Archive | October, 2012

Keep young and beautiful, if you want to be loved

27 Oct

Feminine ladies, the importance of retaining a youthful appearance should never be underestimated. Younger and prettier is always better. Wrinkles and white hair may add character and wisdom to a man’s look, but do not fool yourself into thinking this can be true of older women. Keep young and beautiful, or you may never snag that all-important dream man, without whom you will be a haggard old spinster forever, and you will have no one but feminists, lesbians and cats for friends.

At what age should you begin your fight against aging? US giant Walmart says during childhood, or at least its anti-aging cosmetics line aimed at eight-year-olds does.  Nivea, on the other hand, actively encourages teenagers to use their anti-aging creams, which they see as a “proactive” way of  “preventing the onset of wrinkles.” Dr Jean-Louis Sebagh of Crème Vital moisturising cream (£57 for 50ml, if you are interested) recommends that girls “start skincare young”. Indeed, says Dr Sebagh, “(i)f you start from 16 you will see the benefits. It is like feeding yourself properly.” I take certain issue with Dr Sebagh’s advice, since unlike neglecting moisturisers, not eating will eventually result in death. That said, if you are a proper woman, then “letting yourself go” and doing nothing to stop the appearance of those dry, scaly, clawing “crows feet” around your eyes, should really be punished by death (although, surely death is the ultimate form of aging prevention, n’est pas?).

It is settled. Start to preoccupy yourself with anti-aging creams as a teenager, or, to quote Nivea, be even more “proactive” and begin a lifelong dissatisfaction with your looks as a child. But at what age should you consider more, what I call, structural solutions, such as the knife or needle? My personal view is age 33 (which gives me a few more years to save up for some ops!) for this is a magical age. Saint Joseph was 33 when he took the Virgin Mary for a wife…. Word has it that the Virgin Mary no longer changed physical appearance from her 33rd year on Earth, her beauty both internal and external…  33 is the name of a private members club in the magical world of Disneyland… I have 33 vertebrae in my back… I diverge… Do excuse me. A few ideas to help you look younger:

  •  The old favourite, Botox: inject poison into the muscles of your decrepit face to ensure that they can no longer contract or receive signals from your nerves.
  •  The new Harley Street fad, the Vampire Facial: the customer’s own blood is extracted from the arm and then spun at a vigorous speed in a Centrifuge for six minutes before being re-injected into the person’s skin through tiny holds made in their face with a “probe”. This reminds me of the legendary torture device of the Middle Ages, the Iron Maiden. Yet it must work, because the Daily Mail says so.  Says the columnist that tested it “(b)lood trickled down my face like raindrops down a window pane — so much blood that I can honestly say I’ve experienced few things as frightening in my life… but … it worked wonders on my neck.” You could also try the Elizabeth Bathory method (Bathory was the Slovak countess that killed 650 virgins in order to bathe in their youth-inducing blood. A modern, legal alternative could include a bath of black pudding).

Like the Vampire Facial, but for your whole body and without the Harley Street price tag. Order yours now from all good beauty stores, or MI6/the CIA.

  • Favoured by British royals, Bee venom. What more can I say? You insert it in your face. It’s Mother Nature’s botox.

The Bee Venom facial in action

  • Finally, why not try a “traditional” Thai face-slapping facial, a snip at $350 per 15-minute slot:  My dad would say that anyone who pays $350 dollars on a beauty treatment deserves a slap. But he has leathery skin.

Feminazi witch-hunt of gentlemen with normal sexual preferences

13 Oct

When I was 8, I wrote to Jim’ll Fix It to request that my wish for long hair be granted (at 8, I realised that short hair was most un-princess-like and unfeminine and was rightfully pursuing actions that could rectify the situation). At the time, I was sad to receive no reply, but, since it turns out that the BBC was a 70s refuge for paedophiles, I am somewhat relieved.

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology. According to the writer Tim Worstall, Jimmy was not a paedophile, since his “sexual preference” was for “mid-to-late adolescents” rather than children, and that Jimmy’s “attractions” are quite normal amongst males. Many commentators on Mr Worstall’s, ahem, surprising piece on male sexuality and indeed more widely, see the uproar around Jimmy’s systematic rape of girls as a necrophiliac lynching of feminist design.  They fear a wider “witch hunt” of other victims such as the late John Peel, who publicly boasted of his exploits with 13 year-olds and allegedly left a 15 year-old pregnant. Such a hunt is uncalled for, since, as music journalist David Hepworth and former BBC Director General Michael Grade helpfully pointed out on the Channel 4 news, such abuse and exploitation of minors was “just part of the showbiz mix” and was certainly not seen as “sinister”.  But, this “culture” is all behind us now. Such attitudes to the treatment of children became dead and buried when the 60s and 70s drew to a close. There is no need to spend huge sums of money investigating why the systematic sexual abuse of children was condoned at the BBC and Leeds General hospital when the country is in economic crisis. It’s all behind us now. What’s done is done and can’t be undone.

But is it done? Barnados estimates that the average age for entering prostitution in my home region of the North East is 13.  We aren’t in the 70s anymore so surely paying to use children for one’s sexual gratification shouldn’t be socially acceptable, but there are customers. Similarly, UK’s rape conviction rate stands at pitifully low 6.5% and it is estimated 95% of rapes aren’t reported in the first place. Perhaps, like Jimmy’s “sexual partners”, rape survivors fear they will not be believed. Why complain if you are likely to be dismissed or belittled (see Pilger or Chomsky on Assange’s complainants), accused of “provoking” your rapist (see rape prevention tips for reminders on how to avoid this), laughed at (I remember Leeds University men’s hockey time holding a hilarious rape victim themed fancy dress night in the Union bar back in 2004) or having your records falsified in order to bring an immediate end to your case without investigation? I would argue that the ever increasing and hugely disproportionate media attention to false allegations of rape adds to this culture of disbelieving survivors.  I would argue that this is the same culture that made Jimmy and his chums untouchable back in the 70s and continues to make other abusers untouchable today.

But not to worry! Sapphire, the Met police’s sex crime unit, has got a new strategy! Their new anti-rape campaign will “speak to women about reducing their vulnerability”. Says Mick Duthie, Detective Chief Superintendent of Sapphire, “we do need to educate people that if they go out and get hammered they are vulnerable – vulnerable to being assaulted – vulnerable to falling over and vulnerable to being raped… 80% of our victims have one form of vulnerability or another, a permanent or temporary vulnerability through drink, drugs, mental health, age. So there are things that we can do to prevent the offence happening in the first place.” It is also encouraging to hear of another vital prong of the Sapphire Strategy: convict rapists of unrelated crimes that are easier to prove. Says Duthie of rapists, “we don’t want them out there committing sexual offences so if they are disqualified from driving … this will help prevent rape.”

That’s right, victims – you have the power to stop the rape happening in the first place. Just don’t be vulnerable. Don’t fall over. Try to be mentally healthy. And the met police will help you by trying to make sure that rapists don’t have the right to drive.

Crispello, “a little treat for you”

3 Oct

Here is the text of an email that I have today sent to Mr Toby Smart, Brand Manager of Cadbury at Kraft Foods, in praise of the new Crispello woman-only chocolate bar:

Dear Mr Smart,

I was very excited to read in Yahoo News today of your new, slim-line, woman-only chocolate bar elegantly named Crispello, which, I hear, “will be the perfect little treat for women” since “it contains only 165 calories” (a most attractive format for women according to your spokesman).  Apparently, it will “also appeal to women because it is in three separate portions so they can consume a little at a time rather than in one go” and will include re-sealable packaging for the same reason. I was also interested to read your very own views in The Grocer’s article, in which you claim that other chocolate bars can be “quite intimidating to women” since it is harder to break them into smaller pieces. Crispello, you say, will give women “control”.  I do love empowering chocolate. Who needs feminism when you’ve got Cadbury’s?

As you are no doubt aware, a large proportion of British women suffer from body insecurities and low self-image. How entrepreneurial of Cadbury to use this lamentable fact to your advantage. You re-affirm our body insecurities and encourage more and more women to convert to a calorie-counting way of life with your low-calorie bar and its £7m publicity campaign. Like other stars of the slimming and beauty industries, you make your own market by providing a “solution” to a problem that you yourselves create (low body self-esteem).

Of course, as an ultra-feminine woman, I approve. Women should worry about their weight. Indeed, it is naughty for women to eat chocolate, yet from time to time we do so and afterwards, we invariably become wracked with guilt (I’m glad, therefore, that I can feel less guilty after gorging on the Crispello). If you want my opinion, you should contact the Church and see about making high calorie chocolate an official sin for women. You see, rather like our fore-mother Eve, modern women tend to become overwhelmed with temptation for wretched foodstuffs and we are therefore liable to causing the downfall of humanity if we are not watched over carefully.

It’s so considerate of you to deliver Crispello in a re-sealable pack so that women can enjoy it in small portions over an extended period of time. Previously, when faced with large, chunky chocolate bars such as just-for-men Yorkie, I’ve become upset because the portion size was just too much for my slight, feminine frame to manage in one go. Incidentally, not just Yorkie bars but big, hard, manly things in general have always scared me and I certainly wouldn’t want to chomp on one.

That is all.

Yours sincerely,


P.S.  Finally, a question for you. I have assumed the name choice for your product was designed to evoke the sophisticated elegance of a slim Latin woman. With Latin gender pronouns in mind, why Crispello and not Crispella?

P.P.S. Can I use Crispello as a tampon?