Cause I Just Have To Write

But do I have anything to say? The things of late, especially this year have been incredibly confessional in nature. Well I suppose I have a lot of things to confess, and god help me, this isn't even a mere fraction of it.

I think I've been haxxored! I logged into my e-mail and it told me that I've had IP activity from France! What the hell?! Did someone try to hack me through blogger? Or more likely, it happened through twitter - shame on me for having the same password for multiple things. Apparently a whole heap of twitter account passwords were hacked and presented online. Then again, this has happened before, where I apparently logged in to my e-mail through the middle east. Anyway, I've changed my passwords, so hopefully it won't happen again.

Having a freakonomics inspired moment here. Are charities are bad thing? Well charity isn't a bad thing, but of course I used the plural there. The rapid proliferation of charities into the 21st century can't be ignored. So when you have charities for every single marginalised group, do they end up competing against each other for donations and resources? Well of course, it's just a simple law of economics. Let's take a practical example. Chongville is a town with 60,000 residents. They are all looking to donate $1 to a charity. There are three charities in town - two cancer charities and a homeless charity. Let's just say that all the residents of Chongville decide to donate evenly - so 1/3 give to the homeless charity, and 1/3 give to one cancer charity, and the remainder give to the other cancer charity. That's 20k to each charity. But what if you  needed $60k to find a cure for cancer? By virtue of having two charities devoted to the same thing, they have taken each other's donations down, and the existence of the homeless charity has diluted the field quite
considerably. So, do we only have one charity per designated group? Would things like cancer override homeless charities in terms of importance? Wow, what a crazy Orwellian argument!

There's a line in an Usher song - Yeah, which is sung by Ludacris where he goes "a lady in the street, but a freak in the bed". That is true, guys want someone who is refined and demure, yet an absolute crazy person during sex. How do those two things even reconcile? I was reading on SMH (yes, I see you all groaning out there) about a lady who had written in about being a 30 year old virgin, and whether this would be a turn off for guys or not. So essentially, guys want to have a virgin that they can teach things to (I can only assume it's
a power thing), but the fact of the matter is, they are only going to know as much as you can teach them. I read in the comments that a lot of the guys were of the view that the more guys a girl had slept with, the less attractive she becomes. There's some mixed up notion that equates virginity with purity - whether justifiable or not. Call me old fashioned, but I may have to agree. Yes, shoot me now! It gets me thinking about my escapades between the sheets, and in the car, and out in the open, and in the cinemas with her. She was amazing in bed. Absolutely mindblowing. Then I stop to think about how you came to be so good, and I feel pretty unclean.  But I loved you, and I love you.  And that made it ok.


Do I miss the sex? Yes, of course. But what I miss the most is that feeling of connectedness. That we shared the same soul. That I was understood, and that I understood you. After so long, after so many years, after your troubled past. I miss the fun, I miss the conversations, I miss just getting to know you. I don't think that
you appreciate that I love you. I don't know, when you're online, does that mean you're at work? It goes against what you told me before.


Joaquin out.