Biggest moron ever!

Duuuuuuudes! You will not believe what I did! So retarded I am surprised they haven't immediately changed the modern Oxford to show a photo of my face next to that term.

So. It's exam time. I had one last week, which I sort of studied for, but not really. I got into the exam and, whilst I knew what I had to do, because I hadn't really studied enough, I sort of blathered around in my answers and ended up running out of time. So while I'm sure I passed, I don't think I would have gotten a 6 (HA) or 7 (VHA).

So the next exam, I was determined to do better in. I arranged for the day before off work, so I would have 3 whole days to study before the exam. I got up early each day, and went through all of my materials and took countless notes (or rather, 40,000+ words of notes). I was prepared, and I was going to kick arse!

Last night, after going over the final piece of information, I packed my bags up (it's an open book, but don't let that fool you - if you don't know what you're talking about, you won't find it in the books anyway), and then decided to make sure I knew what room I was in (I was pretty sure, but wanted to be certain). I went into my student account to look it up.

And then saw the most disturbing thing ever. I felt like I had been punched in the guts.

I had studied for the wrong exam!

Arggggghhhhhhhh!

I very nearly had a nervous breakdown. I don't know how this happened. I just can't work it out. In my calendar, it's entered as the correct exam. On my exam schedule, it's the correct exam. They haven't changed the dates. But for some reason, I had it in my head that it was the other exam. The one that's not until next week.

It was 11pm. I briefly contemplated pulling an all-nighter and trying to study for it. But my head was full of the other subject, and I am not so young that I can stay up all night with full mental capacity any more. Besides, this subject is the same subject that I had that piece of assessment for that I didn't know about until the night before. The one that, somehow, I managed to do in under 5 hours and get a 7 for. This subject is cursed. I couldn't do it again. I needed to be able to have the time to go over all of the information properly. Sure, I could have tried to wing it like I did with that assessment piece, but I just wasn't sure I could. Plus, I didn't have all of the books and materials I would need to take with me into the exam. I usually need to slaughter half a forest before an exam, and I hadn't printed out the materials because I didn't think I needed them until next week.

So, I decided the only thing I could do was defer. I looked through all of the emergency get-out-of-jail free cards, and the only thing I could reasonably get away with was an illness. But I needed something that was undetectable and untestable. So I decided to fake a migraine. I get them all the time anyway, so it's not like I don't know what they're about. And you can't really test someone for one.

So I skipped the exam today and went to the doctor. By this time, I had an actual headache from all the stress, so I wasn't exactly lying. She filled out my form, and I will now have to sit a deferred exam - right when we're moving house. But at least that's better than trying to sit an exam I hadn't even cracked a book on!

I can only imagine what would have happened if I hadn't decided to check the room details. What if I'd shown up in the morning with all my books for the other subject, and then only realised when I got into the room that I was sitting the other exam! I think I definitely would have had a mental breakdown. At least I might have been able to claim special consideration, I suppose!

On the up side - I now have another week to study for the exam I was already studying for, and I have more time to study for the exam that is the day after that one (I was concerned I would have no time for it), and when I get the date for the deferred exam, I will at least know which one I am studying for this time, and can give it the attention it deserves!

*an update on the snip*

William went to see the dermatologist today. He thinks it is some skin condition which means the scar tissue from the tear will continually break open. But he also says it's fairly common amongst uncircumcised men, and 90% of cases are treatable by circumcision - so yay! Win for me! He took a biopsy (ouch!) just to make sure, so William will find out in a week if it really is that. If it is, he will be able to get the surgery done if he wants it. The dermatologist did say there was still a small chance the problem would resurface further up the shaft after the circumcision, but he didn't think it was a very big risk (90% of cases solved). So yeah. Now I just have to gently talk him into accepting the potential risks from the surgery. So far, I have been very careful not to try to push him in any direction. But there's hope!

An update on the snip

William went to see the specialist. He was very reluctant, and he couldn't find a reason for the tearing. He suggested William might have a skin condition causing the skin not to heal properly, and he thought if he underwent the operation, the problem might just move further up the shaft. So he said he wouldn't consider the operation until after William had seen a dermatologist.

He also said if it turns out it's a skin condition, and it can be treated, he won't perform the surgery, even if William wants it done. He said William would be hard pressed to find anyone who would. He gave him a list of the complications and difficulties that can arise with adult circumcision, and has all but talked William out of wanting it done.

However, if he goes to see the dermatologist, and it's not a skin condition, then the urologist will perform the surgery, albeit reluctantly.

So I guess I can just hope it's not a skin condition and can't be treated, because if it can be, William has basically said he's not going to get it done, because he doesn't think the benefits outweigh the potential complications.

About time

Wow. I can't believe a post about rape garners no comments at all. Apparently heinous crimes don't get my few readers worked up enough to comment.

Maybe this will. I just read a news article about a Venetian town who is fining tourists caught buying counterfeit goods. An Austrian woman bought a fake Louis Vuitton for 7 euros (knowingly), and was then fined 1,000 euros. I'm sure there will be people who are outraged by this. People who think it's just revenue raising, and that there's no harm in counterfeit goods.

In reality, there is a lot of harm in counterfeit goods. And I'm not just talking about the massive companies losing out on revenue, or intellectual property. I'm talking about the behind-the-scenes harm this industry is creating. Did you know that counterfeiters and their crime syndicates deal in human trafficking, child labor, and gang warfare? Did you know that truly horrendous deeds are carried out on the children who work in those factories so you can pay a ridiculously small sum for your counterfeit LV bag? Dana Thomas (who writes for Harper's Bazaar) outlines in this article a raid she was present at where the owners of the factory had broken the children's legs, and then reset them in a position so the children couldn't walk, and thus had to stay at their machines working the whole time. I felt ill when I read that.

And then in this article (apologies for the Facebook link, I can't find a copy of the actual article), Dana goes on to detail even more harrowing details of child labour. Harper's also runs a website about the counterfeit industry, with tips on how to spot fakes.

Of course, there are some who believe Harper's is only promoting this issue to assist in the profit-taking of the big fashion corporations. They probably are. But even so, this is an issue worth acknowledging, and worth doing something about. Child labour is not ok. Exploiting any human being is not ok. And whilst I think targeting the end-consumer, rather than the crime syndicates themselves, might be a little bit unfair, it's clear that targeting the crime syndicates is a losing battle while there is still demand for the product making the manufacture worth the risk. If the practice of fining continues, and people know there is a consequence to buying fakes, and especially if they know the reasons why, the demand will drop and hopefully these crime syndicates will go out of business. And then we can start putting more pressure on the actual fashion houses who are possibly also utilising underpaid labour. Apple and Nike are two examples of big businesses who have had to become more transparent about their manufacturing processes. In the future, I think all fashion houses will need to be more transparent. This is most likely going to push the price up of luxury goods, but I would rather pay a premium for a handbag I know hasn't been made by some poor worker chained to their machine for 20 hours a day.

If you can't afford to buy a designer handbag, don't resort to buying fakes. There are plenty of derivative versions out there created by other companies in legitimate circumstances. Or, you could just save your pennies and buy the real thing, and then feel 10,000 times better every time you carry it around.

Really?! This again?

I just read this article. Honestly, I just can't believe it. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Sex is not consensual if the girl doesn't say no. It's consensual if she says yes! Didn't hear a yes? Then don't fucking have sex with her! Is she too drunk to say no? Then she didn't fucking say yes!!!

Section 349(2) of the Criminal Code (Qld) states that rape is carnal knowledge of a person without the person's consent. Section 348(1) of the Code states "consent" means ‘consent freely and voluntarily given by a person with the cognitive capacity to give the consent’. If someone is drunk, they obviously don't have the cognitive capacity to give the consent! This was further established in R v Camplin (1845) 1 C & K 746; and R v Fletcher (1859) 8 Cox CC 131. It is rape to have carnal knowledge of a woman who has been rendered insensible through liquor, or where she does not resist because her submission is due to the fact that she is drunk. A woman who is insensible is incapable of giving consent.

Further, just because the woman doesn't say no, does not mean she has said yes: a complainant who at the time failed by word or action to manifest his or her dissent is not in law taken to have consented to sexual intercourse ( R v IA Shaw [1996] 1 Qd R 641). Further, in R y Pryor [2001] QCA 341, the Court of Appeal said no element of violence is necessarily involved. The complainant does not necessarily have to forcibly resist in order to establish absence of consent. Absence of consent is establish WHEN SHE DOESN'T SAY YES!!!

Also, if you think it's a matter of he said/she said, and that if there's no evidence or witnesses, you'll get away with it, think again. A person may be found guilty of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness (section 632(1) of the Code). A judge is not required by any rule of law or practice to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness (section 632(2)). The judge must not warn or suggest that the law regards any class of persons as unreliable witnesses (section 632(3); Longman v The Queen (1989) 160 CLR 79), even if the complainant has a history of many sexual partners.

When will all you morons get it? If she doesn't say yes, you can't have sex with her! It's not about whether she didn't say no! Get it through your heads! Even if she was completely naked and walking down the street, then stopped to pick up a pencil, that is not an implied consent for you to have sex with her. If she didn't actually consent to you having sex with her, don't fucking have sex with her!!!!!!!

There was also another recent article in the SMH, the comments section of which nearly made my head explode (the article itself was pretty stupid, though). There were comments by men and women alike about how some girls are "asking for it", and how if the girl is too drunk to say yes, then why is it the male's responsibility, blah blah blah. It took all my strength not to go completely postal on those comments. I had to force myself to shut the article down and try to forget about it. I just don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp! Did she say yes? She didn't? THEN DON'T FUCKING RAPE HER!!!!!