**this article was written with the intention not to offend anyone, it is for the purpose of pure fun and hopefully to crack a few smiles(in bad taste?).
**Mr B is a purely hypothetical model of the general bastards in the world.
**There are lots of discrepetencies in the legal reasoning and prolly the legal framework itself, but it's 2am and my brain isn't functioniong properly and my grasp of the property concept is full of holes, so where discrepency occurs please disregard.
**In all probability, the female gender could fit into this so-called 'model' i propose as well.

The Male gender, the image projected and Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act?

S 52 TPA: A corporation shall not in trade or commerce engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.

If the male population could be classified as a "business" or a "company" or "entity?", it would follow that they could be liable under S52 of the TPA as a corporation. To go about rationalising how the male species can be categorised as a "business", my starting point would be to define the male population as a "thing" or "property".

A specimen of the male gender could be classified as a "chattel", that is, personal property. This proposition can be brought about by applying the Common Law tests of the degree of annexation and the object of annexation.

The degree of annexation of a male specimen: Let's name him Mr. B for our purposes. This Mr B is clearly not annexable to land, because Mr B is clearly ON the land, not bolted down, or attatched to land in a permanent way. Although there could be an argument that Mr B could well be annexed to furnitures around the house (Eg. Couch, Bed, Fridge) thereby in a way attatched to land-but that would be a farfetch and weak arguement because Mr B has GOT to get up to go to the gents sometime or other, thereby rendering him ineligible to plead being a fixture. To further reinforce this arguement, removal of Mr B would not cause any great damage to the land or disrupt the functions of the land he stands upon. Therefore prima facie, the degree to which Mr B is annexed to land is not a great one, if at all. Since Mr. B is not even attatched to land, I will not dwell on object of annexation,it is patently obvious that Mr B's purpose could not have been anything but temporary in it's habitat. Following this, it is conclusive that Mr B clearly can be classified a chattel - or personal property.

Personal property can be subjected to transfers of ownerships and titles. Property title can pass from one hand to another. In applying this to the real world, Mr B could pass from Miss A to Miss C at any given time, Mr B could be moved between the two Miss(could be more) and there would be transfers of ownership and title. It IS viable for Mr B to be "property".
As "property" and "chattels", Mr B who represents the rest of the male gender (with a few exceptions) can be looked upon as "goods". And businesses sell goods. So the male population could be entities, each male, or a group of males out to "sell" themselves to a buyer, buyer being all the Miss's out there, thus forming a corporation.

LInked to the TPA

Establishing that the male gender falls under the category of a corporation and it can be inferred that a corporation would practice in trade and commerce, i am left to fit the conduct of Mr B (hypothetically of course) as to being Misleading and Deceptive.

Principle 1 : Statements made by representatives on behalf of the 'product' -Eg. Mr B's representation about himself- are more than puffery. To be judgmental, when guys exaggerate about themselves trying to impress a girl, it COULD be seen as mere puffery, but then again, it could just cross that fine line. Statements like "i truely am a not a bastard","i am actually a sweet person" and " i will not do anything to ever hurt you" are statements to deliberatly create a clear and wrong impression, thereby rendering them to be misleading and deceptive.

Principle 2: Engaging in Conduct.Mr B would always engage in conduct that leads to being M & D. How so?
Silence - It is a known fact that Mr B would always hide facts about himself. Negative impact facts during the courting process. Eg. "I enjoyed The Hours and i really understood the meaning" when Mr B was slapping himself to stay awake during the movie. This tactic is used to create " similar interest" between Mr B and Miss A, so that Miss A would think "Oh gee, wow, we have similar interest" and that adds points to Mr B's eligibility. Need i say more?
Promises. Ahh.. promises. Mr B will ALWAYS make representations as to future matter without reasonable grounds. "We shall be forever" "i will never stop loving you" "you are the icing on my cake" etc etc etc (*brrr* ok, i am grossing myself out..)But you get the general idea. In the courtship, Mr B will promise you forever, Mr B will be your knight saving you everytime you fall, promising to always be there. *danger alert*. Reality is Mr B doesn't and can't fufil promises.

In "selling" themselves, the male species generally (with some exclusions to the real men out there?) will make gross misrepresentations about themselves to cast themselves in the most favarouble light or position. Sad reality? Mr B won't live up to even being half of what he appears to be. Misleading and Deceptive.