I find the notion of right and wrong fascinating, not to mention extremely complex as often times the definition of each can be such a subjective thing – cause of course we as society have turned it into such a thing. I mean for starters, there are so many people out there – myself included – who are convinced that most of the time they are right and although someone has to be wrong, it’s not going to be them. But then of course the other person thinks they’re right as well, so then who the hell is really right cause someone has got to be wrong? [Are you as confused yet?]

Luckily, on the factual side, some arguments can be easily solved as there is a defined right or wrong answer – I’m laughing as I type this cause even this sometimes does not stop a speeding argument train! The Battle of Hastings was in 1066, and 6 multiplied by six is 36. [Pretty much the only two things I remember from school – just kidding Mom.] There is no changing the facts; the answer just is what it is. So if you’re arguing that 6 x6 is anything but 36, you were spending way too much time sleeping on top of your desk. But as we all know, most arguments in the home or outside of it, (in the public realm etc), are not so easily solved, cause as humans we like to make things as subjective and ambiguous as possible then fight like hell to prove our side is the right side. I figure as a race we are simply bored senseless and need more to do, hence where debating comes in. 'No no debate me, it's fun. It will stave off thoughts of impending death!'

Then there are the justifiable wrongs  - and rights - that you hear thrown around that do sometime give you pause; the battered wife that finally shoves the table lamp down her abusive husband’s throat. A wrong by definition – but damn I’m sure that felt so right. And seriously do you blame her? Or the impoverished child that steals food cause his government is so corrupt the country is in freefall, or the revolutionaries that fight back in sometimes violent ways against the oppressive regimes – wrong by means perhaps, but right by intentions? I mean let's be honest, who the hell wants to be oppressed?? (My partner always tells me if I were living anywhere else, I’d be queen of the rebel party. I’m not sure this is a compliment). The list is long when it comes to justifiable wrongs and rights, as we seem to keep throwing things on there that are murky by definition, but somehow we can find an explanation for them. 

As for the domestic front…how many times have you had an argument with your partner where you were utterly convinced you were right – whilst they are protesting to you that they are indeed right (Sweetheart, love of my life, you know most of the time, I am right. Just surrender already; it will make your life much smoother). It then of course quickly boils down to interpretation, shades of gray, and fine lines in terms of how one defines right and wrong. For example, my partner likes to clean (sorry, I shall reword this, he does NOT like it, he succumbs to the fact that whilst I’m fat with child, he’s doing the heavy lifting!) the bathroom using wads and wads of toilet paper. This of course drives me nuts. Not just because of the waste factor, but because it leaves a little film of fuzz on the mirrors and the toilet paper breaks up when wet and goes everywhere. I tell him he should be using other means to clean, like a sponge - cause this is the 'right way to do it - and the disagreement quickly ascends to me proclaiming that I’m right, end of story. He of course thinks I’m wrong on all fronts, as toilet paper makes a perfect cleaning tool, and if I want him to clean he’s going to do it his way. I have a headache just typing this.

Okay, it’s a small example, but you see what I mean. We’re a world of stubborn individuals fighting for our side of things without realizing there is always another side – then again, in many instances, I know there is another side, I just don’t care to hear it (sorry republicans, I just can’t go there. I admit my flaws). Politics and global conflict is a perfect example of this. Each side has what they deem is the right way of doing things, and of course this means the other side is dead wrong. In fact sometimes this comes at the expense of all else – innocent lives, peace, the environment, overall quality of life. Take the middle East for instance – that’s right, I'm swinging straight at the hornet’s nest – without getting too political or revealing – it boils down to two sides, both who think they are right and are justified in their behavior. This of course leaves no room for either to be wrong on any subject apparently and a stalemate will be in place most likely for the next 3000 years. Well done. Very mature...How about, you’re both right and wrong in various ways, accept it, and figure out how to get the hell on with it.

Seriously, I'm right on this.

Here is what never made sense to me about all this. As a society we freely eat chicken, quail, goose, lamb, cow, etc. That’s a pretty wide berth when it comes to the animals we have no problem killing and shoving down our throats. So then why is it not okay for people to eat something like a lion? I mean don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t touch it -  I’m a tofu and fish girl myself – but who decides what is deemed acceptable, and not only that, humane? If it’s free range, which I’ve always understood to mean better conditions for the animals, no hormones etc, it still means they’re getting the chop at the end of the week. Hence, I don’t think they give a toss if they’re in a cage or out in a field, they know they’re only being treated well so that they taste better.  Don’t you just love humans: 'we’ll be nicer to you before we kill you!' Gee, some tradeoff.

Whether you’re getting eaten or not, seemingly comes down to the animal’s intellect – as far as I can tell anyway. If you’re super dumb with a brain the size of a pea, then you’re apparently screwed. Whenever I’ve posed this question to people - out of pure curiosity -  about eating cow meat, I do get the ‘but cows are so dumb’ argument time and time again. Okay, they are. But they’re still alive, and capable of feeling pain, no? I mean it seriously sucks to be a cow. Although all this said, the intellect theory doesn’t wash when it comes to the pig, cause he’s a pretty smart creature from what I understand, messy as hell – which gives me anxiety and makes me want to clean his pen – but much smarter than a cow, and yet we still eat him. In fact perfectly cooked bacon to some is up there with world peace.

So then what are we left with exactly?? Farm raised animals are okay to kill, but if you’re out in the wild or in a zoo, you’re off limits? I bet there is a serious pow-wow going on in the Polar Bear cage at the zoo. ‘Look wild and mean, all of you, it’s our only shot.’ In some cultures all these rules of what is ‘acceptable’ go out the window as they have no problem eating horse, dolphin, ostrich, snake, dog, you name it.  While it still grosses me out to NO end – which I suppose is hypocritical in itself - it does seem less hypocritical in terms of the justification. 

I watched a documentary on the slaughter of dolphins in this area of Japan. It was barbaric, and one of those programs that made you convinced that humans were spawns of the devil. The kicker was, the meat of all these dolphins was essentially contaminated and riddled with mercury and yet they were still being killed and stocked on supermarket shelves – often being passed off as other things like shark and whale (cause I guess that’s acceptable over there too).

And then of course I thought of the poor cow again. Did I mention how much it SUCKS to be a cow. Because they’re dumb and not endangered, and don’t have celebrities fighting for their cause, they’re looking at a loooong hard road. God I hope I come back as a hyena in my next life. As far as I can determine, no one at the moment has any desire to fire up a hyena burger. Here's hoping it stays that way.

In May, a 66-year-old woman in India gave birth to triplets after having IVF treatment. She and her 70-year-old husband were quoted as saying they always wanted a family, it just took awhile…apparently, something like three decades; and in the end it wasn’t even her eggs that resulted in the triplets. Cause as you can guess, at 66 she was post menopausal. 

Um, I don’t know, but maybe it’s time to hang up the ol’ womb boots, if you’re at the age where you are getting a discount on the bus and at the movie theater. I get it, some people try and try and it never works out for them, but there is something altogether unnatural about impregnating women after a certain age. I figure when the reproductive system waves the checkered flag furiously that the race is over, it’s time to get out of the car.

To make matters worse, there is no upper age limit in India, Britain and the United States for those that want to have a child using fertility treatments. Seriously?? No cut off at all? You can’t drink till you’re 18, drive until your 16, or ride on an amusement park ride if you’re too short, and you’re telling me you can clock in at 75 and still be considered a candidate for IVF?? And no offense, India, but have you guys looked at your population table lately? You don’t need any more children.

Fine, I’ll go ahead and say it, I think women having children past the age of menopause is just downright selfish, and well, wrong. Sorry, to burst any of you geriatrics bubbles out there. Firstly, childbirth is hard on the woman’s body (let me tell you!) and puts her at increased risks for complications and various conditions when she's past a certain age. Not to mention the babies are often born premature and can develop developmental problems later on in life. But let’s be frank here, if you’re having a kid in your mid-sixties, and your ticker gives out in your seventies, who the hell is going to watch your child for you? Certainly not your parents! You’ve finally fulfilled your wish to have a child and you make him/her an orphan by the time they’re ten. Gee. Real nice. Fine, one can attempt the argument that anyone can go at any time, which is true, but let’s face it, the odds are stacked against the older generation.

So how does it play out actually for someone giving birth (to triplets no less) that late in age? By the time the child is four, you’re so tired and slow you need more naps than the kid does? By the time it’s ten you’ve bought your first walker and are getting replacement teeth, and if you’re lucky by its 16^th birthday you’re still able to bathe yourself on your own. And what about him or her and their quality of life? Your eyesight is shot so reading is out of the question, if you attempt to throw a ball around you might dislocate your shoulder, and he certainly can’t come sit on Mamma’s knee cause that is the one you had replaced just last year. Sounds like a real picnic.

I guess the question I also am compelled to ask is why? Is it so important one gives birth to a child despite all the signs it is against the natural order of things – I’m talking simple biology here – not what is deemed normal. What about being a foster parent, hell, get a few dogs, but to bring a child into the world just because you want one and not be able to fulfill your full obligation just doesn’t make sense to me. The woman in India says that their reason was practical. They needed heirs to be the owners of their property. How pragmatic and altruistic of them.

Well gosh you should’ve said that in the beginning, it makes perfect sense now.

A doctor in South Africa, tired of seeing the devastation of women coming in after being raped, developed a condom to combat the problem called Rape-aXe. In essence, it is a female condom a woman inserts like a tampon that has teeth. You heard me. And not just any teeth, but jagged, hook-like teeth which line the inside of the condom and attach itself to the man’s unit. And the best part – it doesn’t come off without a doctor’s assistance, i.e. you’re not going anywhere buddy. You also can’t pee or walk with it on. Okay, a definite pro and con immediately springs to mind, as in as much as the man is now trapped and forced to wait till authorities get there, he’s also attached to the person who has to sit under him and figure out how the hell to get to the phone to call for help, or bash him over the head with a frying pan. Neither of these options I can imagine being an easy feat.

But in theory, I commend this doctor for at least thinking about the problem with such seriousness that she has dedicated decades of her life to coming up with this product and sold her house and car to do so. Now that’s dedication to the woman’s cause. Especially because in South Africa, the rape rate is one of the highest in the world and convictions are slim to none – frankly, I think the global convictions fall far short for this crime not to mention the time served. In my book it’s up there with murder; if you rape, you should be sharing a shower stall and a soap on a rope with Bubba for a very very long time.

Some have accused this new device as being medieval – hmmm, let me guess, male critics? I say it’s not medieval enough. I was thinking more along the lines of a tiny guillotine or cigar cutter you insert in your private area before leaving the house that if entered without permission chops the male unit right off. THWACK. ‘Oops, sir, I think you dropped something, as I kick your ass into next week.’ Or what about a condom that is laced with a heavy narcotic that knocks the assailants ass right out and then one can play homerun with a baseball bat and his head --- Fly ball!! Yes, I sound sadistic, but I think the punishment in this case fairly fits the crime. In fact, I could serve up much worse (I'm very creative), but I don’t want to scare anyone.

As the doctor in South Africa says, if this condom is widely distributed and promoted, perhaps men will think twice before assaulting a woman if they know her vajayjay contains the jaws of pain. Currently, women in South Africa go to great lengths to prevent rape, some even going as far as wrapping razor blades in sponges and inserting them. Seriously, this is what it has come to for women in certain countries to protect themselves from men?!  I fear in a country such as that, I’d turn into Rambo. I’d leave the house armed with mace, knives, a six gauge, whatever it took really so that I could go to the store and didn’t have to feel victim to these violent A-holes. You hear that men of SA (the disturbed ones; as I'm sure some of you are very lovely) you should be glad I don’t live in your neighborhood!

Melanie B (that’s Scary Spice to you music aficionados out there) – the epitome of class and eloquence as I’m sure most of you would concur – just told an interviewer in the States that she keeps in shape cause her and her husband are really perverted (her words not mine) and shag five times a day. My first thought was, seriously, do we need to know this? Or more importantly, who the heck is looking after the kids when they’re engaged in their twelve hour sex marathon?

Anyone that knows me will attest that I’m far from shy and not at ALL conservative, but what is with this new wave of celebrities telling us intimate details about their sex lives (and didn't they read my blog about being more dignified and alluring??! Come on people, get on board)!  First Megan Fox admitted she likes women as well as men, then Anna Paquin revealed she is bisexual, followed by Vanessa Carlton (singer from about eight years ago, I think it was?) this past weekend – fine, I’m all about people coming out and expressing that the so-called traditional route of sexuality is not for them.  Society needs a bit of a wake-up call when it comes to what is deemed ‘normal.’

But I can’t help laugh when these revelations start to spread like an infection and a whole host of ‘celebs’ that you haven’t heard from in eons suddenly start shouting that they too like women like it’s some lotto prize they just have to cash in on. “Yes yes, me too, I like women too, they’re oh so pretty! Especially, if that will help my career and make me look edgy.” Not that I’m the newly appointed sheriff of bisexuality or anything, but I think they should at least have to offer up proof and cannot be admitted to the bisexual club unless they’ve had one relationship of note with a woman. It only seems fair to the rest of the community.

Even Cameron Diaz just admitted to being attracted to women and liking animalistic sex, not mention someone who has and will gladly “travel for c*ck,” as she so eloquently put it. How delightful. Her Mommy must be so proud. Is this a side business of hers or a fall back plan if her next rom-com tanks? I’m always curious when stories like these come out on the eve of their next movie release – which by the way is really good and racy and gosh, you’ll really want to see it cause she has a scene with a hot woman and you may be able to peer into her complex sexual psyche. Lucky you.

And of course one can’t avoid the speeches of the celebs at awards shows that call out their husbands to be raging tigers that they get to sleep with every night – as Catherine Zeta Jones did with Michael Douglas recently. Seriously. He’s hitting 80 years old soon is he not? Can the man even find the bedroom without his bifocals? I can’t help but think that all these celebs are protesting just a little too much about their sexual prowess and in truth they’re about as animalistic as two overfed goldfish (have you seen what goes on when you stuff two goldfish in a bowl? That’s right, NADA).

I suppose we have finally hit the bottom of the barrel as to what is talked about in interviews – to be fair, if I’d been interviewed for my twentieth film by the 85^th magazine, I might start hurling out pornographic stories just to quell the boredom. Then again, my mother would kill me and make sure I wore a muzzle to my next interview. Thank god for that.