be some distance.

Once insist on kids toeing the line and accompany that with a clearly loving, caring, interested attitude and kids react positively in most cases. It's the wishy-washiness they meet with which gives them no parameters, no limits, which is the destructive force here. Then they are met with downright hostility and withdraw even more.

Again - firm constraints and a loving, caring, interested attitude are all that's necessary.

So no, it's absolutely no surprise or shock to read this. I feel sorry for the girl and that will sound strange after what I've written so far. I feel sorry because she grew up with conflicting values and like a kid, chose the easy way. Shut out responsibility.

Look about you everyday - ipod in one ear, mobile phone on the other with the new mouthpieces which hang round the neck ready to use. It's a complete world within an outer world.

Though I'm sympathetic to how she got to where she now is, still an example must be made of her. If only to underscore the seriousness of some aspects of life. I'm not talking hanging her up on a gibbet for public persual but a term of incarceration is certainly in order here.

Just as it was essential that Paris Hilton was put away and should have served her full time, this one needs to be incarcerated too for some time. It will do more than any words can to convey the message.

This rant will get too long if we start on the conflicting values themselves swirling around society so that's for another time.

Monday, March 03, 2008

[the oldest game] paradigm shift urgently required

A girl to fight for - a goddess in her own quiet way

The comments in the last post just have to be answered. If your model for relationships is:

There's absolutely no way I'm going to stop living the way I do until someone REALLY DOES offer me a special something. And I want to see real proof first. That's fair, isn't it?

... then this represents the modern approach [post 60s] and is ultimately doomed. All the disappointments, broken homes, divorce and the breakdown in society we see in Britain and America can be brought back to this. It's the root of hedonistic self-centredness and is the road to hell.

Everything else is just symptomatic of the core problem.

The old paradigm was for both genders to cast their net widely and pounce on the partner they'd finally decided on [The Stone Ponies' Different Drum is about this]. I'm speaking of the majority here, not the ones publicized in film.

There was a culture, based largely on the Christian ethic, which valued women's virginity as the last citadel but in effect this created all sorts of good things, especially for the woman.

This gave her true "empowerment".

What a joke that the more the Feminists have screamed since the late 60s of legislating for men to respect women, the more they gave away their best bargaining chip for that respect. I don't blame the women - I blame Them, who progressively broke down the old societal ethic and replaced it with the hedonistic selfishness you see in the quote at the top. I don't blame the quoter either - he knows no better, having grown up in the new society of undelayed gratification.

Women got this crazy idea into their heads that if they lusted for Money and Power, just as the men did, this would give them Independence and Equality and would force men to Respect them. Ha! Do men respect them more today? The hell they do.

The old paradigm ran like this: Kids were brought up to have respect, love their neighbour and all that. There was a culture of "delayed or deferred gratification", in other words - self control.

So, Steve got it bad for Susie and did all sorts of romantic things to come onto her, as did Bob, Paul and John. She was the centre of a whole lot of boys' attentions and could pick and choose, let this one in this far, let that one in not so far and so on. In other words, there was respect and she ran the show.

Do you prefer to see it all up front or would you rather have to imagine what's underneath her elegant halter top and plan how to get inside it? [Photo courtesy Beaman's Bazaar]

The boys knew they had to play her game and her refusals trained them how to respect women. It didn't occur to them to just rape her - there was a slight fear of her inaccessibility.

Her mother used to advise her that her greatest power was in using her bargaining chip and it was tough to do because she'd fall in love and want to give it all to him straight away.

Now the mother seems not to give any advice to the daughter.

Steve and his mates want to bang so they gather the girls whom they know say yes and they overnight party. Susie has no choice but to go along with it or else be marginalized from the group and with the addition of porn at the flick of a switch she has to go further and further now, earlier and earlier.

The girl who says no these days is marginalized and not wanted - she knows the ground rules are that she must bang and she's grown up with no constraints on giving it all away. It's even becoming group in the living room. Don't ask how I know.

It's a boys' paradise and she's lost all empowerment she's deluded enough to think she might have. What a joke that women are trumpeting about equality and how the woman chained to the kitchen had no power, when the truth is the opposite - she has zero power today, zilch, nikto.

Do I wish to see women chained to the kitchen again? Hell no - I want them to regain their real empowerment as desirable and mysterious people, not the pseudo-empowerment they're bent on today. A Real Woman can have all the power she desires, just by being a real woman. She needs no legislation.

To return to the quote at the top - wanting to see the real proof first.

How on earth can there be any sort of real proof or any relationship when it's all about self-fulfilment and nothing about fulfilling the other person? What long term chance has any relationship got where both are judging the other against a check list of whether the other "satisfies" them?

And you mean, Boyz, you can't find proof unless you've banged a girl? Where have your antennae gone? Where are your receptors? This is the Viagra mentality - that satisfaction in a relationship is tied only to the bang. To hell with Friendship, Romance and Love - the Bang is god.

More fool her for giving it away like that. Poor kid if she's grown up in this culture.

Unless she becomes rich and famous, [and how many girls dream dreams of this elusive power they'll never have], she has only herself to negotiate with and now comes the joke on her. The more she's slept around and given the boys all they wanted, the less they'd consider even looking at her as a long term partner. She'll cheat throughout a marriage.

And the joke that you have to sleep with many men to know which one you want - oh really? You can't tell that by kissing and cuddling then keeping him hanging on? Tiberius Gracchus just ran a post on a girl who kept a king hanging on for seven years.

No one ever said she was beautiful. She just played the game, the love arts, to their maximum. She made herself exotic, desirable.

Where the hell has romance gone? Why are the words 'gentleman' and 'lady' mocked today?

Ditto our Susie, who plays it cool and rations out her charms - she ends up with the biggest prize because it isn't her Paris Hilton star quality they respect but Her herself. She has Self-Respect and demands that anyone who is going to sample her wares is going to have to give.

And not money but they have to give themselves. The poorest peasant girl can be rich beyond rubies. No riches in the world can buy this. The lady in this article said beautifully what I'm trying to.

In other words, she makes herself into a Real Prize. Other girls with less self-respect can play the town tart but she's the Princess on the Pedestal, the one all the boys would have if only they could, if only she would.

That's why hundreds and hundreds of kissed girls in my life have translated into just six women I've eventually had [so far]. It's the Groucho Marx approach - please accept my resignation, I don't want to enter any vagina which will openly accept me.

Or, to put it even more crudely as they did in Puberty Blues, "Hey, I don't want to go slops," to follow the well worn path to her shaved garden, to get stuck in peak hour traffic.

And the number of women measuring their true value by the number of men they've laid - is this low or is this low? A woman speaking of her lovers [plural] - ugggh!. Does she feel that numbers confer some sort of kudos on her or does it seep into her brain that perhaps it turns good men off?

The thrill is in the chase. The bang at the end should be just the confirmation - does the tail wag the dog? Still, it has to be done well - lousy coffee after a top meal is a let down - but the whole package is the pleasure. To mix metaphors - do you eat the icing from the cake first or the cake first and then the icing?

I mean - for crying out loud - today you only have to take her to a cafe, do a bit of dancing and she's in the sack or on the living room floor. Who needs it? And who was into her last night when she wasn't answering the phone?

The way she dresses too. If she shows her open cleavage - big deal. I've seen it all before. But if she hides her breasts then I can only dream what they'd be like to kiss and I plan to find out. If she lets it all hang out with her open top and hipsters - yawn. But if she goes all coy, then bells ring - I want in and I want in now!

Where's the old challenge gone where you had to plan out a military campaign on her to break her down step by step? Where's her resistance these days? Where's the chivalry gone? Why doesn't she expect the doors to be opened for her anymore, the cloak to be laid in the puddle so she can step across it?

My white armour is in the cupboard rusting and my trusty steed is nibbling grass in the backyard. They haven't been needed for years.

The paradigm needs to shift right back again so that a culture exists where men don't know every square centimetre of a girl's anatomy from internet porn but would really like to unravel her mysteries. There has to be some sort of Mystery again which forces men to act out of respect and [temporarily] unrequited lust. The more modestly a girl dresses, the more elegantly, the more I want her so badly.

For goodness sake, girls - don't you want the men to fight over you anymore? Are you so far into your own sexual hunger that you've lost all self-respect?

For your eyes only - if you treat me right. Who's the Prize here - Roger Moore or Carole Bouquet?

And guys - wouldn't you prefer a girl with you who was hard-won and every man and woman around knows you have an absolute prize looking into your eyes who gives it only to you? The Carole Bouquet principle: For Your Eyes Only.

Am I off the planet in valuing these things?