Archive for the ‘adultery’ Category

Sex and seduction becomes mainstream

February 23, 2007

Hi Grit

You may think that sex has always been a part of art, which to a certain extent is true. However, one of our youngest london public gallaries the Barbican, having reached the ripe old age of twenty five, has taken this to a new level by hosting an exhibition called Seduced: Art and sex from antiquity to now, entrance reserved strictly for those aged 18 and over.

The intention of this exhibition is to cover the art of seduction as it has been practiced over the past 2000 years. Kate Bush, apparently no relation to the singer or your President, says that it is a “no-holds barred exhibition” the intention of which is to examine and explore all aspects of seduction of any preference. With well over 250 exhibits including portraits from the walls of Pompeii; Indian sexual literature, little known paintings of sexual acts from renowned painters such as Turner, pornographic woodcuts from Japan and Andy Warhol’s short 1963 film entitled “Blow job,” it is not difficult to see what they mean.

Although the museum stresses that this an attempt to cover a serious subject, from the final paragraphs of the article it becomes apparent that the real motive is anything but. Being a public gallary, the Barbican relies heavily on grants from the local authority, in this case the City of London. The director (curate) of the museum has admitted that these grants are being cut back, which will severely curtain their activities unless they can replace funding from elsewhere.

Thus, despite all the brave and intellectual words and phrases, at the end of the day this is not a “serious” exhibition, simply an example of an organisation utilising an age old promotional theory that “sex sells.” Why can’t they be honest about their motives?

the Brit

PS: To all our readers, please note that from 9am tomorrow (GMT) (24th February) we are moving to a new host. You can find us at and we hope that you will be able to join us there. We would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for your company and look forward to more of the same.

How to be a successful Valentine – another survey

February 13, 2007

velentines-1.JPGHi Grit

Following fast on the heels of the sex survey mentioned earlier, we now have another one, this time relating to being a successful Valentine. With the big day arriving tomorrow, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at this. However, this time they did interview 4,000 people, a significant improvement on the “sex” survey.

The results apparently prove that men judge women by beauty, but that in reality this means that they choose a lady who is fertile and has the right genes to pass on to their children. In addition, men choose youth because it means that there is more time left on the reproductive cycle. On the other hand women prefer men in the older range group, who they perceive as being futher along the road to success and more settled in their careers. Similarly, looks are more important from a man’s point of view than from a woman’s.

The two qualties that both sexes agree are important are a sense of humour and intelligence. Well, that’s a relief! However, the really surprising part of the survey is that it revealled that, on average women had experienced eight sexual partners and men eleven. (Where did they find these participants? Passion Alley?).

There was one significant omission from this survey as far as I could tell and that is “love!” And there was me thinking that Valentine’s was all about LOVE!

the Brit

Kylie and a mini affair

January 31, 2007

Hi Grit

I have this question to ask. What is a mini affair? The reason I ask is because I have read today that Jean Claude Van Damme claims that he had one of these in 1994 with Kylie Minogue.

I am sure that he cannot be referring to the small car that is often and, therefore, I assume that he is talking about some romantic interlude. If this is the case then I would have thought it would be classed as an “affair”, because either one is physically involved or not. Surely there is no half-way house in these matters? On the other hand I suppose there is a chance that there little “affair” took place in the small car he is referring to, but it would seem a bit un-celebrity like.

the Brit

The Church, descrimination and double standards

January 30, 2007

Hi Grit

Far be it from me to interfere in the workings of the church, but is appears from a recent news item that the Church in the UK is complaining loudly because the government is banning it from being descriminatory. The issue has been raised over the fact that the Church have been told that their adoption agencies will no longer be able to deny same sex partners from adopting children.

What I find interesting in this article is the response from Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor when he says they are not being descriminatory, just wont allow children from their agencies to be adopted by non hetrosexual partners. To me it is obvious that the church is discriminatory, and not only in this instance. 

He also says that the government is creating a “different kind of morality.” Now I thought that equality was part of the moral fibre of the bible, but perhaps I got that wrong.

The other aspect of this issue that I find unusual is the double standards in operation. It seems to now be acceptable for non-hetrosexual people to become members of the clergy, where they can be involved with the instruction and development of a childs life, but they are not allowed to do this in a family environment. How about the sector of the churches that discriminate against married clergy, whilst advocating marriage as the right way of family life, or its position on female clergy in the past? Then of course there is the Churches position on divorce where, although it is frowned upon, they will turn a blind eye to remarrying in the Church, especially if Royalty is involved.

The term “put your own house in order” springs to mind.

the Brit

Britney’s career is over!

January 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

I hate to say it, but I’m afraid our favorite strumpet has driven the final nail in the coffin of her career.  Carefully examine this article, Britney Spears’s $40,000 Night in Vegas, and see if you can find the deadly sin.  No, it’s not the ostentatious display of wealth.  Wrong again, it’s not having hot naked adulterous sex on a revolving bed.  Nope, not the wild late night parties, or even dancing on the bar.  Give up?

Then here it is:

“It was a different scene Saturday night. Spears and model-actor Cohen, both 25, danced and smoked cigarettes at 8½, a gay club off the Strip, before leaving after about an hour.”  Do you see it now?  She smoked cigarettes in public!  She’s done I tell you!  Done!

the Grit

Sex life to ex-life

January 16, 2007

Hey Grit

Scientists have decided that it is possible neanderthal man did not die out as a result of fighting. They now believe that too much loving that might have caused their extinction. I knew it made you tires, but this is taking it a bit far isn’t it?

Do you think we ought to warn the permiscious society of this event?

the Brit 

This should teach you to keep it in your pants.

January 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, it looks like this is the day to discuss crazy American laws, Adultery could mean life, court finds.  While I can see how this might be considered justice, it sounds just a wee bit excessive, not to mention expensive.  Fortunately, I don’t think there will be very many instances where someone commits adultery during the commission of a felony.  Of course, depending on what this guy’s wife is like, he may be better off, and safer, in jail.

the Grit