This song has gotten me through some tough break ups. It brings back a lot of painful and pleasant memories. The love of my life and I are having problems and this song cheers me up. I love the lyrics.


Luka Magnotta

Madonna True Blue: Luka Magnotta




Luka Magnotta

Im beautiful and men and women are intimidated by me. People feel bad 4 themselves cuz their ugly. Try being naturally beautiful. It can be harder. people feel sorry 4 ugly people. They don't feel sorry 4 beautiful. They resent u. Im not conceided, im just telling it like it is.





Dolce and Gabana: Luka Magnotta

Unless You've Lived My Life Then Dont Judge Me.


Don't speak. Don't talk to me
Why can't you see what you cannot be?
Problems to ???
What are you supposed to be?
It's not me. I am what I am.

Can you really be so sure with me?
Telling me what's going on
Sick and tired of people telling me
Who am I and what to be

Don't judge me
I've had enough
Don't judge me


You think you're sacred
Really, you don't mean shit
The world doesn't stop
'cause you think it will

Don't care
if you think I'm not a fuckin' star
I've gotta laugh at you
That's who you aren't

I Mean It. Dont Speak shit about my life unless u have walked a day in my shoes.






Luka Magnotta

Many religious people do find it wrong. But, many other people see nothing wrong with it.

It is a natural variance. Homosexuality in and of itself does not harm the person (last I checked plenty of straight people have stds and all that). Same sex parents are shown to be just as effective as opposite sex parents.

There is no non religious reason that stands to think bisexuality or homosexuality is wrong.

But, there is also an added bias against bisexuals, because people think they are promiscuis. Part of this comes as a result of some religious people defining orientation by behavior, and not actual orientation. They think you are only gay if you have gay sex. You are only bisexual if you are having sex with atleast two people, one of same sex one of opposite sex. And those defiinitions are wrong. Behavior is actually only a very very small part of defining orientation.
Does mankind ever agree on one thing?

No. Thus there is no supreme authority on morality especially.

Live your life comfortably, be true to yourself, introspect. Form your own morality/belief system based on this so that you may live a fulfilling, just life according to your own standards.

If you are bisexual, you're likely to say it is not wrong.

If you are heterosexual and are ingrained with traditional teachings, you're likely to say it is.


No, its not wrong and anyone who says as much is simply narrow minded and hateful. Look. You are the way you are. There's nothing wrong with that. Really, is there one single rational reason that bisexuality is "wrong" or "evil"? No. Because some god (not even the oldest god in history) says so? No.

Be who you are. You don't CHOSE your sexuality. It is what it is.


Absolutely nothing wrong with being bisexual.
What you are is not wrong, nor could it be.

If you are happy, healthy, safe and responsible, f*ck what religious people say or think.
Like they have any grip on reality to begin with. Who the hell are they to judge. Enjoy your life as you are built.



Being who you truly are is never wrong.

When humans gather together and form communities that's when things can go wrong for many because of the rules and customs that develop. Fears and injustices are always present in communities. That's just how humans -to date - are wired. Someday far in the future humans will not have these fears and life will be very different.









Nothings Wrong with Being Bisexuak
Luka Magnotta

It really bothers me when girls make fun of gay men or "straight" guys are scared to death because they come in contact with a Gay or Bi man. Ok, your raised to hate gays and be scared.....but its 2009. Gays are everywhere. If u don't like gays then go hide under a rock, we're not going anywhere.

Throughout my life Ive had several encounters with guys that go out of their way to prove to everyone how straight they are only to find out later they werent so straight after all. My theory is if you are straight, and truly comfortable in your own sexuality why do you give a damn about others? Why do you feel so uncomfortable about us? My experiences have led me to believe that these same people only do so because they are trying desparately to conceal their own feelings. Well now I have proof.

Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment

Does this get you hot?


involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the non-homophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes?

While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the non-homophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'







Closeted Homosexuals are my pet peve.
Luka Magnotta

Some people have said I'm hot, but I don't get any guys approaching me. So some have said guys don't approach me becuase they might be intimidated by my beauty. But some say I'm not that beautiful (girls) and maybe that's why I don't get approached. Am I too beautiful? Are they jealous? Or just brutally honest?
Where do I fall on the "looks" scale? I would rather men answer, please be COMPLETLY HONEST with me. How beautiful am I?
No haters or stalkers. Only reply if you think im really really hot because otherwise I don't want to hear it okay.







Luka Magnotta

Ever since I was a little kid, I've had this compulsion to cut my fingernails, cuticles, and the skin around my fingernails, to the point that I've come to identify it as a form of self-mutilation, . I often sit, sometimes for an hour, cutting away at my cuticles with a pair of fingernail clippers, to the point that they're just an awful-looking mass of hardened, brittle tissue and nail. My fingernails are so short, so whittled down, that I can't even open a can without having to grab my keys or a knife to flip the tab up enough for me to grab it. I couldn't find any decent pics, but my fingers look considerably worse than those of a typical nailbiter.
I also have to go get a manicure three times a week because im so self consious of the way my toe and fingernails look.

Do any other adults struggle with this? How do you deal with it?








Luka Magnotta

I have been doing some research on Marilyn Monroe


Marilyn Monroe's popularity was immense during her lifetime is understandable, but the escalation of her fame since her death is considered nothing short of a phenomenon, and has been a continual source of fascination to biographers, cultural critics, and her fans.

Undoubtedly, part of our unending interest in Marilyn is due to her premature death and the mysterious circumstances surrounding it.



The troubled Hollywood goddess summoned her natural exuberance for a 1959 session with photographer Philippe Halsman.

Occasional efforts are made to persuade the Los Angeles police to reopen her case. At such times, speculation and rumor run rampant as a few more bits and pieces of information come to light.

In 1974, Robert Slatzer, a onetime friend to Marilyn who claims to have married her in 1953, authored a book alleging that the famous star had been murdered.

Entitled The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe, the book cites her relationship with both Kennedys, probes into the questions surrounding her death, and comes up with a provocative -- but ultimately unconvincing -- conspiracy theory.

Slatzer hired a private detective named Milo Speriglio to obtain hard evidence to support his theory. Speriglio has devoted more than 15 years to the case and claims to know who murdered Marilyn and why, though he can't prove it.

In 1982, he offered a reward of $10,000 for Marilyn's so-called "red diary," which the detective claims details her conversations with Robert Kennedy. Supposedly, Slatzer saw the diary a few days before Marilyn died, while coroner's aide Lionel Grandison noticed it in the coroner's room.

Interestingly, Speriglio's announcement about the diary coincided with the publication of his first book, Marilyn Monroe: Murder Cover-Up, which recaps Slatzer's book and brings the investigation up to date.



Cover-up rumors keep Marilyn's name in the press, even though she died years ago.

Later that year, a collector of rare books offered $150,000 for the diary, which has
yet to surface; many people doubt its existence altogether.

In 1986, Speriglio wrote a second book on the Monroe case, The Marilyn Conspiracy, which is an updated version of his earlier work. That same year, Speriglio called a press conference to demand that the case be reopened. His request was denied.

Though many doubt the veracity of Slatzer and Speriglio's theories and conclusions,
the rumors of a murder or a cover-up serve to keep Marilyn's name in the news, as do the tributes and retrospectives that surface on the anniversary of her death.

The murder rumors add a tone of notoriety to her story, while the tributes and accolades remind us that there was much more to her than love affairs and an unexplained death. Both types of publicity tend to escalate her myth, assigning her a permanent place in the annals of Hollywood folklore.











"Imperfection is beauty. Madness is genius. And it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring."

-Marilyn Monroe

A top psychiatrist is convinced that a Toronto, Canada club singer is the reincarnation of movie icon MARILYN MONROE after conducting truth tests on her for the past eight years. DR ADRIAN FINKELSTEIN was approached in 1998 by SHERRIE LAIRD, who asked for his help after a series of strange dreams and experiences led her to believe the late actress was being channelled through her. The psychiatrist conducted a series of interviews and hypnosis sessions in a bid to find out if his patient was for real, and, after eight years, he's now convinced Monroe has come back as Laird. He says, "I've been trained, as a psychiatrist, to assess human behaviour and to recognise somebody that's a fake from somebody that's genuine. "The way Sherrie came across to me the first time, when she approached me in 1998, was a troubled psyche seeking relief." In a bid to appease sceptics and outraged Monroe fans, Finkelstein filmed one recent hypnosis session with Laird for cable news network CNN. During the session, a mumbling Laird - as Monroe - reveals she had her first sexual experience with alleged lover JOHN F KENNEDY in the back of a moving car and last saw the then-US President two months before her death in 1962. Under hypnosis, Laird also says, "Not murdered," when Finkelstein asks her if Marilyn was killed. The session ends badly when a sobbing Laird screams, "Oh God... No... No... Help me." Interviewed after the televised trance, she says, "I felt like I was going to die." Finkelstein adds, "In that particular situation, she really, really was so convincing."




Marilyn Monroe, Luka Magnotta

For many, Facebook and MySpace are places for people to hang out, make stupid comments for their friends to see, post pictures of themselves as teenagers, and waste hours on end playing mindless games. Naturally, it's also becoming a popular place where countless users go to complain about their jobs, a natural extension of the dinner table and the beer hall where mindless chatter is the norm and consequences are nil.

Now some employers are starting to have their hackles raised by such comments, and in a few cases complaining about one's workplace has led to the person making the comments getting promptly fired from his job. (Now imagine how much they'll have to complain about!)

The latest story involves two employees at a Houston's restaurant who used a private, invitation-only forum on MySpace to complain about management and customers at the establishment. The restaurant's hostess showed the forum to her boss after hours one night; she said they both "had a laugh" about it and promptly forgot the subject entirely. But later another supervisor caught wind of the site, demanded to be shown the forum, and eventually that got the duo responsible for the messages fired.

According to Houston's, the pair violated policies (including a requirement to have "a positive attitude") in the company's employee handbook, while the fired employees contend in their lawsuit against the company that management broke the law by reading their private conversation. They even allege a violation of federal wiretapping laws. The trial starts in June.

This is hardly the first time comments on social networking sites have gotten someone in trouble. 13 Virgin Atlantic flight attendants were fired for mocking passengers on Facebook. One teenager was sacked for changing her status to reading "bored at work." And one woman also was recently fired for claiming to be too sick to use a computer but who was then caught updating her Facebook page from home.

Social networks can even keep you from getting a job in the first place, as one woman learned when she Twittered about a weighing a "fatty paycheck" vs. "hating the work" at her would-be employer, Cisco. The company promptly found out about the tweet, with likely predictable results and great embarrassment for the tweeter.

Where do we draw the line here? While I can sympathize with the company who fired the woman for lying about being too sick to use a PC, the question of online employee complaints -- particularly those on a private forum not accessible to the general public -- is far murkier. Laws vary by country and by state, but as the WSJ notes, for the most part an employer can fire anyone for no reason at all. However some states explicitly prohibit employers from firing someone for engaging in "lawful, off-duty activities." Presuming the comments weren't made from work, the Houston's duo may have a reasonably strong case here. Seriously: If everyone who ever complained about their job or had a bad attitude got fired, we'd have 100% unemployment.

Bottom line: Now more than ever, your boss is probably watching you whether you're on the clock or off it. Take some time to understand your company's policy toward social networking and blogging, whether you agree with it or not, so you won't be caught off guard the next time this issue hits the news.