Too bad some cold fish can't be improved by a good battering and dip in hot oil

I know Matisse touched on it a couple days ago, but this limey bitch aggravates me no end.

It has been a while since I have encountered such a concentrated load of self-centered, smug twaddle ever to seep out of the puckered anus they seem to pass off as a mouth. Trust me, I get enough of that type of fertilizer in this business to turn the Sahara desert into lush green jungle hell, so when I say this bint is blowing the bell curve for the rest of the class, it's saying something.

Her sexual interest has waned for the guy. It happens. Not for everyone, but often enough to be considered a normal and undesired facet of relationships. Unfortunately, it seems to be a one-sided disinterest. Right up to that point, the matter was quite fucking sad if not a natural tragedy. However, they're both ostensibly adults and have found a solution. His method appears to be not making demands, accepting her limits, and being understanding. Hers is to be a hypocritical, self-involved cunt.

It's really a bummer that her sex life has not been the toe-curling, twat-twirling festival of erections flying masterfully in and out of her quivering loins. Not my damned problem though and from what it sounds like from the article, it's not her poor bastard of a husband's either. If you've torn through twenty-four lovers with only one of them able to bring you to orgasm, someone's a bad lay and "princess" at those odds, it's probably you.

Regardless, she's sniffing for that mystical, mythic prick of her masturbatory dreams. She's planning on enduring in frigid martyrdom "until the children are grown" or some savory bit of man meat comes by that puts her knickers in twist in which case she'll hare off in eager pursuit of an affair. And what thought is given toward the hapless spouse?

"For when asked whether she worries that Hal may seek sexual gratification elsewhere, she says: 'I'm not concerned. I don't think that would happen. It's not Hal's fault that I wish to remain celibate; it's nothing he's said or done. He's a good man and a great dad. It's just that I don't want to be intimate with him any more.'"

Wow, the abject respect this woman holds for a man she's lived with for over a decade is simply staggering.

She seems, in the course of the article, to hold forth about the importance of an intact monogamous relationship for the sake of her unfortunate issue. Way to attempt to smear oneself liberally with the brush of virtue, you insufferable bitch. Whatever sparkling platitudes she may wish to make about sexual fidelity are worthless when she's very clearly decided such inconveniences no longer apply to her. Even if she never does chip the hoarfrost from her nethers for some momentarily appealing punter before securing her divorce, her marriage is hardly what would be considered healthy.

How ethical can it be when not only does she keep it a secret from her husband that she's been planning to divorce him as soon as she has reached the point she's decided is convenient? How honest a relationship can it be when she claims to have written a book going into detail all the crap she lacks the intestinal fortitude to bring up to him behind his back?!

The slack-bellied hag must think her crotch droppings have the cognitive skills of garden vegetables since she seems to think they haven't twigged to her marital issues. Unless she's pumping them full of Thorazine before hosing them off and replaced in their cozy steamer trunks, the kids are damned well going to know she ain't putting out for daddy. I'd be surprised if they didn't routinely check their father for frostbite as a matter of course.

For that matter, what the frothy citrus pus is up with excluding her husband, of whom she shares a bloody bed, from sex with her? Why isn't she ponying up the pussy? Yes, she doesn't want sex with him, but he wants sex with her. I'm not saying she should be sex-on-tap for the guy, but where's the compromise? It's patently unfair for her to expect her spouse to be sexually monogamous to her while also refusing to make any accommodation for his needs. If he's going out of his way not to be pushy, it's only fair to lie back and think of England every so often. It's cruelly inequitable to do otherwise. She's getting everything she wants; he's getting nothing that he wants.

Of course the stupid sod seems to accept such shoddy treatment. There's only so far I can sympathize for his plight. He's choosing to remain in the situation, so he forfeits the right to complain, if by chance he happens to mope and whine about sharing a bed with a ol' cobweb crotch. For all I know, he keeps his gob shut and has cultivated a nice relationship with a courtesan or some other woman who actually gives a good god-damn about his happiness. I'd be giddy to discover he's plodded the course and toed the party line until he had amassed a crippling case against her for his own divorce proceedings. Surprise! Wouldn't it be delightful if she had to share out a substantial percentage of her mean-spirited little book's royalties in palimony and child support to her ex-husband? Talk about your clear-cut accounts of spousal neglect and emotional cruelty.

I hope anyone that runs across a wretched creature of her ilk kicks them firmly on their arse and breaks the sound barrier running the other direction.