www.owohrod.com.

If women and men want to or have to sell their sexual services, why should they be denied the right to do so? And the men and women who wish to buy such services be denied them?  Especially when the State, the countries which would make such services illegal, and deny them their rights. Take no responsibility to find them 'more desirable', 'more ethical', or 'more moral' jobs? And so it is, that the 'scandalisation,' and demonisation of the use of sex workers by some workers from charitable and aid organisation, such as Oxfam and the United Nations, by the pseudo puritans.   Risk depriving thousands of people of the benefits they are receiving from the benevolent activities of these aid agencies Which begs the question; What is behind this craziness, this ludicrous anti-sex band wagon?  Why are people who should know better, trying to apply the modus operandi of the private bedroom, people's private lives, to the unpredictable

Many people might not believe or want to admit it, but sex is good for you.  Good for adults, providing it is consensual, with the participants freely consenting to indulge. Sex does not have to be between married couples, or couples who are cohabiting.  The operative thing is that it should take place between adults who freely consent to have sex.  That means that it is alright for a man, or, indeed, a woman, to pay a sex worker or prostitute to have sex with them.  In some countries it is unlawful for a man to pay a woman to have sex with him.  But, while the act might be illegal, prohibiting a woman, or, indeed, a man, to freely indulge in sexual acts with another adult, is a denial of the human rights of both. Sex is, or can be enjoyable, although not all the times and for most or all people.  If the people engaging in the sexual act are not experienced and/or are tired or stressed, or are not in the mood for having sex, then it can be an anti-climatic

This is a very animated video, with a flock of Gulls making quite a spectacle, as they zoom in and out in pursuit of what they believed was a free meal on offer. Please take a look and see if you find a moment of two in it which brings some cheer or mirth to your day!

As we can see from him now expressing his intention or aspiration to use nuclear weapons as a 'flexible deterrent.'  Or, more accurately, his intimation that he wants to develop tactical nuclear weapons which the United States can use against her 'enemies', real and orchestrated.  Probably against North Korea, and, he is indicating, Russia. And so we have the 'doctrine of the deluded', being developed.  The idea that a nuclear armed state, against which a tactical nuclear weapon is used.   Will also comply with the delusional theory, that, 'one should only retaliate in proportion to the extent of harm or damage which the attacking state has inflicted on it.'  Is extremely fanciful to sane people, but, obviously, not the delusional people in charge at the White House. As we can see from him trying to increase the 'enemisation' of the Russian Federation and China, instead of pursuing the approach of mutual cooperation.

This is a short video of what was seen along the Canal on this particular Winter's day. Including this flock of ducks apparently having a lovely day. Please take a look and see if you find anything which brings you a bit of pleasure!

Why should the God of Moses, for example, not be held accountable for having unleashed locusts on all the Egyptians, both 'the guilty' and 'the innocent?' Or for having killed all Egypt's 'first born'? Were the Egyptians, as a nation, any more versed in the ways of 'good' and 'evil' than were the nation of Israel?  And, if so, how did that came to be, considering that they were all the descendants of 'Adam and Eve', whom god had purportedly created from dust?  Or, are we to believe, that god has, as he is reported to have done in the case of Cain and Abel, decided to choose 'favourites' amongst his people. Preferring the Israelites above the Egyptians.  Or was he really 'the god of the Israelites', and not of the Egyptians? And what of Allah, as the Muslim refers god? Why should Allah not be held responsible and accountable.   For the hundreds of thousands, the millions, probably, of innocent humans wh

Yes, we can remind ourselves that this is what the United States of America normally does.  There are many examples of it having done it all over the world, and all throughout the ages, since it became an independent country in at the end of the Eighteenth Century.  When you are a powerful bully, clothed not in apparel of legality and/or morality, but the powerful garments of military might, you can afford to bully any country which is not able to stand up to you. The Russian government, Syria's ally in this proxy war, has not yet made any spectacular comments about the US's blatant and unacceptable aggression against Syrian government forces.  This is probably as should be expected, from a pragmatic perspective.  After all, the Americans have unjustifiably killed Syrian government forces before, and will most probably do so again.  Their motivation for this latest attack is likely to be more than what they have said about the Syrian forces making a co