why do some girls go for girls?

aside from the uh... anatomical difference, what exactly do guys have to offer that girls can't?

why do people get into relationships in the first place?  to have someone they can share their lives with.  sharing entails commitment, communication, love and trust. 

let's talk commitment.  how many of you received that e-mail about how guys are really polygamous by nature?  i'm sure alot of people agreed with it --may they be girls or guys.  so they can't help looking and flirting and ocassionally sleeping with other women.  it's in their nature.  well, if you're a woman looking for a serious relationship with someone, you'd want to be with a person who wouldn't look around regardless of their excuses.  i'm not saying that women don't cheat.  they do.  but if you count the number of people you know who cheats and tally the number per gender, guess which gender will show up?

communication.  maybe it's just me and the guys i like.  but more often than not, the biggest issue is almost always about communication.  and i don't mean the you-don't-listen-to-me-when-i'm-talking-you-stupid-ass kind of communication.  i meant actually saying what you mean and not going through the whole mind-game thing.  admit it, girls are alot better in saying what they actually mean without being mean.  okay, most girls except me (hehehe).  plus there's less ego to bruise with a girl.  we're not out to prove how much of a man we are.

love.   in fairness, i think both sexes can dish this out in equal amounts.

so, aside from the sex (which, personally, i still can't appreciate), what exactly do guys have to offer?

***************************************************************************

the whole sucks.  i can't write well today.  currently in limbo.  no, actually, currently pissed.  but i don't want to talk about it.

when exactly do you cross the line to cheating?  Is to contemplate cheating on a partner same as cheating per se?  Or is "actions" the only basis of cheating?  If it may only be based in actions, what exactly should you have done to cross that line?

scenario 1: friend number 1 is happy in his relationship with gf.  then, he met this other girl whom he finds very interesting.  they haven't exactly gone out yet, platonic or otherwise, but they text and talk pretty often.  in fact probaby more often than with the gf.

given the scenario, is friend number 1 already cheating on his partner by harboring such thoughts towards another girl?  Is frequent impersonal (phone lang eh) conversations tantamount to cheating?  Or does he need to actually "date" this other girl before it may be labelled cheating? 

scenario 2: friend number 2 has been in a relationship with gf for 6 years now.  he has however maintained friendship with girls who are friends, which his gf does not know about.  according to him, what they have are purely paltonic relationships.  although he does admit that he feels something for his so-called just friends, and sometimes, this feeling is mutual.

in this case, there is really something more in the scenario.  friend 2 and the girl friends do go out with each other.  he was pretty adamant though that nothing physical (kissing, holding hands, etc.) was ever done the entire time they were together.  so, does that mean that because no intimate contact was established, they did not really cheat?

scenario 3: friend 3 is in an open relationship.  so, he has a gf but he also goes out with other girls, no commitment though and no strings attached.  the gf, obviously, knows who he went out with, where they went, and what went on during the date.

there is obvious cheating in this scenario.  but since there was consent, the vagueness in cheating may be seen when the partner doesn't tell everything  to the other person.  what will they consider as cheating?

personally, i have less issues with regards to cheating.  cheating for me happens when you do something with a person of the opposite (or is preferred more politically correct?) gender that your partner does not know about, regardless if it's platonic or with intent.

simple lang naman kasi ang mundo eh, toxikin pa ba natin?

i'm still not in the mood to write.  too many papers to finish.

but the news have been bugging me too much lately.

a few days ago, i heard that gma seems to be implementing undeclared martial law.  i think it has something to do with the "harsher" (for lack of better term) dispersal of rallyist.  apparently, the "no permit, no rally" thing will be strictly enforced.  and violators will be... u... apprehended(??).  if i recall correctly, matagal na yan.  and it can only go up to a specific time.  question is, if the rallyist is rallying against her administration, will she still issue the permit?  and if she discriminates in issuing one, wouldn't that be against our rights as a citizen?  besides, on what grounds will she deny permission to rally?

heard another disturbance in my toxicity awhile ago.  gma issued another order.  this time, no executive official may testify in a senate (or is it congress?) hearing unless she permits him/her to.  she doesn't want whatever happened to gonzales to happen again.  she said that its not that she's afraid of what will come out or something, it's just that she wants to protect her officials.  or something to that effect.

hmmm...  this is just not right.  medyo kakapalan ang moves ah!

according to a friend, gma is more forceful now in her moves coz she knows that she can't be impeached anymore.  she's got the majority vote didn't she?  and she still has no obvious replacement.

hay... life sa pinas.

i used to love the line: 

when you've reached rocke bottom, there's nowhere to go but up.

now, i just learned a prettier line:

when you've hit rock bottom, you can always creep sideways.