Recently it was gently suggested to me that I was taking myself too seriously. In my defense I present the Gay Theory or the Theory of Why Women Keep Banging Against the Brick Wall of Man's Idiotic Inability to Provide Any of the Things Women Need. When people realize that this in effect was what was occupying my brainspace I believe that I shall be excused from the charge of hyper-seriosity.
Now, some of you might know that I do not consider posting pictures of hot people on a blog the ideal method of increasing readership. However, in this case I've made an exception simply as added evidence for my theory. Really! Only cos of the evidence factor. Tsk, this whole not believing me thing, I do *not* appreciate.
That's Shane. Is she hotttttt or what? One of my girlfriends and I were talking about her and we both agreed she was perfectly delicious. I hasten to add that neither of us normally display lesbian tendencies (mainly cos well when it comes right down to it, you have to face the fact that though you can't live with guys, you definitely can't live without 'em - for reasons that will be expounded on below). And neither of us has ever called another girl delicious. Pretty yeah, beautiful quite a few times, interesting well you know what that means, ugly oh yeah, but never delicious. Ruminating about this peculiarity we came to the conclusion that there's a hidden lesbian in every female. Being mggs (yeah, she's one too) we quickly devised an experiment that would prove our theory. Being relatively practical human beings (read not insane fanatics) we also came to the conclusion that the experiment would probably never be carried out. Not, you understand, because it would be cruel to take a bunch of infants and grow them in isolation for 25 years and then let them interact with each other to see which way their sexual leanings lie but simply because of time constraints and the availabilty (or lack thereof) of specimens. At this point it is appropriate, we believe, to present the seminal work of Travis in their celebrated publication, Flowers in the Window.
Being thwarted of our interesting experiment, we decided to extend out theory to it's logical conclusion. It seems to us that there's nothing women get from men (other than the obvious) which cannot be provided by women in a much nicer fashion. Women talk, men are constitutionally incapable of listening; women shop for the sake of shopping, men shop in order to get something they need (the idea!!!); women like the sensuality of touch, the feel of skin on skin, the warmth of closeness, men well, for them it's basically a means to an end. The list of unfounded generalizations and blatant sexualisms I can produce is hypothetically endless and detracts from the main point. Which is the question : What would be simpler than for women to seek out what they need from people who can actually provide it, rather than continually and fruitlessly hope to find it in a section of the population that has repeatedly exposed its inability to supply the demand? Obviously the answer lies in the selfish gene and any living being's helpless need to procreate.
So we figure (my girlfriend and I) that if an alternate source for sperm was found, men would become totally defunct and extinct within our lifetimes. While the solution postulated by Travis et al is interesting it doesn't serve the purpose because of one grave failing namely, exhaustability of the resource due to eventual mortality. Besides, we would much rather not be cruel to anyone (women are the gentler sex, after all).
Men, as a wise woman once said (I'm sure some wise woman said it somewhere, or if she hasn't it's about time someone did), are for the birds. The search for an alternative, ladies and gentlemen, is on. Any ideas?
Note: We already thought of sperm banks and such like, but obviously it's again an exhaustible resource and once men disappear where will that leave us? We are *nothing* if not provident.