Lots of people read in the tube. City Am, London Evening, some The Times, some The Guardian. Some the pink gossip section of the free-of-charge papers or the magazines delivered at the entrance of the station. Sometimes the tube gets so crowdy that, instead of minding my own reading, I over-read people's readings.
The London Evening Standard did not bring anything that caught my eye about something to talk a little here today. I was between the back door with all my back bent to avoid my head banging the top and this woman. And she was that close when she turned the page of her book I started reading the new one with her. Interesting reading, interesting beginning, something about a number of ejaculate or ejaculatory fades. So I kept reading. "Most of all copulatory actions that we have been discussing takes place between partners who are of the pair-bounded type".
That's funny: partners who are of the pair-bounded type. Why did they not say: people in stable relationships or married? It is crazy to notice sometimes how far the prejudices, normally against the religious (Christian and catholic) or political establishment, are carried. If you talk about people, I guess social ties, such as marriage, family and culture are of vital importance to analyze sexual behaviours, etc. So, what do you mean by pair-bounded type? And I don't care if this is homo or hetero or a mixture or a groupie thing. You need to separate that because the concept, the essence is different.
Oh, oh, yes, I remember I read on homebody's paper this morning that some big Justice Tribunal in the UK is to make insurance company obligated to charge higher to women. And made me think. One is tempted to say: women are today, nowadays, in England more prone and likely to have car accidents is just a fact. So it is justified to charge more, because there is more to insure.
However, I like thinking in terms of individuals, and it is just inadmissible to take the qualities and abilities of an individual as those of a group, no matter how well and solid-founded. This is what I have always criticized: there is not such a thing like working women, but women who works; not single mothers, but mothers that are single; not pro-abortion women, but women who aborts. Each woman is individual and unique; she might belong to a group of women who share a specific quality or circumstance, but they belong unique always and are different in anything else.
So I must say that the paper comment is a new formulation of a well-accepted statement: do not discriminate any individual, any human being for the sake of his sex.
**
The other piece of news is that Jane Russell died a couple of days ago: Marylin Monroe in brunette hair. Don't know her, but she was hoooot!
Photograph: Jane Russell, 1921 - 2011 (nresimleri.com)
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT)
No comments:
Post a Comment