Sex, politics and Facebook Messenger!

This morning I received a startling communication. From the guy who (once) chopped some wood for me. It told of his yearning to fondle my naked form, to press his…oh well let’s not go into it. Now what I’d like to know is – do you reckon any woman would say ‘Sure, come on over!’ to this kind of overture? Have you ever (as a man) made one and scored a hit? Personally, even if it was Aidan Turner and not a portly bloke in a singlet, I would decline (in Aidan’s case, regretfully).

Moving along. Right wing. Left wing. Do they mean anything anymore? I used to think not…but now I’m inclined to think one’s political leanings are pretty revealing.

If you’re on the left wing, you think the government should look after people. If you’re on the right, you think people need to look after their damn selves.

Now the problem with the left is learned helplessness. Pretty soon, everyone feels entitled, bugger this self-reliance shit. And the problem with the right is that, well, not everyone can look after themselves. I’m inclined to feel that the left is essentially more caring, the right more pragmatic – am I right?

Anyways…if you went into politics, how long do you think it’d be before someone pulled a skeleton out of your closet and shoved it under your nose? For me, it’d be no time at all. All the revealing things I’ve said on Facebook…not to mention my blog, and my books! Well I guess that’s the end of my bid for Supreme Power. Just out of interest, would you vote for an ex-prostitute? I would. I’ve never seen anything immoral about being a prostitute (just dispiriting). On the other hand I’d never vote for a Hillsong member.

And that’s another thing. Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when one turns into an old dear? Is it when you cut your hair and rinse it purple? Is it when you wear support stockings…or view stairs with the same misgivings as a Dalek? I don’t mind being characterised as ‘old’ (if I’d been 80 instead of 57, I’m betting the woodchopper would have kept his deathless prose to himself). It’s when it starts messing with all my other essential characteristics that I have a problem. Dear? Sour more like.

And here is a story about slugs. It has to be 4000 words, and finely edited, by tomorrow, so any suggestions are warmly welcomed.


  1. You’re so funny and correct a woman wouldn’t say ‘cmon over, purrr’ Otherwise I might be tempted 😂 Love your political explanations but Boris and Donald have survived their skeletons 😂After Brexit I’ll never vote again left of right, unless it was for an ex prostitute (I knew a few as a kid) Billy Connolly says you know when your old, you groan when you bend over for no apparent reason 😂

    1. Billy Connolly is right! And, hopefully, left. It’s true that Boris and Donald have skeletons (whole graveyards as someone said) but would a woman survive in similar circumstances? I reckon not. As for dirty texting, it’s ok when you’re in a relationship. Otherwise forget it.

      1. Billy is probably agnostic ha, I know she is a one off but Hilary Clinton did fairly well 😀 We have problems at college with dirty texting and even sexting at times, I always emphasise the point that once it’s out there…….it’s out there!

  2. I don’t get it either, how some guys think that this is okay. I know that some women are doing it now, too – guess who their role models are?

    I think you’re on the nail with your thoughts about left wing, right wing, and prostitutes. Although, I tend to think that pragmatic is too kind a word for right wingers – they often come across to me as being quite mean-spirited. I know that lefties can lean too far left at times, but generally if we look after people, our society is better for it.

    1. I agree, that’s why I’m on the left of things. Better to err in too much kindness than the opposite. That guy thing… maybe it works once in a blue moon. My daughter told me one of her girlfriends likes to receive dick pics. I find that exceedingly odd!

      1. I reckon the thrill is in the guy knowing that it will be offensive and making the recipient uncomfortable. The thrill would probably go out of it, if his gross advances were accepted. Of course, that says volumes about guys who do this sort of thing – too much to write here.

        Your daughter’s friend is certainly ‘unique’ – lol!

      2. You gotta remember that guys have an injection of “horniness” injected into them every day, and sometimes it gets out of control. Hard to explain to women, but the best I can do is: “Remember what you are like when chemicals are introduced to you once-a-month. Sometimes you can’t control how they make you feel. Now imagine those chemicals instead made you horny. This is what men deal with every day”.

      3. I tried to put into terms what it’s like for us. Just like women sometimes have issues with their emotions with chemicals, men have their own chemicals to deal with. Do men say it’s unacceptable for women to have fluctuating emotions? As long as they don’t kill someone it’s tolerated. If you can understand what is happening from a man’s perspective, it may help you understand where it’s coming from, and I would hope you have an open mind to that.

      4. Yeah, I appreciate that. But living alone on a property like I do, sexy texts from virtual strangers makes me feel not quite safe. I always want to see the other perspective though. In fact for a writer it’s essential.

      5. It’s not about what goes on for men not being acceptable, but about how they act on that. Acting on it in a way that creates fear or anxiety for women – or anyone – is what isn’t acceptable.

      6. Maybe that’s it – about the guys wanting to shock and titillate themselves. Although I’m pretty sure a reply in the positive would have been welcomed!

      7. Hmm. I didn’t say whether anything was right or wrong, I just gave context of how it may arise. If you go back to the original response and try to connect the dots, I was trying to hint that it’s probably not about ‘knowing that it will be offensive and making the recipient uncomfortable’. That is the opposite of what they would intend, it’s simply about wanting sex.

      8. Just responding to Katrina here. It’s totally about how men act on it, I agree, I was just saying what potentially leads to it. They are not thinking with what you might consider a level head. However it’s a hard line to put down, because some women might say yes (as some have hinted here). So if 90% would get offended by it, then perhaps it’s offensive to most and you shouldn’t do it. However if only 10% of women don’t want someone stopping them in the street to talk to them, then does that mean you should never do it? Looks like the guy is trying his chances, it may offend, but in his head (with a few chemicals in there for good measure) the means are justifiable. If there was no testosterone in the world, there would much less world.

      9. Here’s a wild thought – perhaps men could stop thinking of women as ‘percentages of success’ and think of them as actual people instead. Some men seem to manage that, in spite of their chemicals.

      10. I’ve always thought it must be hard being the gender expected to take the initiative. I don’t mind being respectfully approached, and if I was braver (and more interested) I’d probably do some approaching myself. I get that people of both sexes want sex. But men like my woodchopper need to understand that there are niceties to be observed (apart from thinking about just basic givens like consideration of the other person’s likely situation). So I get that he’s acting on his urges… but hey, we’ve gone beyond the caveman era, so he should have known better.

      11. Sounds like no matter what men do it will be wrong, which to me feels like a position of power that leaves you taking no risks yourself. Men take risks such as the ridicule you’re now showing just to meet someone. Testosterone drives that, a chemical makes them do what they wouldn’t normally do just to meet a nice girl. It’s not useless, it’s not evil, it’s there for a reason. Not everyone’s expectations match up, and this guy perhaps went way overboard, but most guys are actually trying to do the right thing. Some of the nastiest comments come from women who have had men approach them. Which is really hard when some can never be pleased and use it as a position of power, which makes me feel a little sad. Do a little research on sexual power, and you’ll see who actually holds the cards, so it would be nice if it wasn’t abused as well.

      12. I disagree. Look at who gets killed by whom and you can see where the real power lies. But re the woodchoppers overture, it’s not that he made an approach. That would have been ok, although I would have said no thanks. It’s the way the approach was made. If I wanted money, and I walked up to someone I barely knew and demanded it, wouldn’t I only have myself to blame if I were rejected? If I wanted sex, so I told my dentist that I’d like to rip his pants off and suck his huge dick while I f..ed him in the with my dildo, would anyone really be surprised if he asked me to find another dentist? And here’s a truth for you. Women are, quite reasonably, afraid of men. I had a partner who would jump up and swear at me at the top of his voice..he was six foot four and full of muscle. It took all the guts I had to answer back, because if he’d chosen, he could have floored me. Now I live alone, on a country property. What if woodchopper guy decides to take what he clearly wants? A straight out, unsolicited message about what he’d like to do to me is scary… and if you think it’s not, imagine if you got the same thing. From a seven foot trucker who had a thing for you. Would you be worried?

      13. I’m not saying what woodchopper man said was right, I just think he probably never thought of the implications of what he was saying to you and how it would scare you. He thought he had a chance of sex in his testosterone addled mind. He is actually probably scared of you a little bit, thinking being a woodchopper he might be below you and you’d never go out with him, so he’s just gonna see if you want sex. He’s blown his dough now. But remember not everyone is as smart as you. I don’t even know what I would do if some woman I hardly knew asked me for sex, I would think she was a little nuts and to stay away from her. It’s a different dynamic I suppose. I think that him being rejected he would consider par for the course given the proposal, let’s say he was shooting for a birdie (I don’t know if that is a really bad pun or not). If you include dildo’s and arse in your proposal you may be stretching it to a hole in one (jeez, these are not meant to be puns!).
        So just to round out the discussion, I think there are different ‘powers’ we’re talking about here, physical and sexual power. (Most) Men have the upper hand on the physical side and even if not purely physical can use it to intimidate. Using it against other men is often tolerated although it is very taboo to use it against women, and of course is very scary and has a huge impact when used. Women have the sexual power, and it is ‘not nice’ to use it against other women and often causes arguments between women, but is somewhat normal to use against men. I remember reading some research on this, and how a ‘beauty normative’ woman impacts the most on any group of people, and by quite some way. I think they said these women constantly have eyeballs on them wherever they go, male and female, and impact most discussions and actions in ways no-one else can, and it is all considered normal and fair play. So Testosterone works against men in every day life really, and beauty against women. And it’s common sense that women hold the cards when it comes to choosing a partner. And they can use this power against other women who are they consider ‘inferior’ for want of a better word, so it’s a bit of a Cold War between women, often they just take their place waiting for the day of ambush. So both men and women have their own powers, each person their own individual amount, or lack thereof. Most men don’t use theirs, but if used has a high impact. Women use theirs more often or just let it permeate the aether they inhabit. Just my humble opine!

  3. Your prose calls out for a response every time. (I haven’t got enough of it to answer all your questions.) I’m a lefty man. ( I have broken of writing about what is wrong with capitalism to answer you.) My experience on putting out the hard word is limited to, “Do you like sugar in your tea?” If that is too confrontational we had better finish here. Like you I would not vote for Hillsong but if there is an ex lady of the night in that team it would be interesting to hear about it. As I am over the hill the conversation would be that. I do get alarmed when a woman is killed and that is the definition used to describe someone’s daughter, mother sister etc.

    1. Yeah, i agree with you that arguing about anything other people care about – politics, religion, whatever – gets you nowhere. Everyone goes home with exactly the same opinion, so why make yourself persona non grata:) And yes, there’s a lot of pejorative crap out there about prostitutes. People assume all kinds of things if the woman sells sex. Me, I’d just assume she was hardier than i am!

  4. Best explanation I’ve heard of between Left and Right is that it’s based on pre-historic times when men went out and hunted and produced, and women took care of the distribution so everyone got looked after. Males and females were genetically selected for it, depending on the success of the tribe, so to say. So the Right (which tend to be dominated by men) argue about how to produce more, the Left (dominated by women) tend to argue about how to distribute it fairly. So they are arguing about different things, but when one impacts the other, that is when understanding stops. Not to say men and women are always Right/Left (but you must admit the extremes of each are dominated by them), but it’s how you’ve been brought up in combination with the genes you’ve inherited.

    1. So in case you didn’t understand the consequences, the Right want to set up society for the most incentive to produce the most, while accepting this structure is not equal for everyone. While the Left want to set up society to distribute the produce most fairly, but in doing so do not care so much about incentive and producing the most.

    2. That’s a pretty interesting way to look at it, I hadn’t thought of it like that. Are more women than men on the left? Why does one keep coming back to the thought ‘let’s just try and meet in the middle!’ So boring!

      1. Haha, yeah, there is no agreement because they aren’t answering the same questions. It’s not boring but just frustration because there can’t be a middle. Of course everyone on the Right would want everyone looked after and every evil in the world fixed just like the Left does, but they know it will cost something and it doesn’t come for free, so you have to do the best with what you have. So the Right tend to look at the overall picture. I’m constantly frustrated by the Left not understanding or caring about the consequences of their actions. It’s great to have nice intentions, but the consequences of those intentions are often the opposite. There are many Ecomonics books devoted to this, some of the scenarios quite funny if not tragic. Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics is great. Someone once said the Left want to feed the poor, but the Right want to get them out of poverty. To me that rings true.

      2. Mmm… but is that really true? For instance the left has proposed putting more money into vocational education and apprenticeships, which is on the ‘teach a man to fish’ side of the argument, while the right just reduce unemployment benefits and hope for the best. The right doesn’t get people out of poverty, does it? Hasn’t the gap between rich and poor increased? And then you get republicans in the US opposing universal health insurance for the poor, while people are dying because they can’t afford medical care. But maybe the left could do no better. I feel that noone sees the issues in terms of real people, least of all the economists.

      3. These all can be viewed with a wider lens. The market is generally the most efficient way of performing anything. So if there is a need for apprenticeships, there will be more demand for them. Right now if you are an apprentice you get paid for training anyway by the government and your employer, the requirements in each industry scale up with demand. You can’t create demand in an industry by spending more on education. You are just putting people through education that they don’t need or there are no jobs for, they should be trained in areas where there is demand, and the market will look after that. And the Right does get people out of poverty. Producing more produces more for everyone, producing less and wasting produces less for everyone. The poverty line in Australia has risen because of the free market society we live in, if you compare what we consider poverty now to 50 years ago, there is a vast difference. If you consider Left societies such as Socialism, they are all failed societies, with people going backwards and dying from starvation. And the Scandanavian countries are more Right than you think, you just have to google it and do some research. You can hand out food to people forever and no-one gets anywhere, but if you give them the incentive and opportunity to do well, they will create better lives for themselves. And you may think I’m talking about large margins here, and we can afford to splash it around, but there are only slim margins available to get productivity growing. Companies go out of business quite often with the wrong product or incorrect pricing model. Countries also lose out when competing on the world stage, and often to very small tax margins or extra costs imposed by various government ‘good intentions’. You may not think this affects you, but for example, the Aussie dollar has gone down almost 50% since it’s high against the US a few years ago. So everything you now buy from the U.S. is twice the price, which means people on certain incomes can’t buy what they used to be able to buy, so it has made us all poorer by quite a margin. So policies with ‘good intentions’ often impact the society to be less competitive and lose out in the long run making us all poorer. Yes, there is a balance and you definitely need a safety net, but we need to be careful what incentives we are putting out there.

      4. So, just to give you a Right’s insider view, when we see things like ‘more money into vocational education and apprenticeships’, to us it looks like the Left is trying to say all the correct things to sound nice and that that they are doing the ‘right’ thing by those in need. But (and I know you’re not supposed to start sentences with but, but…), there is no real impact to the betterment of anyone, and in fact is just wasted money, so it’s just a lie to make people feel good rather than actually doing good, and they know it’s a lie. But they’re doing it to fool people to feel nice about them and vote for them, when they’re actually doing nothing, or worse than nothing.

      5. Thanks. I’m across the theory. I wanted to thank you, though, for putting your point of view in such a civil way. Things would be better if we stopped shouting at one another

  5. The trouble with the right-wing supporters is that their opposition to reasonable social security applies to low income people. If you are well-off and greedy, they fully accept that tax loopholes and tax concessions accessible only to capital holders must be allowed and the federal budget deficit that pays for those top-of-town benefits should come at the expense of the low-income people, even though the latter have the same claim to the country’s resources.

    1. The trouble with left-wing supporters is their support of social security benefits that disincentivise those who should be working. Who is more greedy, someone who pays 40c in the dollar on their hard work, or someone who can work but does nothing and takes that money? If you’ve ever done economics you’ll know that around 2-3% are considered ‘hardcore unemployed’, and there needs to be a safety net. But you can’t disincentivise people to work, because then there is less money for everyone for hospitals, schools, roads, and capability to produce more. So the lazy person who could work is the greedy one taking away from everyone, while those who pay 40c in the dollar expecting it to go to those who need it are the saviours of our society.

      1. Is Woolworths just unlucky to have pocketed as profits $300 million it owed to its staff. Or are the workers of Rockpool that are owed $10 m just bone lazy. As a shareholder I want profits but I’m damned if I want to take cash from my workers. I want honesty on the right and left. Do not justify the results of your study on half the evidence.

      2. No, that’s got nothing to do with incentive, don’t get mixed up. That’s an illegal act. Setting up incentive so people will work is good for everyone! I can turn your comment around and say that someone who collects money when they know they can work is taking cash from everyone. So we want honesty and adherence to the law of course from everyone.You gotta understand, everyone is trying to do the right thing by everyone, they just have a different view of what is best. Read my original post Way Up There…

      3. I know. It’s not a black and white thing, that’s for sure. I do know people who choose not to look for work, and I know people who try and try and can’t get work. Maybe we need some kind of employment guarantee… More broadly, shouldn’t everyone be able to contribute to our society? Why is paid work preferences over other forms of contribution? Or more to the point, should it necessarily be?

    2. The reality is that if you have money, you’re highly incentivised to hold on to it. I have an investment flat and I do take advantage of tax breaks. Then again, in terms of cash flow, I live below the poverty line, and get, and expect, no assistance. Anyway I feel there’s a reasonable mean. For instance it’s unacceptable to me that some families are going without food, or that they live with a mouthful of decayed teeth because they can’t afford the dentist. You can only take the concept of the undeserving poor so far .. then it morphs into the undeserving rich

      1. Yes, which is why the line between incentive and support is very blurry and there are a lot of laws and institutions created around it, there are different arguments happening. Extremes happen very quickly, from the no-incentive Socialist societies that couldn’t produce enough to feed themselves with people dying, to the overly incentivised child sweat-shops. There’s a balance, and people of varying upbringings and genetics have different ideas. However no-one is wrong, often people don’t think of the long term consequences of their own ideas and each’s opinion is correct and should be respected.

  6. I hate all politicians. The left don’t really look out for the people they pretend to care about. I still vote for them, but ugh. They’re all disgusting. At least in the US anyway. I don’t know of any woman who’d respond to a gross pic or overture from a man, yet they keep on with that approach. Who even knows why? It’s a mystery. But I’ve quit dating. That, and quitting Facebook are the two best decisions I’ve made!

    1. I guess that’s true of politicians in general, and it’s worse when they have pretensions to virtue. This young man said to me the other day that maybe monarchy was preferable…I was startled. As for dating, agree. But I wasn’t dating this guy, he just came over to do a job!

  7. Very neat , and fast , politics in a nut -shell . Your better off without the power and letting those skeletons rest . I’m 77 and still coupled to my last love we rarely talk about skeletons many of mine will only live among my dust.

    1. It’s lovely that you have lasting love, and right I guess about the skeletons. But if all is relatively nice, sane well meaning people stay out of politics, can we really complain about who we end up with?

      1. You make a strong point but it is already answered in many countries. No single person or party must be permitted to gain exclusive rule over any nation ; dissent is healthy especially in politics. China is an example of despotic one party rule and Saudi Arabia a good example of despotic religious rule.
        The present problem is public manipulation by the media especially the internet. Ambitious politicians know with the media on their side they can sway the voting public and extreme politicians know full well this is the only way they can inflict extremity on all of us.
        We have the yearning for freedom that nearly all human beings feel on our side.

  8. And this observation is a general truth about all technological advances ; they bring benefits and snags.
    Medical science makes us live longer but then we prove a greater burden on rest of society.
    We have to add to this generally acknowledged truth the ambitious nature of us humans . Rest and contentment are rare qualities yet curiously many desperately seek them in the practice of meditation . We know what is wrong with us but it’s just too deeply ingrained to overcome it.
    Steven Pinker pin pointed this when he destroyed the concept of ‘ the blank slate ‘ and made it clear we carry a huge evolutionary baggage.

  9. Thanks for stopping by my blog – I thought I’d check yours out. This (fluid, funny, effortless and meandering) piece reminded me of one of my worst chat-up attemps from my twenties, but they were all horrendous. Up-tight parents, education at a boys’ school, general terror of everything new, and being a loner don’t help. I had the stupid idea that honesty would be appreciated, rather than subtle manoeuvering, dinner, a walk, seeing a band or going to a play, those kinds of things. I corrected a very lovely housemate and longstanding friend who said something like, “I think you want to go out with me, don’t you?” with a blunt expression of what I actually wanted (at least in the short term).

    Possibly in my favour, I once turned down an even more blunt offer of sex from a woman I’d just met (in the same room of the same student house) as she stood in the doorway in her pants, after spending a long, and quite frankly boring, evening listening to her sing English folk songs at me, force me to “jam” with her, and introduce me to the finer points of her heroine, Joni Mitchell. I say possibly in my favour, because I still haven’t worked out what my motives were beyond being thankful she’d finally pissed off next door to the spare room and I could get some sleep. Yeah, that’s not that much in my favour, come to think. Oh, and terror, of course.

    One other thing about the right, as well as some people not being able to look after themselves, is that some can look after themselves only too well, which they do at the expense of the first type. The left and right don’t respect the middle enough.

    1. Oh no, I don’t think honesty is appreciated, not in that sphere of life ☺ but we’re all dumb when we’re young… I cringe to think of my missteps. A post for another day maybe. And perhaps you’re right about the centre. It’s true that some people, both rich and poor, will bludge. I wonder if that would change if we had a universal basic income scheme… anyway, thanks so much for visiting, you seem like someone I’d like to know in the blogosphere ☺

  10. Thank you – that’s nice to hear – I was pretty depressed this morning. A new follower and a kind comment helped. I was thinking of following your blog too once I’d read a bit more in case I discovered the terrible secret (I don’t know, belief in aliens or something). I’ll risk it. 😉

    I didn’t mean bludging, by the way (a word I had to look up – skiving we’d say round these parts), but the problem of concentration of wealth and power, perhaps the central fact of political life. Those with money can use it to make more money, as a general rule, while those without remain underprivileged. The poor, it is argued, are lifted by the wealth generation of capitalism, and I think it’s undeniably so (despite also a lot of exploitation of workers), but at expense the world can’t afford anymore (the whole system having been based on burning fossil fuels). Right-wing politics encourages wealth concentration and exploitation of both the poor and the natural environment, and after a few centuries of it the result is a few unimaginably rich men owning half the planet’s wealth, with fingers – tentacles will make a better metaphor – stretching out into every realm of political decision-making. The Great Barrier Reef can actually be visibly dying, but some git can still manage to exploit new coal fields in the near vicinity, citing economic-growth-for-everyone as the reason. The world could be so much better if we got over the delusion that the way out of every hole is to keep digging.

    Yes, I’m in favour of UBI, and it has been proven in several test studies (unfortunately, often mis-reported by those who want to keep the workers enslaved). I’m glad there’s more widespread discussion of this, where just a short while ago it was seen as ridiculous. Freed of the daily grind and fear of trying to put food on the table, people become more productive, more aspirational, more engaged with the betterment of society. They go to college and gain skills, the very poorest move off the streets where they’re dying into accommodation and quit their self-medicating addictions, they start businesses, find paid employment or give their time as volunteers.

  11. As to your first question, I have never tried to “seduce” a woman by leading with sex. First, I would imagine that it’s a terrible way to go about it from the standpoint of success, and secondly, I would imagine the person would intensely dislike me. Third, I would imagine if a woman said “yes” to that, the chances are good that it would lead to blackmail, VD, or otherwise getting into a destructive relationship. I’ve been happily married for decades but before that, my “approach” was always just to get to know a woman better and sometimes it led to sex and sometimes just to friendship. Win/win.

    As for politics, I think we have to distinguish “politics as usual” and Trumpism, which I consider an insane cult. Leaving aside Trumpism for now, I used to believe in the trade-off more or less as you characterize it. Over time, however, I have come to view the Republican party as simply *mouthing* that rationale about individual responsibility as a cynical tactic. They don’t really believe it (for the most part). They want an uneven playing field tilted toward the people who already have a lot of wealth and power.

    1. You might be right. I prefer to think that many of the people on the right wing of politics have legitimate moral values of some kind… just not my kind. It’s hard to imagine oneself into the mind of someone who really doesn’t give a shit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s