JUSTIFICATION OF SORTS...

In an article describing yet another "*.sexual" moniker, some interesting facts are brought to light about the type of individual described. The "vegansexuals" are refusing to have sex with anyone who is a carnivore or eats any sort of animal products.

The "new phenomenon" is taking place in New Zealand. One such ugly lady said:

"She could understand people not wanting to get too close to non-vegan or non-vegetarians."

and

"When you are vegan or vegetarian, you are very aware that when people eat a meaty diet, they are kind of a graveyard for animals."

But, then again, this particular swamp thing has been married for nine years. Whatever. Using her logic, I would rather hump up on a nicely-shaped meativore (since we are into the moniker theme) than a compost heap. I suppose I could really stretch this and say that because they just don't want to associate with people who eat meat, they can also not like someone for the color of their skin. Again, whatever.

I suppose that the main reason I find this stupid is because I just never wondered why pale, kelpy, people from New Zealand weren't wanting to have sex with me. When is the last time anyone was in a bar or other social blender and was turned down and took the time to "quiz" their let-down? "Is it because I like ham?" or "Is it because I like milks?" Give me a break.

Screw popular culture. Personal choices didn't used to be assigned stupid names; they just were. For example, if I don't want to go out and kick a soccer ball about, why do I have to justify it to anyone? Why do I have to call it anything? I think the whole "vegansexual" gig is to justify why the swamp things aren't getting anything to hit on them except "moss guy" or "lettuce girl". What do the married people even care? "We are married but we still choose not to hang out with you because you like Slim Jims". Elitist weeds, the lot of em'.

Minus