TSD Guide to Breaking Up...

Ever had your heart torn out then stomped before your eyes by some dame or bae you tried to give the world to, only to have them actually take it from you?  You pathetic fool, you ignored the first rule of True Love: always be the dumper, never be the dumpee.

But even doing the dumping can go wrong if you don't fully comprehend the risks and requirements of the task before you.  So, please, allow me to run you through this helpful little guide to break-up reasons, break-up etiquette, and burning bridges.  This way, when you do inevitably fuck things up anyway, I'll be there to throw it all in your face.  In the kindest, most supportive way.

Eternal Love?  Wanna bet?
Nothing made of man lasts forever, and that can include how you feel about the love of your life. If you're lucky the pair of you survived the lusty attraction phase to bond on a more organic level and resigned yourselves to the fact that no one else is going to put up with your 'real selves'.  Congrats, you're soul mates, now get off my fucking site with your successful marriage bullshit! You're making my balls itch.

However, for each happily settled, long-term relationship there are at least as many failures. The reasons for these are as unique as the relationship itself in every case, but the baseline result is that you no longer feel the same way you used to about your partner.

WHAT IS LOVE?
There's nothing particularly rational about an emotionally co-dependent, sex-based relationship. No one (who isn't a sociopath) decides to just spontaneously feel 'that spark' when they connect romantically with another person. There's a whole lot of subconscious, biological shit going on to do with dopamine receptors, pyscho-visual cross-referencing and invisibly stinky pheromones when you start crushing on that special someone. All that stuff culminates, hopefully, in you falling in love then boning each other senseless for several months. But those chemical highs are a short-term buzz, there to encourage you to spend an obscene amount of time together so that when it wears off you're already addicted to each other (via a gradual accumulation of the pair-bonding drug, oxytocin) . And it's just as well that euphoria slackens off, otherwise, as a species, we would be too busy making babies to look after babies.

But like I said, long-term love isn't always the outcome, and one day you may just wake up feeling decidedly rational about something as irrational as a romantic relationship, and start thinking that your partner isn't someone you want in your life forever. If that's the case then your creepy, neighbourhod Sex Detective has a few ironclad, non-negotiable, you better take heed or die miserably, maggots suggestions for you to keep in mind as you psych yourself up to end things with them once and for all.

4 Golden Sex Detective Rules for a Successful Break-up!

NB: By the way, if you're not a big fan of the "C-word" then... hang on, no, I shouldn't spoil this surprise.  That would be like issuing awarning about an imminent focus on subject matter that may trigger a strong emotional response.  Why would I ever give a foreboding fuck about your emotional responses?  Just keep reading and pretend you're not a complete soft-cock instead.

Rule 1: Thou shalt be a Cunt!

Surprisingly, very few people feel all that good about breaking someone else's heart. Not regarding the decision itself - they're fine with that bit - but the process involved. I get bizarre questions from otherwise smart adults like, "I want to end things with her but how do I do that without looking like an asshole?"

The first thing you must accept if you choose to dump someone is that you will look like an asshole when you deliver the news. No exceptions. Ever. It doesn't matter how well reasoned you think your justification is, the other party will feel that you just wronged them. If you consciously try to look less like an asshole by using platitudes or 'it's me' bollocks you will just end up coming across as a particularly pathetic asshole. Which is even worse. You must accept the fact that as far as the dumpee, their friends and their family are concerned, you now suck balls.

And don't for a second think you've escaped this bitterness "because they seemed cool with it when I ran it past them" bullshit. The only reason they played it cool was to try to save face, idiot, not to spontaneously agree that they weren't good enough for you.

This line is not recommended for beginners.  Or slow runners.

Embrace being the cunt, though, instead of fighting it. It will actualy be your best tool later on.

Rule 2: Thou shalt be cruel!

Another even more baffling question I've heard is, "How do I break up without hurting her feelings?"

The same way you break an egg without cracking the shell.  No, it's not a trick question, just a stupid one. 

Most Earth-humans with even a shred of self-esteem feel hurt when they get rejected. When you dump someone you take that one step further by rejecting someone you had already previously accepted. So it's kinda like rejection times rejection to the power of dump. Compare punching someone in the face with punching them in the balls. One is worse than the other, right? Well, dumping someone who's actually in love with you is more like grabbing the back of their head and using their own face to hammer their balls.

The Break-up equation: 

(rejection x rejection)^dump = how your ex feels, you fucking monster.

Listen, if you are too afraid of hurting your partner's feelings then you probably don't have much reason for being in a serious, grown-up relationship in the first place. Feelings get bruised all the time between people who share a close, intimate relationship - sometimes unintentionally, often subconsciously. And even if you were somehow able to miraculously dump someone without hurting their feels then either they're a sex robot or you haven't really broken up with them at all.

On the other- hand, if you're a sex robot then just go back

to your primary programming, you lucky robot!

Rule 3: Thou shall be a cruel Cunt!

One fantastically sinister thing about us humans is that most of our emotion-based decisions occur subconsciously a few moments before we run them up our conscious flag-pole. All our conscious mind does in these scenarios is seek mental justifications for that decision after the fact. Intellectually and technically we're the masters of the biological hierarchy, but emotionally we're still retarded mammals.  A higher IQ just let's us come up with fancier excuses for our moody actions.

The point I'm reaching for is that your decision to end a relationship has probably been brewing for a while, and that only a lazy habit cycle and the other person's expectations have barred you from giving it serious and full consideration before.

But now your mind is made up. No negotiation, no counselling, just you serving a subpoena to Dump Court.

Well, if that's how you feel then that's okay. And as I've said, there's no nice way this shit is going to go down. So if you can't do it nicely, make fucking sure you do it effectively. Now is not the time for doubt or ambiguity. If it was you'd be looking for a means of resolution, not dissolution.

If you're not sure on how cruel you should be, just ask:

"What Would Simon Do?"

Firstly, you have to be prepared to feel extremely uncomfortable. Your soon-to-be-ex is going to run either hot (screaming tears and shitfits) or cold (numb surrender, possibly masked by babbling fake agreeance). You know it's not real agreeance because if it was they would have dumped your ass first, dickhead.

Rule 4: Thou shalt be a cruel, crystal clear and concise Cunt!

If you just hung up the phone or arrived back home thinking "Shit, that went well," then you've clearly just failed at breaking up. People who are in love with you have their own 'irrational justification machine' in their head. It's called false hope, and unless you stated your case very clearly to them they will just think you're not being serious. Also, if you use pussy terms like "I need my own space" instead of real imperatives like "I want you the fuck out of my life, you horrible, soul-draining harpy!", they will just think that all this is a hiatus until you 'find yourself' or similar hippie bullshit.

45 reasons? More like '1 reason' I had to repeat, you know, 44 times.

That being said, breaking up is the one time you must rely on emotional arguments instead of logical ones. The moment you start listing technical faults with the relationship...

for example,

    - "I don't like the way you talk about my cat."
    - "Your eating habits turn my stomach."
        or
    - "Your constant sucking of my brother's cock really grates on me."

...you open up apologetic debate, with your target now promising to clean up their act and stop wearing their 'I Suck His Brother's Cock' T-shirts.  Those sorts of discussions can go on for hours while the dumpee deconstructs the relational history to scavenge verbal ammo and launch counter-attacks. In other words, they will try to coerce this confrontation into 'just another fight' that all couples have.

But the truth is that the moment you knocked on their door or dialled their number you were no longer supposed to be a couple.

Do you know the one thing that your redundant partner can't argue with? How you feel. There's a strange, intrinsic vs extrinsic emotional dichotomy in us that goes something like this:

"only I can make myself happy, no one else;"

however,

"other people can quite readily make me feel unhappy."

As an example, see that look on your ex's face just as you dumped her? That's you making her feel unhappy. And that sense of overwhelming relief coursing through your brain now that you've ended things? That's you making yourself happy, even if you had to be cruel to get there.

That's right, babe, I dumped you because of you being so complicated, in depth and having more 

flesh-wounding battle scars than me.  It had absolutely nothing to do with that consistent, fucking

emo, whining bullshit you think is 'vampire poetry' but to everyone else is just verbal PMS.  Seriously.

So, just keep it simple and full of statements. "I am breaking up with you," is always a good start, as is "This relationship between you and me? Over." In response to the next inevitable question ("Why, dear god, why?") reply with "Because I no longer love/care about/trust/even remotely tolerate you," or maybe, "Because the mere sight of you makes me vomit," which is also effective, but be prepared to back it up with actual puking. Nobody can argue with optical-reactive vomiting.

Then there's the nuclear armageddon reason, the one that maximises both harm and effectiveness: "I've fallen in love with somebody else." Hell, I've deployed that statement before even though it was palpably untrue, simply because I know it works. I've even have the bruises to prove it.

Don't be afraid to repeat and reinforce your intent either. Some dumpees will strive to wear you down into a state where retracting your decision seems easier than executing it. Don't bitch out. It won't change how you feel, and unless of course you think guilty pity is a solid foundation for a loving relationship, things are still doomed.

Visual aids also help to get the message across. Expedite the process by slapping this sticker on his/her car window or front door.

And for those denialist exes who insist on maintaining your relationship facade for the sake of family, Australian Idol auditions or simple public appearance, feel free to copy and paste the image below as your new social media cover pic, or even have it printed on a t-shirt.

One size fits all, gentlemen.

PS: ALWAYS TREAT SOC-MED AS AN MMORPG.

And that's another thing: why the fuck are people still unironically putting shit like a real-life relationship status on public forums and platforms? marketing algorithms don't take that shit into consideration, they take it as a challenge. Right now there are thousands of 'Married' account holders trying desperately to explain to a poise looking over their shoulder why half their feed is Madison Ashley ads, while 'Single' are slowly yet certainly losing a war of attrition to Fleshlight and dildo companies. And aside from those commercialist carrion eaters, there is nothing sadder this side of vampire poetry than a busted-up couple where the dumper has 'is single' and the dumpee still has 'is in a relationship' in their respective bios.  

Anyway, good luck with your next, inevitable break-up, and if you have any concerns or medical bills relating yo the advice I just spent the last 45 minutes inventing, feel free to lodge your complaint on a Post It notes and tape it to the top of your mother's head. That way I'm sure to see it next time I rest my beer there.



vs Stalkers

"So, Sexy-D, let's hear you take on this Stalker crap..."
Mass media originally treated stalking as a celebrity problem: famous people being continuously harrassed and shadowed by fanatics until someone gets shot or splattered with bloody semen.  However, modern society soon realised that the most common form of this crime involves everyday jilted lovers or gormless rejectees unable to resolve the fact that the relationship they desire is no longer a realistic option.  It is typically motivated by one or two particularly irrational emotions:

1. envy: wanting what someone else has,

or

2. jealousy: not wanting to lose something that you had.

See, even when you try to lighten the issue with hilarious shirt slogans

people still feel uneasy.

I'm as prone to experiencing those two emotional states as much as the next guy, but I'm just too damn lazy to act on it.  Seriously, stalking seems like an awfully exhausting, risky and embarrassing way to not gain someone else's affection.  Stalking, by nature, is unwanted, intrusive behaviour.  If someone doesn't want you to pay them attention, then how is paying them more attention going to change their mind?

It won't, obviously, which is why stalkers are forced to justify their actions by constructing a denialist fantasy: there's a movie playing in their head all the time in which they are the unsung hero venturing forth on a romantic [aka 'twisted as all fuck'] quest.  Obsessing about your own life is bad enough, but the retardation of personal character required to obssess about someone else's life is simply mind-staggering to the rest of us.  If you think you can somehow control another person's life by sticking your nose into every part of it then you have failed to grasp even the fundamental principles of how humans work.

"Stalking is a Crime?  Back in the 80's we called that dating!" 
Hahahaha!  It's funny because being a needy, scary douche was a social norm then, apparently.  But times have changed and with it the Law.  Well, the laws in my country anyway. 

Here under Federal Law (as per the Criminal Code Stalking Amendment Act, 1999) the legislation describes and defines 'Unlawful Stalking' as conduct that:

a. intentionally directed at a person (the "stalked person"); and


b. engaged in on any 1 occasion if the conduct is protracted or on more than 1 occasion; and


c. consisting of 1 or more acts of the following, or a similar, type-


     i. following, loitering near, watching or  approaching a person;

    ii. contacting a person in any way, including, for example, by telephone, mail, fax, e-mail or through the use of any technology;


   iii. loitering near, watching, approaching or entering a place where a person lives, works or visits;


    iv. leaving offensive material where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, a person;


     v. giving offensive material to a person, directly or indirectly;


    vi. an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or threat of violence;


   vii. an act of violence, or a threat of violence, against, or against property of, anyone, including the
defendant; and


d. that-


     i. would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, of
violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person; or


    ii. causes detriment*, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person.

*'detriment' in this case means any actually loss or harm to a person or property.

Like all legalese, this was written in the style of 'confused yet arrogant robot', because courts love that shit.  But what it actually means is that if you are shown to intentionally and persistently bug the fuck out of another human in a way that makes them feel scared, then you may qualify as a stalker.  That's a pretty broad-sweeping definition, but bear in mind that stalkers come in different flavours and operating systems.  Here's a simple breakdown on the various sub-species:

1. Non-domestic stalker: (aka 'Fanzilla') who has no personal relationship with the victim.  This is the classic stereotype that was originally associated with the stalker: a fan obsessed with a ceratin celebrity/public figure/possible cartoon character.  They'd collect anything associated with their idol, convert their room into a shrine, track every piece of gossip, you know the deal.  Then one day the Fanzilla decides the only way they'll truly prove their devotion to [insert famous name] is to buy an illegal firearm, punch the address of the star's preferred day spa into the GPs, and then make the news in a major way.

2. Organized Stalker(s): (aka  'Dedicated Bully') base their actions on calculated, controlled aggression, often as part of a vendetta, ostracisation process or similar fear campaign against a peer.  This variety is often related to 'pack stalking'.  It's not based on a dualistic love/hate motivation, but is a skillfully planned and executed bullying plan designed to exclude the target from whatever workplace/sports club/social group to which they belong.

3. Delusional Stalker: (aka 'Really Fucking Insane, Seriously') is based in a fixation like erotomania or obsessive love, may be psychotic in nature or at least emotionally dysfunctional.  This is serious mental health shit, peppered with scary shrink words like 'attachment disorder', 'Oedipal complex', 'manic depression' and 'compulsive masturbation'.

4. Domestic Stalker: (aka 'Typical Psycho Ex') who either has had a prior relationship with the victim and feels motivated to continue or intensify the relationship, or who otherwise feels entitled to said relationship.  Psycho Ex is a vernacular term, as most domestic stalkers are not clinically psychotic.  They are just really shithouse at not being a fixated fuckwit.
 

Thankfully, Type 5 stalkers ('The Socially Inept and Obese') were hunted to extinction

back in the '90s.

"Great, multiple types of creep, but which is the most dangerous, SD?"
Statistically speaking it's Stalker Type 4 (Domestic).  That's because this kind of scenario - where an ex can't let go - accounts for more cases that the rest put together.  It also sadly tends to feature a higher potential or escalation in violence on the part of the stalker if not dealt with effectively.  We hear about, see or sometimes even experience cases like that from time to time.  And although there are established laws in place to deter stalky types, the associated enforcement and judicial systems can't guarantee an effective hit rate when it comes to preventing some pretty horrible outcomes.  That's the drawback of broad-sweeping laws - too many cracks and loopholes.

Most of your stalkers - the majority Type 4s who are just violently obsessive instead of clinically insane - will fixate on you (a stalkee) because they want power over you. They want to make you adore and submit to them. This is due to their narcissistic entitlement obsession.

"The Narky-what-session?"
Sigh - just read on...

Look, there's two types of people who participate in romantic relationships:

1. Those who think they are somehow magically entitled to that relationship (folks I tend to call 'Disney Cartoons'),

and;

2. Those who know that the relationship demands all manner of hard work and even then there's no guarantee (aka 'Grown Ups').

Domestic stalkers are enhanced versions of the Disney Cartoon category. Think of them as Disney Cartoons with the lot, plus a side serve of night-vision goggles. They are so ignorant that they continue to believe in their enititlement even after the other person has pulled the plug and walked away.  You know, as opposed to counselling, sobbing into a pint glass, writing dark love poems, or just fucking someone like a normal person. Instead, obsessive, highly manipulative and often intimidating behavioural patterns ensue. And, because the nature of the original relationship was always fundamentally emotional (vs purely physical or intellectual), rational arguments will not dissuade a Disney Cartoon type of stalker because he/she is a compulsive, spoilt little cunt*.
*For a given value of 'cunt'. 

Jealousy-powered stalking does not occur within an exclusive demographic - the rich, poor, intelligent or plain dumb are all equally represented in this creepy profile. Stalkering is an equal opportunity vocation, oblivious to race, class, creed, gender or education.

Stalky = Jealousy + Creepy, and it's univeral, just like dandruff.

Stalkers are driven by a deep, self-generated, self-feeding emotional need for control and are unlikely to respond to negotiation due to the addictive nature of their fixation.  And if anything, the more intelligent a stalker the worse they act. IQ doesn't make them socially smarter, it just means they come up with more sophisticated justifications for being a douche.  They lack insight into their own behaviour and simply do not see their actions as stalky in any true sense.  However, most are aware that the outside world might 'naively misconstrue' their activity as being a little weird, which is why they go to great lengths to stalk covertly.  Oh, and chances are they're also developing a nasty dose of paranoia in the process, just to make them even less stable.

If you are targeted, the trick is to avoid becoming as fucked up as them, because do you know what else causes unhealthy degrees of paranoia? Yep, being the target of a stalker.

"Fuck that shit, SD, what's the solution?" 
Hang tight, people, because I want to show you the standard advice first.  According to this official-yet-shitty-looking web page you have no less than 37 options to protect against being stalked.  Most of them come across as sensible enough to a panicky person, but to me they seem a bit impractical and extremely *yawn* boring. 
 
I mean, come on, look at No. 3: "Remove landscaping behind which someone can hide or keep surveillance." That just sounds like a lot of hard gardening work to me. 
 
And then there's No. 33: "Don't give out your Internet password and change it regularly.".  I don't know what an 'Internet password' is, you insanely uninformed information site, so I'm just going to assume you mean any and all forms of identity-reliant online memberships.
 
Then there's my favourite, No. 30: "If you don't want to or know how to use a gun, assess your living space for possible defensive weapons and have them ready."

I love that last piece of advice, partly because it's prefixed with the counter-productive disclaimer "(USA ONLY ALLOWS OWNERSHIP OF GUNS)", but mainly because the two weaponry choices on offer are either firearms (a rather ultimate solution), or whatever you happen to find in your living room:

This means that - if I was the kind of ill-prepared pussy didn't already own a 9mm semi-automatic - I have to end up considering the following combat options:

The plasma TV?  Hell no, Sea Patrol is on tomorrow. 
Coffee table?  Where will I stack my magazines and take-out boxes then? 
Remote control?  Jeezus, I might as well cut my hands off. 
The Nintendo Wii?  Fuck yeah, gay little piece of shit keeps telling me I'm fat.  If I'm so fat, you stoopid game, then how come someone's stalking me, huh?

Your personal armoury.

Read through that linked list carefully and you'll notice one common theme in some of that paranoia-inducing garbage.  It's one that's been recited to kids by softcock parents the world over.  "Just ignore bullies [stalkers] and they'll get bored and leave you alone."
 
No.  Fucking.  Way.
 
Now maybe - under supremely sane circumstances - a supremely sane person hitherto seeking your attention may finally give up if you ignore them a few times.  Maybe.  But Stalker Type 4 doesn't like to be ignored.  He/she actually gets very shitty when he/she is being ignored.  Instead of giving up on the object of their denialist-desire, they will push harder and harder to provoke an attentive response. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I think deliberately ignoring these fucktards is a great idea, but only because it will infuriate the crap out of them, not deter them.  And infuriating people I don't like is hella cool.  But, in place of a protracted list of what effectively reads like a an urban camping list, I would like to offer a philosophical alternative to barricading your doors and digging a crocodile moat around your house.  It's all about your mindset and how you see yourself if targeted by a stalker.
 
"Sounds like psycho-babble, but keep talking..."
In terms both legal and psychological, stalking is considered a form of predation.  Hence the target of a stalker is easily pigeon-holed as 'the prey' or 'the victim'.

Remember the defining part of the crime as pertaining to the stalkee?

"[actions] that would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear... or detriment". 

But once you create or accept the label of 'victim' or 'prey', you choose to disempower yourself and transfer all that power to third party agencies - cops, judges, and (in worse case scenarios) the paramedics.  That may sound adult-like and responsible, but the process really isn't too effective.  Even cops will tell you that off the record. 

Choosing to call yourself a "victim of stalking" equals lame, is what I'm saying.

Remember, you should never brand yourself a victim until they find your body.

Sounds harsh?  So what?  Let's get make it clear here: some fucking retard with a spoilt brat mentality and the emotional maturity of raped kitten is messing with your private life, right?  He/she is keeping tabs on your whereabouts, shadowing you, calling/texting you at weird hours, and trying to sabotage any new relationships you may want to pursue.  He/she will become a constant presence in your world even when they're not around.  Their very existence will haunt you.

And all because you didn't want to be in a relationship with their batshit-crazy ass.

"Yeah, so if we don't want to be the victim, what's the alternative, smart ass?"
Now, you can call this type of predator a 'stalker', 'creep', 'obsessive', 'inappropriate' or whatever.  But I'm telling you right now, anyone who intentionally and repeatedly tries messing in my private life only ever earns one title:

"FOE" 

That's because I don't consider stalking to be a 'nuisance', 'concern', 'behavioural issue' or 'victimisation pattern'. 

No.

As far as I'm concerned it's a fucking Act of War.

It's a fight, a conflict, a counter-insurgency, a critical tactical competition inherent in any hostile, uncontrolled, adversarial process.

It is my desire to be left the fuck alone vs their desire for my attention.  Well, if that's the case, they're about to get attention in spades.

Let me put it this way: imagine certain aspects of your life as a sovereign nation.  Let's call it My Kingdom of Huge Boobies Privacy Land, just for the sake of discussion.  The forces of the Stalker Empire have just crossed your borders and initiated hostile actions against your territory.  Do you:

1. Petition the UN to initiate discussions on support and perhaps embargoes or sanctions against the Stalky incursion? (ie: take the legal system path).

OR

2. Scream and wail to the international media about the horrible atrocities being inflicted against your peaceful country? (post your situation on Twitter/Facebook/forums or the like).

OR

3. Break out the guns, form resistance units and fight for Privacy Land by kicking those invaders the fuck out?  (ie: prep for action).

Fuck you, Stalker Empire, and your dreaded Stalkenpanzers!

The answer, of course is ALL THREE, because when you're defending your privacy, safety and welfare, you should never hold back.

Option 1. Sure, get the restraining order/police reporting process underway asap.  It'll take time and may not yield much for you at first, but at least you can say you told them about the stalker from the start.  Think of this process as your official Record of War.

Option 2. Social networking is a great way to launch a counter-offensive.  Don't play distressed victim - pity gets old fast - but instead spread the truth.  And if you're worried about defamation* then just work around the legal definition.  The first thing you make clear over the public network is that you just filed a police report/restraining order.  You don't have to state who it's against in a public forum, but I'm sure pretty much anyone who knows you will ask you in private.  This part of fighting back is your official Declaration of War.
*Defamation is a statement of described or implied fact that may harm or negatively affect the subject of said statement.  However, this does not apply to statements that are shown to be legally true. 

Option 3. As for your physical/lifestyle defences and counter-attacks, there are so many lovely alternatives.  Some folks will tell you to learn self-defence, buy a big dog, change every lock/account/phone number you have, or even move house.  Fuck all that shit - too much time and hassle involved.  What you need when repelling any invasion force is an army.  The greatest weakness of stalkers is that they tend to operate solo, and hence treat you like an isolated individual too.  However, your greatest strength is that you are a healthily-minded human being, and hence you tend to congregate and operate in groups.  The others in your groups are, in this war, your Allies.  Family, friends, workmates and any other persons with whom you are regularly associated on the basis of mutual benefit, gain or enjoyment.  These folks need to be accurately briefed on your situation because these people will then form your defensive picket (just by being aware and watching out for Stalky).  This is your Mobilisation for War stage. 

Bonded human groups, it's what we, as a species, do and

what stalkers, as idiots, tend to forget.

Once you've mobilised the rest tends to take care of itself.  Depending on how reliable and protective your allies are, your stalker will soon be a readily containable threat instead of some kind of super-villain.  Yes, it does take much in the way of preparation, research, advice and motivation to go to war against this type of freak.  It is not fun, nor easy, nor stress-free.  But anything short of covering your bases, prepping your defences and spread the hard, ugly word is, in the stalker's eyes, inferred consent to continue interfering in your life.

  

vs Hateworthy Things x7

Due to no demand whatsoever, here's another seven things I'd rather hate than resolve...

Royal Weddings
It's twenty-fucking-eleven!  I should be sitting in a rocket chair watching clones fight for food on the Moon!  Why the hell is there even a royalty anymore?  I'll tell you why, because watching Royals do things is like seeing time travellers pop up now and again to remind us how far we've come since serfdom. 

Wikileaks
I know you're trying to make government shennanigans transparent and more accountable, but what you're really doing is spamming us with things we really don't want to know, okay?  There are so many cables and excerpts flying around now that I'm starting to miss the old cover-ups. 

Soft Stalkers
Thanks to the cyber-age of information, stalking has never been lazier.  Back in the old days it took serious, obsessive narcissism to get out and physically follow the object of your twisted desire.  If the cops didn't get you the new boyfriend's attack dogs would.  Nowadays people just patch together a few fake online profiles and fish for whatever info they can glean on the whereabouts and activities of exes.  Then they start the hate-campaigns, constructing elaborate propoganda vehicles on Facebook, Twitter, SMS spamming and whatever else the kids are using to lie to the universe these days.  If you're going to act out like a sad, sulky child, for Christ's sake have the gumption to do it in person so the authorities can field test their new tazers.

Soft Revenge
It's like vengeance lost its balls and revenge fantasies were rewritten by Disney.  Nobody wreaks revenge by bettering their own life, they do it by destroying someone else's.  Revenge is what you do when you DON'T want to get over something, that's the whole fucking point.  It's the opposite of moral maturity, the high road and natural justice.  Leave it up to karma?  Good luck waiting for your nemesis to die off and return as a caterpillar, hippie.  Look, I'm not advocating petty vindication, I'm just saying that you have the options to either evolve with dignity or avenge your situation by sneaking over to that fucker's place and spray-painting the word 'RACIST' on their car bonnet.  One option may eventually make you feel satisfied with life, while the other will definitely be hilarious.

Internet Porn
You say there's too much?  I say not enough, at least not enough interesting stuff out in Adult Entertainment Land.  All the permutations have been thrashed to death, every possible carnal configuration between consenting adults explored.  It's getting to the stage where real life sex is becoming a preferable again.

3D Movies
Not worth the extra $5 if it's still a crappy movie, alright?  Any film that has to rely on tricking my brain into thinking its pointing things at me in order to sell tickets is probably not going to end up in my masterpiece collection.

Wars
A lot of these armed conflicts aren't about good guys fighting bad guys, they're about one sort of bad guy fighting another sort of bad guy, neither of whom care about you, okay?  The media only presents it as a 'Light vs Darkness' scenario because tallying up the true atrocities accrued by both sides would take too long and would make you finally realise that all the guns belong to crazy assholes.

vs Beiberisms, Beliebers, Beiberology, Beiber Fever, and that fucking haircut!

Up until recently my interest in Gen Z pop culture was dispassionate to say the least.  That was until a faithful reader and friend (Thanks, Nicole, for putting me through this crap) asked why a 16 year old with a bowl haircut would release a bio-pic world-wide when the 'bio' part of that equation was only, well, 16 years old?  Anyone and everyone over the age of, say, 16, is probably asking the same question.  At least when Myley Cyrus tried that shit in '08 her extended concert film, she played both her personae, and the show was also packed with other equally repulsive yet popular artists (yes, Jonas Brothers, I haven't forgotten about you and your fucking gay purity rings) and followed years of television and music deals.  It wasn't trying to be the bio-pic of some girl who was childishly famous, even though she had done a lot more - media wise - in her short life by that stage.

But, here we are.  It's 2011 (and although by this time I was hoping to be writing this article from a rocket car) I dump the word 'Beiber' into the searchie and get this.

 I have watched this clip 23 times now and I still don't know what the fucking
movie can possibly be about, other than "I'm special, fuck the rest of you."

Sure, the trailer starts out cute enough: "My name is Justin, and this is how I bang my tiny hands on furniture."  But then it gets all dramatic with ridiculous title overlays...

Who?  Who the fuck said "It" would never happen?

"They?"  Give me a hint!  The Freemasons?  Illuminati?  Presbytarians?  It was those fucking Presby wankers, wasn't it?

Ah, at least I know that the "You" here refers to every girl born after Napster died.

It's not until halfway through we get to the meat of the plot.

So, out of 5 widescreen, titleboard statements I've conceded one as accurate (about this being a 'true' story), inferred that one might possibly reference his fan base, while the rest are either completely unsupportable claims or outright lies.  Justin may be a lot of things, but, no, he is certainly not an ORDINARY KID.

Take a look at the head-byte of some supposedly grown adult I can't be bothered googling - he's wearing a cap, that's all I know - at 00:35 seconds into the trailer.  And I quote: "He's 16 and he's doing it all on his own."

What the fucking fuck!?!  Beiber has done absolutely nothing on his own.  And I'm probably including masturbation.  His mum posted anything featuring him making singing noises on Youtube since the kid was 12.  Then a year later she pretty much sold him to this guy after consulting God.  From there Mr "he's doing it on his own" cap-wearer managed the boy and created a new label with Usher just to make Beiber an icon.  He became so much of an icon that Braun and Usher's label merged with Island records no problem to make this teenager an even bigger craze.  So, between Justin's mum, manager (Braun) and mentor (Usher) I can safely say the little shit achieved nothing alone.

But that won't be the film you'll see, because "young, adequately talented tween gets made over into a star by a savvy Jewish entrepreneur, an already famous black singer, his insanely religious white mother and millions in investment dollars" doesn't seem as satisfying.  Anyway, when you're selling a product swiped from Youtube all your marketing is done for you.  Yes, this part-biography/mainly extended concert clip only has one target audience, like I said.  Girls aged between crayon-eating and training bra.

Or so I thought.  See, I actually took on this case because that afore-mentioned reader of mine told me that adult women also want a piece of this kid.  No way, I thought, JB is just what fills a girl's life in between the Wiggles and menstruation, right?  Uh-uh.  Seems not.  And now I'm sick to my stomach at the thought of this...

 The Beiber gang sign, or just putting in an order for hookers, I dunno.

..pashing this:

Take a good look, people.  Look at his haircut.  Is that the haircut

of somebody that ANY adult woman should be pashing?

That's Steffi Landerer.  You know Steffi, she was in the German version of Idol recently.  And she's an actress too, maybe.  But mainly (as in for as long as it has taken you to read this) you know her as the 20 year-old who mouth-kissed a 16 year old pop star.

And here we have a shot of Justin at some clip-thing he did with 31 year old socialite/waste of fucking oxygen, Kim Kardashian.

You know, just frolicking in the surf and discussing cleavage with a bowl-cut

boy half her age.

I'm not even amazed that the industry is rushing to sexualise him for an older audience, I'm just horrified that he started hanging with full grown women while still in that absurd haircut. 

What's that?  He's remodelling his 'do?  Cool, let's take a look.

The New Look Beiber, now with less hair, lowered testicles and... dog tags?

Hey, do you know what Beiber looks like to me with this new look?  Really fucking ordinary, just like any other kid who chose a pair of scissors over constant beatings in the school yard.  His producers/managers/publicists/manicurists are in a pickle now (which is why they probably had to rush that 3D abortion of a film out asap) because nothing loses flavour like a boy star who's now old enough to be an actual sexual threat to his fan base.  I'm not saying he's about to wantonly rape little girls, I just mean that his natural, pubescent behaviour will inevitably confuse and upset little girls.

I'm not kidding:

That kid (who makes a lot of Youtube vids for young kids, by the way) is all of 8 years old and feels disappointed in Justin because he pashed a chick, but also sorry for him because his parents are divorced and he might be feeling sad.  Or something.  Trust me, kid, Justin might feel a lot of things, but sad would not be on that top ten list.  Also, little girl, you can [butterfly]kiss his ass goodbye within 12 months because you'll slide out of his new demographic (16-24 yo females/16-65 yo gay men) and there's no going back. 

See, when you're a tween heart-throb your fan-base buys all your shit because they harrass their parents to do so.  Parents will relent, but only on the basis that you're a relatively asexual, cutesy momma's boy who would rather but a girl a pony than finger her behind the bike shed.  The moment your haircut looks less like something you'd usually find on a Lego man, and you're kissing real-life women, those parents are going to start questioning the innocence of your appeal and stop creasing their credit cards for little Tammy's Justin posters/dolls/tickets/lollypops.

See, that's the irony. folks, the Beiber Bowl Cut was what made the guy acceptable to adults.

With that in mind, I now say that Never Say Never is really a bio-pic of sorts, one that covers the pre-pubescent peak of a young boy's career as portrayed by the people that built him from the ground up.  The rest of his life probably won't be worth documenting in theatres, though, because, hey, what's another teenage-focused star in today's market?

Ah, Justin,. you're nearly old enough to assault in a car park

without it being a crime against a minor.  Can hardly wait.

Fuku Radioactive Scaremongers!

Acknowledgement: Special thanks to The Rev for his blessings upon this post, and vital fact-checking and sub-editing to reduce the risk of me sounding completely insane.

Dear Nuclear Holocaust(ers)
This post is a general vent re: post-Fukushima and the Japanese earthquake/tsunami disasters. The reactor complex took two massive natural hits, both of which were well beyond it's designed integrity limitations_ (a quake of richter scale 9 vs a design tolerance of 6.9, and a tsunami 15m high vs a 'safe' height of less than 10m). The resultant outcome was a reactor accident rated at level 5 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (Three Mile Island was also a fatality free level 5, while Chernobyl, with it's awful radiation emissions and multiple fatalities, has been classified the highest possible: level 7).  So, with that in mind, let's panic like sissies, or snort derisively at nuclear power, because, hey, you're a fucking physicist or some shit, right?

[Pictured: in no way a nuclear explosion, nuke plants are not bombs.]

The Fukushima plant did not melt down.  Not like Chernobyl. There were no direct deaths during the emergency from radiation or burns.  And that's despite all those hydrogen pressure explosions you saw on the news. Yes, some radiation from the plant did rise, and some of the braver damage control crews were exposed to up to 25% of a medically recommended dose, but it wasn't radioactive armageddon like the media threatened.

Is there anything more disappointing to an idealist than lying down on a quiet

wet road devoid of cops, security and industrial vehicles trying to pass?  Hope

there's a sliced lunch in your student backpack, sweetheart, because walking

home tube-chained to Derek there, just because the 'fascist pigs' couldn't be

fucked bolt-cutting you free, is going to be a drag.

Much of the plant is rendered to safe levels and the remaining irreparable chambers are shut down now. This means the three nuclear chambers unaffected by the earthquake, tsunami, and repair contingencies are now getting power back to thousands of citizens adversely affected by the meanest shake n' splash recorded against inhabited land for fuck-knows-how-long. The scaremongers and reactionaries, amateur ecologists and ambitious politicals all claim Fukushima to be just another (albeit only the third in the last 40 years) incident proving the lethality of nuke power.  Even though the 'nuclear' bit did not kill anyone!

I see it different. Fukushima, despite it's age (43 years), and the sheer magnitude of the Natural force arrayed against it, did a lot fucking better than it was designed to do and the people in charge, although could have done a little better in some places, on the whole saved many thousands of fucking lives by doing the job they were trained to do under hardships and adverse conditions.

But all you protestors go nuts, okay?  Coz, y'know, you're the experts.  If you had your way all nuke plants would be torn down right now and replaced with solar-electric, solar-thermal and wind-power crap.  Good luck finding enough constant sunshine, wind and available land to power an entire city with that plan, Earth Child.  Let's see how long you can run your podcasts, blogs and Youtube riots with bio-fuel generators or geo-thermal induction. The bottom line fuckers is that Solar is still too expensive and easily damaged, thermal is not fast enough and wind-power is too resource hungry on infrastructure and budget to be a viable sole source of electricity.

Listen, it's very easy to poo-poo stuff that we take for granted while running enough tech and appliances in a single home to power an entire African village.

In other words, THINK ABOUT WHY WE HAVE IT!  Nuclear power is the by far the most efficient form of power generation at our disposal to date.  It's cleaner and safer than it has ever has been.  It doesn't cause anywhere near the pollution or direct dangers of coal or similar fossil fuels (an average of 590 coal miners die on the job each year in North America alone - 34 died at Chernobyl, the most catastrophic meltdown in history – mind you Chernobyl went down because of management decisions guiding and controlling the bottom line like how often the fuckers had safety checks. So the technology did not fail the system of humans supporting it failed.).

Look at the Long Game

Best of all, nuke fission is our gateway technology to developing viable nuclear fusion (100% waste free power).  We can do it already, but it costs fucktons in resources and coinage to generate the heat and magnetic containment fields required to fuse hydrogen and helium isotopes and produce a net gain of energy. 

"Yeah, sure, Sex Detective, feed us some Trekkie sci-fi bullshit to justify

nasty nuke power."

Fuck you, eco-savage.  The first proto-type is already under construction in France, and an even better version is planned for construction in 15 years.  None of which would be possible without the advances already made through nuclear power.

Look, I'm all for sustainable, renewable, affordable and workable power solutions, but the most vocal protestors against what we have to do to power our civilisation right now sometimes have a political and financial agenda, and not a practical one.  They are deeply passionate about cleaning up the Earth, but they're even more horny about gaining acclaim and credit.  I have yet to meet a Direct Action type of Greenie or conservationist who wasn't operating under the personal assumption that she/he were absolutely right.  TIP: be wary about anyone who believes they are absolutely, 100% right.  Sane people are designed to doubt, it's a built in check and balance system that stops you from doing really stupid things.

See, this sort of stuff (pictured above) is what I call 'non-stupid' eco-protesting.  There's plenty of placards, props, chanting, maybe a sausage sizzle and even a face painter for the kids.  The messages are direct, if a little alarmist.  I mean, seriously, nobody at all would love a 'nukeburnt' country no matter how pro-nuclear they might be, surely.

Toxic waste is always the secondary scare argument against nuke power - it's glowy, greeny goo that mutates fish and wantonly poisons kindergartens or something.  But try looking at where toxic waste comes from in general, idiots.  Here's a toxic waste source the militant econauts usually skip over - the production and then eventual disposal of solar panel cells, just like the ones on your suburban roof.  That shit will kill anything, but it doesn't stop the biggest producers of solar panels from dumping their shit in ground water sites (well done, China). The average recycling paper mill dumps more poisons, bleaches and toxins into our river systems and land fills per month than any nuclear power plant would in a year.

Then here we get a giant, inflatable elephant, which is all kinds of awesome as well as being a definitively misguided, metaphorical cliche.  White elephants describe an unnecessarily expensive or spectacularly unuseful thing - a waste or liability that outweighs its promises.  That would be great if that sentiment was focused on some of the more ridiculous dreams in the clean energy circles (eg: perpetual cold fusion), but to brand nuclear energy as such a pale beast is palpably unfair.  Places that rely on nuke-kettles for electricity tend to have cheaper power bills, cleaner air and stronger energy grids than coal burning equivalents.  Their workers are safer, their supply is more reliable, and once set up, a nuke plant can, pound for pound, output many times the juice of fossil fuel, solar, hydro, geothermal, wind or any other type of generator.

Then we get the extreme, or 'Direct Action', protests.

They're always fucking chaining themselves to shit: gates, bulldozers, trees, other protestors, you name it.  Here we see prostrate eco-warriors cuffed to each other within a metal tube.  This makes it all the harder for some poor cop to bolt-cutter the cuffs coz he'll have to somehow cut through the tube first.  Well done, martyrs, you've really struck a blow for the planet, but that still doesn't explain why the hippie on the left is wearing a badger on his face.

These are just the sort of exhibitionists that pray (and provoke) to get clubbed or tazed or dragged away by tax-paid law enforcement.  Antagonists in these highly charged confrontations - where irresistable forces and immovable objects meet in a clash of wills - always claim 'peaceful protest' while unpeacefully resisting removal.  Not too many Gandhis in the eco-war movement.  Bruises, abrasions and court appearances are a badge of office to these people.  They will compete with each other to push the envelope.  They will break into restricted areas, harrass shipping, sabotage equipment, blockade transport routes, and basically carry on like an ADHD platoon at a tantrum convention.

Of course, there are also those who have embraced the Japanese disasters as a boon, a chance to revive and reinvigorate old causes.  See, the 21st Century has been most unkind to the anti-nuke movement because environmental protection is no longer a fringe, radical point of contention.  Thanks to the likes of Al Gore, Kyoto and the Internet, everyone has at least some basic and common understanding that fucking up the biosphere is a bad idea.  The number of individual eco-causes has multiplied exponentially - green energy programs, sustainable communities, Earth Hour, car pooling, waste recycling, carbon taxes, lead-free fuel, desalination plants, energy saving everything, the list is endless.  Nuke power is just one of many concerns nowadays.

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, or you could all turn off the juice at work and

home just 1 minute earlier every weekday of the year and save 5 or so hours,

but nooo, that's way less cool, right?

So, to all those who protest, bitch, whine and cry about scary energy sciences that you don't understand, I say keep up the good, righteous and ignorant work, morons.  We, as a progressive species, should have expanded, and hence refined and polished, safe nuclear energy decades ago, but you zealots treated it like some kind of evil sorcery and kept us back.  I mean, for fuck's sake, most of us still rely on coal!?!  COAL!  Lumps of fossilised flora to boil water for steam turbines that spin and generate the electricity to power your hybrid cars.  This concept and basic application hasn't changed for over a two hundred years, people.  Coal is dirty to burn and dangerous to mine (look at tassie and new zealands mining disasters).  It fucks up our atmosphere on a scale our planet hasn't seen since everything was volcanoes, and is used in its dirtiest forms (namely coarse, Brown coal) by the biggest users (yes, I'm looking at you again, China). The ultimate thruth is that we are running out of coal resources and we are increasingly needing to take risks to get more of it. Another point is it takes coal to power the refineries that are processing our other fossil fuels like crude oil so we are using one fuel to create another and we are actually running out of both. Even our crude oil deposits are getting scarce so rapidly that shale oil is finally being looked at as a viable resource to exploit even though two years ago it was considered ridiculous to think about. Nuclear energy is a hell of a lot more cleaner. We mine less materials (especially if Thorium is used and not Uranium as this element is plentiful everywhere.) We produce less waste and gain more electical output.

Green energy is everyone's goal, not just an elite cadre of eco-snobs who think the world is a giant corporate conspiracy.  Grow up and face a few facts, not least of which is that efficient, carbon-neutral, low toxic power sources require a lot of money to develop.  Who's going to fund it?  You?  No.  Me?  Fuck no.  It will be big business and government programs.  The same corporate and government programs that gave us commercially hybrid cars, bio-fuels and solar panel subsidies.