Guys,
Now that we have the closure of my mother's estate well underway, I finally have some time to catch up on my reading. I was hanging out over @ Mancoat when I came across THIS video by the one & only Barbarossa. In it, he discusses traditional relationships as they relate to Briffault's Law. This is some thought provoking stuff...
Hope you all enjoyed it. I found the 28 minutes and change to be worth my time...
MarkyMark
26 April 2012
No Regrets
Guys,
I got a call at work from my mother's doctor this morning. It seems that my mom missed a physical therapy appointment earlier this week, which was something she NEVER did; she never missed an appointment. When she didn't show up for therapy, the therapist contacted my mom's primary doctor; my mom's doctor, in turn, tried reaching my mom via her home and cell phone for the last two days with no response. The doctor's office contacted the local police, and I went down to my mom's house. When we entered, we found my mom dead in her living/TV room.
Though I know that death must come for all of us, I didn't expect it to come to my mom-at least not yet. My maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother (my mom's mother & grandmother respectively) both lived in to their late 80s to early 90s. Given the family history, my mom should have lived that long too, so I was expecting this day to come 12-15 years hence, not now.
Normally, at this time of night (11:00 PM), I'd be fighting to keep my eyes open; I'd be ready for bed. Right now, I don't feel sleepy; I don't know how well I'll sleep tonight, or even IF I shall be so lucky to sleep. I just didn't expect this-at least not now anyway.
What I dread more than the funeral is having to sell my mom's house, her posessions, and close out her affairs. That's the part I dread the most, because it's a HUGE PITA-ugghh! THAT is the part I dread the most. I know that there are firms that do estate sales; I just hope my brother and I can find a good one, because that'll make our lives easier.
My relationship with my mom had been good for a long time, so I have no regrets there. I'd just visited her this past weekend. I'd been visiting regularly ever since I moved out in late 2004. I don't have any regrets about not spending time with her, nor do I have regrets about the relationship being less than it could have been; on both fronts, things were good.
I'm out of here. I didn't expect my mom to die-not now, anyway. I thought she'd be around another 12-15 years yet, given the family history. My relationship with my mom had been good for years, so I have no regrets there. I just want to get through the hassle of closing her affairs. Thanks for listening, Fellas.
MarkyMark
I got a call at work from my mother's doctor this morning. It seems that my mom missed a physical therapy appointment earlier this week, which was something she NEVER did; she never missed an appointment. When she didn't show up for therapy, the therapist contacted my mom's primary doctor; my mom's doctor, in turn, tried reaching my mom via her home and cell phone for the last two days with no response. The doctor's office contacted the local police, and I went down to my mom's house. When we entered, we found my mom dead in her living/TV room.
Though I know that death must come for all of us, I didn't expect it to come to my mom-at least not yet. My maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother (my mom's mother & grandmother respectively) both lived in to their late 80s to early 90s. Given the family history, my mom should have lived that long too, so I was expecting this day to come 12-15 years hence, not now.
Normally, at this time of night (11:00 PM), I'd be fighting to keep my eyes open; I'd be ready for bed. Right now, I don't feel sleepy; I don't know how well I'll sleep tonight, or even IF I shall be so lucky to sleep. I just didn't expect this-at least not now anyway.
What I dread more than the funeral is having to sell my mom's house, her posessions, and close out her affairs. That's the part I dread the most, because it's a HUGE PITA-ugghh! THAT is the part I dread the most. I know that there are firms that do estate sales; I just hope my brother and I can find a good one, because that'll make our lives easier.
My relationship with my mom had been good for a long time, so I have no regrets there. I'd just visited her this past weekend. I'd been visiting regularly ever since I moved out in late 2004. I don't have any regrets about not spending time with her, nor do I have regrets about the relationship being less than it could have been; on both fronts, things were good.
I'm out of here. I didn't expect my mom to die-not now, anyway. I thought she'd be around another 12-15 years yet, given the family history. My relationship with my mom had been good for years, so I have no regrets there. I just want to get through the hassle of closing her affairs. Thanks for listening, Fellas.
MarkyMark
Death in the Family
Guys,
I've had a death in the family; my mom died, so I don't know when I'll be back.
MarkyMark
I've had a death in the family; my mom died, so I don't know when I'll be back.
MarkyMark
20 April 2012
Truth Hurts, Baby...
Guys,
Here's a speech Matthew McConnaughey. He NAILS it! I thought my boys would appreciate this...
Like I said, the man NAILED it...
MarkyMark
Here's a speech Matthew McConnaughey. He NAILS it! I thought my boys would appreciate this...
Like I said, the man NAILED it...
MarkyMark
10 April 2012
Bond Girls: Then & Now
Guys,
If you want to be shocked, go take a gander at this gallery over at Yahoo. It features some of the better known women from the James Bond, 007 films; I'm talking about women such as Ursula Andress, Barbara Bach, and Maud Adams. These women, while some of the hottest to ever grace the silver screen, aren't so hot now...
MarkyMark
If you want to be shocked, go take a gander at this gallery over at Yahoo. It features some of the better known women from the James Bond, 007 films; I'm talking about women such as Ursula Andress, Barbara Bach, and Maud Adams. These women, while some of the hottest to ever grace the silver screen, aren't so hot now...
MarkyMark
03 April 2012
22 March 2012
Clubs Suck
Guys,
Here's a terrific opinion piece from the Guardian, a UK publication. Mr. Charlie Brooker tells us something we ALREADY knew-that nightclubs suck. I'll intersperse some of my wit & wisdom amongst his thoughts, but not much. Mr. Brooker did such a bang up job on trashing clubs that there isn't a whole lot I can add to the mix.
I originally ran this in December of 2008. I thought it was time to rerun it, so my newer readers could see this...
------------------------------
I went to a fashionable London nightclub on Saturday. Not the sort of sentence I get to write very often, because I enjoy nightclubs less than I enjoy eating wool. But a glamorous friend of mine was there to "do a PA", and she'd invited me and some curious friends along because we wanted to see precisely what "doing a PA" consists of. Turns out doing a public appearance largely entails sitting around drinking free champagne and generally just "being there".
That's not so bad-getting champagne and getting PAID to drink it...
I never liked clubs, either. Your sentiments are similar to my own. The only reason I went was to either enjoy some music and hang out with some buddies, or try scoring some chicks. I wasn't too successful at the latter, as clubs aren't my scene. Clubs are better suited for extroverted, 'peacock' type of personalities-IOW, attention whores. Since I'm not one of those, I never did well in clubs...
Isn't THAT the truth! I played along for a while, pretending to like them. However, when I seldom went to them, that kinda blew my cover, know what I mean? When I was in the Navy, I took my grandfather's advice; when I headed out on liberty, I headed the opposite direction the rest of the guys took. They went to the bars, while I went snorkeling, sightseeing, stuff like that. To me, that was more cost effective and a better use of my time...
I just LOVE the imagery you use here-ouch! Just the sensory impressions of your description is enough to dissuade me from ever going into a club again-not that I was ever big on cigarette smoke-yuck...
Drugs render location meaningless. Neck enough ketamine and you could have the best night of your life squatting in a shed rolling corks across the floor. And no one's going to search you on the way in. Why bother with clubs?
To see and be seen, man! Or, so attention whoring sluts can strut their used up, disease ridden stuff. I used to go skating down on the Jersey Shore when I lived down there. Some of the towns have clubs, so I'd see the habitues lining up outside. WTF do people wait in LONG ASS LINES to get into these horrid places anyway?! They'll wait for hours to get in to a trendy club! Even then, they might not get in! You have to have the desired 'look', so you'll blend in with the clientele-gag. There are articles on the web that tell you how to build rapport with the bouncers, so you can get in to the club quickly. Sorry, but that BS doesn't qualify for my time or interest. Sorry I digressed...
Anyway, I'd be skating in these shore towns, deriving my entertainment from people watching (cheap and better than the clubs), and I'd see the guys and gals lined up outside, hoping the club's bouncers would let them in next. The chicks would be dressed in the skimpiest, most provocative outfits imaginable! Shoot, they were dressed like whores! Come to think of it, they LOOKED like whores too, and I don't mean in terms of dress, either; I'm talking about that hardened, used up look so common in the modern, enlightened, empowered woman these days; guys call it 'the thousand cock stare'-how true it is. Uzem & Luzem calls modern women bad, amateur porn stars; judging by their dress & demeanor, I'm inclined to agree...
On a more serious note, there is a drug called Extasy. Entire TV programs have been done about Extasy! Guess what it's known as? They call it 'the club drug'-things that make you go hmmmm...
Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel, Mr. Brooker!
Not to mention the fact that most females in the clubs' target demographics are CARRYING DISEASES! Seriously, gov't records show that a whopping 44.8% of women ages 20-24 have HPV; that's almost half, or ONE OUT OF EVERY TWO WOMEN YOU'LL MEET IN THE CLUBS! Almost half of the young women you see out on the street are carrying HPV, or human papiloma virus; that's the virus that causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice ailments like that. BTW, they aren't CURABLE, either; once you have them, you have them for life! Can you imagine having a nasty disease like that for life, just for a screw? Even if you're successful in seducing a chick you met at the club, do you really want to 'do the deed' with her? I don't think I would; sex is good, but not so good that I want to die or get an incurable disease from it...
The second thing that struck me was frightening. They were all photographing themselves. In fact, that's all they seemed to be doing. Standing around in expensive clothes, snapping away with phones and cameras. One pose after another, as though they needed to prove their own existence, right there, in the moment. Crucially, this seemed to be the reason they were there in the first place. There was very little dancing. Just pouting and flashbulbs.
Surely this is a new development. Clubs have always been vapid and awful and boring and blah - but I can't remember clubbers documenting their every moment before. Not to this demented extent. It's not enough to pretend you're having fun in the club any more - you've got to pretend you're having fun in your Flickr gallery, and your friends' Flickr galleries. An unending exhibition in which a million terrified, try-too-hard imbeciles attempt to out-cool each other.
Mind you, since in about 20 years' time these same people will be standing waist-deep in skeletons, in an arid post-nuclear wasteland, clubbing each other to death in a fight for the last remaining glass of water, perhaps they're wise to enjoy these carefree moments while they last. Even if they're only pretending.
When I last went to a club (how long ago was it?), we didn't have the MEANS to take pics of ourselves. People would have done so if they could have; the only reason they didn't was because camera phones hadn't been INVENTED yet. All these have done is to reveal the attention whore lurking within. It's always been there, but it wasn't as readily apparent, due to the lack of technology that makes it possible.
Like I said, I couldn't add too much to that missive. Mr. Brooker hit that one out of the park...
MarkyMark
Here's a terrific opinion piece from the Guardian, a UK publication. Mr. Charlie Brooker tells us something we ALREADY knew-that nightclubs suck. I'll intersperse some of my wit & wisdom amongst his thoughts, but not much. Mr. Brooker did such a bang up job on trashing clubs that there isn't a whole lot I can add to the mix.
I originally ran this in December of 2008. I thought it was time to rerun it, so my newer readers could see this...
------------------------------
Nightclubs are hell. What's cool or fun about a thumping, sweaty dungeon full of posing idiots?
I went to a fashionable London nightclub on Saturday. Not the sort of sentence I get to write very often, because I enjoy nightclubs less than I enjoy eating wool. But a glamorous friend of mine was there to "do a PA", and she'd invited me and some curious friends along because we wanted to see precisely what "doing a PA" consists of. Turns out doing a public appearance largely entails sitting around drinking free champagne and generally just "being there".
That's not so bad-getting champagne and getting PAID to drink it...
Obviously, at 36, I was more than a decade older than almost everyone else, and subsequently may as well have been smeared head to toe with pus. People regarded me with a combination of pity and disgust. To complete the circuit, I spent the night wearing the expression of a man waking up to Christmas in a prison cell.
"I'm too old to enjoy this," I thought. And then remembered I've always felt this way about clubs. And I mean all clubs - from the cheesiest downmarket sickbucket to the coolest cutting-edge hark-at-us poncehole. I hated them when I was 19 and I hate them today. I just don't have to pretend any more.
I never liked clubs, either. Your sentiments are similar to my own. The only reason I went was to either enjoy some music and hang out with some buddies, or try scoring some chicks. I wasn't too successful at the latter, as clubs aren't my scene. Clubs are better suited for extroverted, 'peacock' type of personalities-IOW, attention whores. Since I'm not one of those, I never did well in clubs...
I'm convinced no one actually likes clubs. It's a conspiracy. We've been told they're cool and fun; that only "saddoes" dislike them. And no one in our pathetic little pre-apocalyptic timebubble wants to be labelled "sad" - it's like being officially declared worthless by the state. So we muster a grin and go out on the town in our millions.
Isn't THAT the truth! I played along for a while, pretending to like them. However, when I seldom went to them, that kinda blew my cover, know what I mean? When I was in the Navy, I took my grandfather's advice; when I headed out on liberty, I headed the opposite direction the rest of the guys took. They went to the bars, while I went snorkeling, sightseeing, stuff like that. To me, that was more cost effective and a better use of my time...
Clubs are despicable. Cramped, overpriced furnaces with sticky walls and the latest idiot theme tunes thumping through the humid air so loud you can't hold a conversation, just bellow inanities at megaphone-level. And since the smoking ban, the masking aroma of cigarette smoke has been replaced by the overbearing stench of crotch sweat and hair wax.
I just LOVE the imagery you use here-ouch! Just the sensory impressions of your description is enough to dissuade me from ever going into a club again-not that I was ever big on cigarette smoke-yuck...
Clubs are such insufferable dungeons of misery, the inmates have to take mood-altering substances to make their ordeal seem halfway tolerable. This leads them to believe they "enjoy" clubbing. They don't. No one does. They just enjoy drugs.
Drugs render location meaningless. Neck enough ketamine and you could have the best night of your life squatting in a shed rolling corks across the floor. And no one's going to search you on the way in. Why bother with clubs?
To see and be seen, man! Or, so attention whoring sluts can strut their used up, disease ridden stuff. I used to go skating down on the Jersey Shore when I lived down there. Some of the towns have clubs, so I'd see the habitues lining up outside. WTF do people wait in LONG ASS LINES to get into these horrid places anyway?! They'll wait for hours to get in to a trendy club! Even then, they might not get in! You have to have the desired 'look', so you'll blend in with the clientele-gag. There are articles on the web that tell you how to build rapport with the bouncers, so you can get in to the club quickly. Sorry, but that BS doesn't qualify for my time or interest. Sorry I digressed...
Anyway, I'd be skating in these shore towns, deriving my entertainment from people watching (cheap and better than the clubs), and I'd see the guys and gals lined up outside, hoping the club's bouncers would let them in next. The chicks would be dressed in the skimpiest, most provocative outfits imaginable! Shoot, they were dressed like whores! Come to think of it, they LOOKED like whores too, and I don't mean in terms of dress, either; I'm talking about that hardened, used up look so common in the modern, enlightened, empowered woman these days; guys call it 'the thousand cock stare'-how true it is. Uzem & Luzem calls modern women bad, amateur porn stars; judging by their dress & demeanor, I'm inclined to agree...
On a more serious note, there is a drug called Extasy. Entire TV programs have been done about Extasy! Guess what it's known as? They call it 'the club drug'-things that make you go hmmmm...
"Because you might get a shag," is the usual response. Really? If that's the only way you can find a partner - preening and jigging about like a desperate animal - you shouldn't be attempting to breed in the first place. What's your next trick? Inventing fire? People like you are going to spin civilisation into reverse. You're a moron, and so is that haircut you're trying to impress. Any offspring you eventually blast out should be drowned in a pan before they can do any harm. Or open any more nightclubs.
Ouch! Tell us how you REALLY feel, Mr. Brooker!
Even if you somehow avoid reproducing, isn't it a lot of hard work for very little reward? Seven hours hopping about in a hellish, reverberating bunker in exchange for sharing 64 febrile, panting pelvic thrusts with someone who'll snore and dribble into your pillow till 11 o'clock in the morning, before waking up beside you with their hair in a mess, blinking like a dizzy cat and smelling vaguely like a ham baguette? Really, why bother? Why not just stay at home punching yourself in the face? Invite a few friends round and make a night of it. It'll be more fun than a club.
Not to mention the fact that most females in the clubs' target demographics are CARRYING DISEASES! Seriously, gov't records show that a whopping 44.8% of women ages 20-24 have HPV; that's almost half, or ONE OUT OF EVERY TWO WOMEN YOU'LL MEET IN THE CLUBS! Almost half of the young women you see out on the street are carrying HPV, or human papiloma virus; that's the virus that causes genital warts, cervical cancer, nice ailments like that. BTW, they aren't CURABLE, either; once you have them, you have them for life! Can you imagine having a nasty disease like that for life, just for a screw? Even if you're successful in seducing a chick you met at the club, do you really want to 'do the deed' with her? I don't think I would; sex is good, but not so good that I want to die or get an incurable disease from it...
Anyway, back to Saturday night, and apart from the age gap, two other things stuck me. Firstly, everyone had clearly spent far too long perfecting their appearance. I used to feel intimidated by people like this; now I see them as walking insecurity beacons, slaves to the perceived judgment of others, trapped within a self- perpetuating circle of crushing status anxiety. I'd still secretly like to be them, of course, but at least these days I can temporarily erect a veneer of defensive, sneering superiority. I've progressed that far.
The second thing that struck me was frightening. They were all photographing themselves. In fact, that's all they seemed to be doing. Standing around in expensive clothes, snapping away with phones and cameras. One pose after another, as though they needed to prove their own existence, right there, in the moment. Crucially, this seemed to be the reason they were there in the first place. There was very little dancing. Just pouting and flashbulbs.
Surely this is a new development. Clubs have always been vapid and awful and boring and blah - but I can't remember clubbers documenting their every moment before. Not to this demented extent. It's not enough to pretend you're having fun in the club any more - you've got to pretend you're having fun in your Flickr gallery, and your friends' Flickr galleries. An unending exhibition in which a million terrified, try-too-hard imbeciles attempt to out-cool each other.
Mind you, since in about 20 years' time these same people will be standing waist-deep in skeletons, in an arid post-nuclear wasteland, clubbing each other to death in a fight for the last remaining glass of water, perhaps they're wise to enjoy these carefree moments while they last. Even if they're only pretending.
When I last went to a club (how long ago was it?), we didn't have the MEANS to take pics of ourselves. People would have done so if they could have; the only reason they didn't was because camera phones hadn't been INVENTED yet. All these have done is to reveal the attention whore lurking within. It's always been there, but it wasn't as readily apparent, due to the lack of technology that makes it possible.
Like I said, I couldn't add too much to that missive. Mr. Brooker hit that one out of the park...
MarkyMark
15 March 2012
Sandra Fluke's CNN Op-Ed Analyzed...
Guys,
As I often say, I cannot make this stuff up. What you're about to read is Sandra Fluke's recent CNN op-ed with analysis from yours truly. Since I've made the SPLC'S black list, I figure I might as well do something to EARN my place on it-ha! Without any further ado, here is the-gag-'lovely & gracious' Sandra Fluke's op-ed with my commentary...
------------------
What CNN and the rest of the national media did NOT tell you is that Miss Fluke isn't a young, twentysomething coed; rather, she is a seasoned, Feminazi activist who's 30 years old! She spent five years working as a Feminazi domestic violence advocate in New York City.
Darlin' (that always pisses off the Feminazis!), you just hung a fastball over the middle! Stand by while I hit this out of the park...
Firstly, I have to ask one, simple question: why did you attend a Catholic university when any person with two brain cells knocking together knows that they take a dim view of birth control? Why did you do that?! Who the f*ck are YOU to demand that a religious institution change THEIR rules because you disagree with them? Isn't that rather arrogant? How is that any different than refusing to take off your shoes as a guest in someone's house who has a rule about removing shoes upon entry? Why didn't you simply attend another law school whose philosophy was more in agreement with your own? The truth of the matter is that you WANTED to cause trouble at Georgetown, isn't that right?
Before I continue, I have to take a little detour here. It is important that the reader have some insight into law school, which I will provide now.
Now, as I stated previously, I seriously researched law school. One of the many things I found out was that law school ranking matters. I also found out which law schools were the top law schools. Historically speaking, if you wanted a good future in the legal world, you wanted to attend a Top 14 (T14) law school. Georgetown is ranked 14th in the land, which puts it at the bottom of the T14. The ranking of the top 100 US law schools can be viewed here.
Another thing my research revealed was this: with the exception of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford), where you attend law school determines where you practice. Lawyers are risk averse, so they like to deal with alumni from their regional law schools. For someone wishing to live and work in New Jersey, that would mean attending Rutgers or Seton Hall for law school. Since Miss Fluke chose to attend Georgetown, one would THINK that she wished to live and practice in Wasthington, DC and its surrounding environs. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the aforementioned HYS, which will allow a lawyer to practice anywhere. One could attend Duke or Penn, allowing them to practice anywhere along the I-95 corridor. That said, where you attend law school determines where you practice. I'll come back to these two points presently.
Now, if Miss Fluke could get into Georgetown, she could have gotten into other T14 law schools; not only that, she could have gotten into T14 law schools that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC. When we look at the law school ranking table, we can also view the GPA and LSAT scores of the school's incoming student body, its 1Ls. Judging by the table, if Sandra Fluke got admitted to Georgetown, then her GPA & LSAT scores were good enough to get into Duke and Penn too; both schools place graduates along the I-95 corridor, so Miss Fluke could have practiced in DC as a grad from the Duke or Penn law schools. If Miss Fluke were willing to attend a good law school outside of the coveted T14 in the DC area, then George Washington University's law school (ranked 20th) was also an option.
Now, it's time to get back on track; it's time to move on to point number two.
The second point is that NOBODY is restricting access to birth control, Bitch! Where has access to birth control been restricted, hmm? One can obtain numerous means of birth control here in America; access isn't a problem, Sweetheart (sorry, I had to take another potshot to piss off the Feminazis, hehehe). You can get it anywhere, and do so cheaply.
Oh, and the $3,000 figure you quoted is false; you're a lying bitch!! I paid a visit to Planned Parenthood's website, and I found out that birth control pills don't cost anywhere NEAR $1,000 a year. After you arrive on Planned Parenthood's home page, you'll see a list of categories along the left side. One of those categories is 'birth control', which I clicked. That brought up a list of the various and sundry means of birth control, including birth control pills; I selected birth control pills, since that was your focus. According to Planned Parenthood's page on birth control pills (that's key!), they cost $15-$50 per month; on an annual basis, that equates to $180-$600 a year, which would be $540-$1,800 over three years. Uh, Darlin', that's a LOT less than $3,000 lie you told both to a Congressional committee and the nation! You're a LIAR!
Three, whatever happened to good, old fashioned abstinence? Whatever happened to NOT having sex-especially if you cannot AFFORD to do so?! Oh, and here's another thing: whatever you may think of abstinence, there's no disputing this: it works EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED! It has 100% effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy! Since avoiding pregnancy is one of the holy grails of modern feminism, why not practice abstinence more? Why not encourage other women to practice it more, since it is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy? Would you care to answer that, Sweetheart?
See my points above. You already have access to affordable birth control, Darlin'...
That was a pitiful, ineffective attempt to distract the American people from Barack Hussein Obama's HIDEOUS record. Isn't it propitious that this issue is raised in the public consciousness at the same time gasoline is about to hit $4.00 nationwide? Isn't this coincidental (NOT!) that this issue is raised in the public consciousness while unemployment is at record levels? You know what I think? I think you're a leftist plant, Miss Fluke...
Uh, I have another question here, Miss Fluke: why should religious organizations, churches, and schools be FORCED to violate their religious convictions? Why should they be compelled to do something that goes against the core tenets of their faith? Whatever happened to the First Amendment, part of which guarantees religious freedom, Miss Fluke? Whatever happened to the 'separation of church & state' that you leftist whores always kvetching about? Why aren't you crying out for separation of church and state in this instance, hmmm?
You're right about millions of women speaking out, but it's NOT for birth control. They're speaking out against higher energy prices, which impact their families in numerous ways. From cutting down their disposable income (more money being spent for fuel) to higher food prices (because higher fuel prices means higher transport costs), millions of women are more concerned about ECONOMIC issues, not birth control-duh! Higher prices for food, fuel, and energy means LESS money for vacations, toys for the kids, home improvements, etc. THAT'S what millions of women are concerned about, not birth control pills, you lying bitch!
How did your opponents smear you, Miss Fluke? How does calling BULLSHIT on what you said constitute a smear? If you say something publicly, how can you not expect to be called on it? How can you consider Rush Limbaugh's 'slut & prostitute' remarks a smear when you said, in effect, you were having so much sex that you needed someone else to pay $1,000 for your birth control expenses?!
What about practicing ABSTINENCE, my dear? If you're so concerned about avoiding unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% effective? Shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% free? Finally, isn't it just good sense to refrain from sex, so as to avoid contracting an STD or STI? What about THAT as a health issue?
Good question: who ARE these supporters?
I just did some more Googling around, and I found THIS information about PCOS treatment. You'll see that the link is from Womenshealth.gov-hardly a misogynistic web site! Note: birth control pills are only ONE treatment option-and that's only if one is seeking to avoid pregnancy. One can also treat PCOS via lifestyle changes and the use of diabetic pills.
Uh, what about OBSERVING the core tenets of your faith, Miss Fluke? If that faith's core tenets are not to your liking, why stay in that faith? Isn't it true that one of Catholicism's core tenets prohibits the use of birth control of any kind? Isn't this widely known? I'm not even a Catholic, yet I know that-sheesh! How stupid do you think we are, Miss Fluke?
Oh, and what did these beloved Catholic women of yours do BEFORE birth control pills were invented? You do know that they've only been available since 1960, right? What did humans do before then to avoid pregnancy? Did you ever hear of natural family planning, which IS taught by the Catholic Church?
Say WHAT?! How, pray tell me, does access to contraception impact participation in public life? What does one have to do with the other? I really can't wrap my arms around that. If you want to control your reproduction, why don't you control access to your vagina? Oh, and if you're really serious about your schooling, what about making that your focus, and not extracurricular activities like sex?
Uh, Darlin', as I pointed out before, birth control pills only cost $15-$50 a month through Planned Parenthood! That's hardly expensive; one could pay for that by refraining from one or two weekly visits to McDonald's or Taco Bell. Even if we accept the high figure of $50, that's still less than most people are paying to fill their cars with gasoline; many are paying more than that! I paid $40 to fill my car recently, and I drive a small, fuel efficient vehicle.
See my above comments. This is getting old. Oh, and as for kids being a financial burden, I've had parents tell me this: if you wait till you can 'afford' kids, you'll never have them; you're NEVER ready to have kids!
Uh, would you care to elaborate on that, Miss Fluke? Why can't women use these inexpensive forms of birth control? Care to tell us that? How can anyone have trouble affording $15-$50 a month it costs to obtain birth control pills from Planned Parenthood?
If that's the case, then why do you and other poor women need help with purchasing your birth control, Miss Fluke? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Uh, who pays for it isn't the issue-at least not directly. No, what IS at issue here is The First Amendment; what is at issue here is religious freedom. Wouldn't religious freedom entail worshiping God as one sees fit? Wouldn't that mean allowing a church to REFRAIN from paying for birth control if that goes against one of the core tenets of their faith? Miss Fluke, while telling part of the truth here, doesn't tell the WHOLE truth: mainly that this regulation is a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE-duh!
Those of us who call ourselves conservative (and I do, not that my long time readers need to be told that) never said it was an issue about taxpayers paying for birth control. What IS at issue is religious freedom; what is at issue is the government, in effect, TELLING the Catholic Church what to do, mainly violate a core tenet of their faith. Doesn't that make this a First Amendment issue? Isn't one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment freedom of Religion? How can we have religious freedom if the government is telling the Catholic Church what to do? Isn't the First Amendment one of the Bill of Rights? Ergo, can we not say that the First Amendment provides churches and religious organizations protection FROM government interference?
You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It's one of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution. You should have studied the Constitution during your first year of law school, Miss Fluke, so this shouldn't be news to you. How is this not a religious freedom issue?
What about buying a policy that covers birth control, hmmm? Better yet, what about obtaining it from Planned Parenthood or other entities providing birth control at a discounted price? If you can't afford $15-$50 a month for The Pill, how can you afford to have sex? If you're so worried about your health, what about abstaining from sex, and preventing pregnancy, not to mention a nasty STD?!
How is access to birth control being restricted, Miss Fluke? How is it not available when you can go to any Planned Parenthood office and get it? And if Planned Parenthood doesn't have an office near you (I can't imagine THAT in DC), did you know that you can purchase birth control pills online?! It's true! You can buy birth control pills online. One of the vendors I Googled was Discount Pharmacy online. They have birth control pills available for $30 a month delivered to your door; you don't even have to leave home to get 'em. Talk about affordability and convenience!
And attacking our First Amendment rights will not silence US!
Government should legislate according to the Constitution and our First Amendment rights; it should legislate according to The Bill of Rights! If it pisses off little Feminazis like you, too bad.
-------------------
Guys, that concludes my thoughts on Sandra Fluke's CNN op-ed piece. I could have put in a lot more into this piece, but I didn't; I merely hit the blatantly obvious issues. Even limiting myself like that, it's taken me most of the afternoon to write this. Miss Sandra Fluke provided a 'target rich' environment; she made my job easy!
What I can't understand is why ANY guy would want to sleep with her. Did you see her? She's not at all hot. She has a thick neck and short hair which accentuates that. Someone on Mancoat said that she looked like a young Janet Reno-ouch! I wonder if she swings the same way as Reno does? Until next time...
MarkyMark
As I often say, I cannot make this stuff up. What you're about to read is Sandra Fluke's recent CNN op-ed with analysis from yours truly. Since I've made the SPLC'S black list, I figure I might as well do something to EARN my place on it-ha! Without any further ado, here is the-gag-'lovely & gracious' Sandra Fluke's op-ed with my commentary...
------------------
Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women
updated 1:09 AM EDT, Wed March 14, 2012
Editor's note: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
What CNN and the rest of the national media did NOT tell you is that Miss Fluke isn't a young, twentysomething coed; rather, she is a seasoned, Feminazi activist who's 30 years old! She spent five years working as a Feminazi domestic violence advocate in New York City.
(CNN) -- Last month, students from several Catholic universities gathered to send a message to the nation that contraception is basic health care. I was among them, and I was proud to share the stories of my friends at Georgetown Law who have suffered dire medical consequences because our student insurance does not cover contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.
Darlin' (that always pisses off the Feminazis!), you just hung a fastball over the middle! Stand by while I hit this out of the park...
Firstly, I have to ask one, simple question: why did you attend a Catholic university when any person with two brain cells knocking together knows that they take a dim view of birth control? Why did you do that?! Who the f*ck are YOU to demand that a religious institution change THEIR rules because you disagree with them? Isn't that rather arrogant? How is that any different than refusing to take off your shoes as a guest in someone's house who has a rule about removing shoes upon entry? Why didn't you simply attend another law school whose philosophy was more in agreement with your own? The truth of the matter is that you WANTED to cause trouble at Georgetown, isn't that right?
Before I continue, I have to take a little detour here. It is important that the reader have some insight into law school, which I will provide now.
Now, as I stated previously, I seriously researched law school. One of the many things I found out was that law school ranking matters. I also found out which law schools were the top law schools. Historically speaking, if you wanted a good future in the legal world, you wanted to attend a Top 14 (T14) law school. Georgetown is ranked 14th in the land, which puts it at the bottom of the T14. The ranking of the top 100 US law schools can be viewed here.
Another thing my research revealed was this: with the exception of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford), where you attend law school determines where you practice. Lawyers are risk averse, so they like to deal with alumni from their regional law schools. For someone wishing to live and work in New Jersey, that would mean attending Rutgers or Seton Hall for law school. Since Miss Fluke chose to attend Georgetown, one would THINK that she wished to live and practice in Wasthington, DC and its surrounding environs. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the aforementioned HYS, which will allow a lawyer to practice anywhere. One could attend Duke or Penn, allowing them to practice anywhere along the I-95 corridor. That said, where you attend law school determines where you practice. I'll come back to these two points presently.
Now, if Miss Fluke could get into Georgetown, she could have gotten into other T14 law schools; not only that, she could have gotten into T14 law schools that would have allowed her to practice in Washington, DC. When we look at the law school ranking table, we can also view the GPA and LSAT scores of the school's incoming student body, its 1Ls. Judging by the table, if Sandra Fluke got admitted to Georgetown, then her GPA & LSAT scores were good enough to get into Duke and Penn too; both schools place graduates along the I-95 corridor, so Miss Fluke could have practiced in DC as a grad from the Duke or Penn law schools. If Miss Fluke were willing to attend a good law school outside of the coveted T14 in the DC area, then George Washington University's law school (ranked 20th) was also an option.
Now, it's time to get back on track; it's time to move on to point number two.
The second point is that NOBODY is restricting access to birth control, Bitch! Where has access to birth control been restricted, hmm? One can obtain numerous means of birth control here in America; access isn't a problem, Sweetheart (sorry, I had to take another potshot to piss off the Feminazis, hehehe). You can get it anywhere, and do so cheaply.
Oh, and the $3,000 figure you quoted is false; you're a lying bitch!! I paid a visit to Planned Parenthood's website, and I found out that birth control pills don't cost anywhere NEAR $1,000 a year. After you arrive on Planned Parenthood's home page, you'll see a list of categories along the left side. One of those categories is 'birth control', which I clicked. That brought up a list of the various and sundry means of birth control, including birth control pills; I selected birth control pills, since that was your focus. According to Planned Parenthood's page on birth control pills (that's key!), they cost $15-$50 per month; on an annual basis, that equates to $180-$600 a year, which would be $540-$1,800 over three years. Uh, Darlin', that's a LOT less than $3,000 lie you told both to a Congressional committee and the nation! You're a LIAR!
Three, whatever happened to good, old fashioned abstinence? Whatever happened to NOT having sex-especially if you cannot AFFORD to do so?! Oh, and here's another thing: whatever you may think of abstinence, there's no disputing this: it works EVERY TIME IT'S TRIED! It has 100% effectiveness at avoiding pregnancy! Since avoiding pregnancy is one of the holy grails of modern feminism, why not practice abstinence more? Why not encourage other women to practice it more, since it is 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy? Would you care to answer that, Sweetheart?
I joined these students in speaking at a media event because I believe that stories of how real women are affected are the most powerful argument for access to affordable, quality reproductive health care services.
See my points above. You already have access to affordable birth control, Darlin'...
I also joined these students because now is a critical time to raise this issue in our public consciousness.
That was a pitiful, ineffective attempt to distract the American people from Barack Hussein Obama's HIDEOUS record. Isn't it propitious that this issue is raised in the public consciousness at the same time gasoline is about to hit $4.00 nationwide? Isn't this coincidental (NOT!) that this issue is raised in the public consciousness while unemployment is at record levels? You know what I think? I think you're a leftist plant, Miss Fluke...
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school.
Uh, I have another question here, Miss Fluke: why should religious organizations, churches, and schools be FORCED to violate their religious convictions? Why should they be compelled to do something that goes against the core tenets of their faith? Whatever happened to the First Amendment, part of which guarantees religious freedom, Miss Fluke? Whatever happened to the 'separation of church & state' that you leftist whores always kvetching about? Why aren't you crying out for separation of church and state in this instance, hmmm?
By now, many have heard the stories I wanted to share thanks to the congressional leaders and members of the media who have supported me and millions of women in speaking out.
You're right about millions of women speaking out, but it's NOT for birth control. They're speaking out against higher energy prices, which impact their families in numerous ways. From cutting down their disposable income (more money being spent for fuel) to higher food prices (because higher fuel prices means higher transport costs), millions of women are more concerned about ECONOMIC issues, not birth control-duh! Higher prices for food, fuel, and energy means LESS money for vacations, toys for the kids, home improvements, etc. THAT'S what millions of women are concerned about, not birth control pills, you lying bitch!
Because we spoke so loudly, opponents of reproductive health access demonized and smeared me and others on the public airwaves. These smears are obvious attempts to distract from meaningful policy discussions and to silence women's voices regarding their own health care.
How did your opponents smear you, Miss Fluke? How does calling BULLSHIT on what you said constitute a smear? If you say something publicly, how can you not expect to be called on it? How can you consider Rush Limbaugh's 'slut & prostitute' remarks a smear when you said, in effect, you were having so much sex that you needed someone else to pay $1,000 for your birth control expenses?!
These attempts to silence women and the men who support them have clearly failed. I know this because I have received so many messages of support from across the country -- women and men speaking out because they agree that contraception needs to be treated as a basic health care service.
What about practicing ABSTINENCE, my dear? If you're so concerned about avoiding unwanted pregnancies, shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% effective? Shouldn't you employ the means that is 100% free? Finally, isn't it just good sense to refrain from sex, so as to avoid contracting an STD or STI? What about THAT as a health issue?
Who are these supporters?
Good question: who ARE these supporters?
They are women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, who need contraception to prevent cysts from growing on their ovaries, which if unaddressed can lead to infertility and deadly ovarian cancer. They are sexual assault victims, who need contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
I just did some more Googling around, and I found THIS information about PCOS treatment. You'll see that the link is from Womenshealth.gov-hardly a misogynistic web site! Note: birth control pills are only ONE treatment option-and that's only if one is seeking to avoid pregnancy. One can also treat PCOS via lifestyle changes and the use of diabetic pills.
They are Catholic women, who see no conflict between their social justice-based faith and family planning. They are new moms, whose doctors fear that another pregnancy too soon could jeopardize the mother's health and the potential child's health too. They are mothers and grandmothers who remember all too well what it was like to be called names decades ago, when they were fighting for a job, for health care benefits, for equality.
Uh, what about OBSERVING the core tenets of your faith, Miss Fluke? If that faith's core tenets are not to your liking, why stay in that faith? Isn't it true that one of Catholicism's core tenets prohibits the use of birth control of any kind? Isn't this widely known? I'm not even a Catholic, yet I know that-sheesh! How stupid do you think we are, Miss Fluke?
Oh, and what did these beloved Catholic women of yours do BEFORE birth control pills were invented? You do know that they've only been available since 1960, right? What did humans do before then to avoid pregnancy? Did you ever hear of natural family planning, which IS taught by the Catholic Church?
They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life. And yes, they are young women of all income levels, races, classes and ethnicities who need access to contraception to control their reproduction, pursue their education and career goals and prevent unintended pregnancy. And they will not be silenced.
Say WHAT?! How, pray tell me, does access to contraception impact participation in public life? What does one have to do with the other? I really can't wrap my arms around that. If you want to control your reproduction, why don't you control access to your vagina? Oh, and if you're really serious about your schooling, what about making that your focus, and not extracurricular activities like sex?
These women know how expensive birth control pills can be, with or without insurance coverage. For a single mother with kids, a woman making minimum wage, or a student living on loans, a high monthly co-pay could be the difference between buying contraception or one week of groceries.
Uh, Darlin', as I pointed out before, birth control pills only cost $15-$50 a month through Planned Parenthood! That's hardly expensive; one could pay for that by refraining from one or two weekly visits to McDonald's or Taco Bell. Even if we accept the high figure of $50, that's still less than most people are paying to fill their cars with gasoline; many are paying more than that! I paid $40 to fill my car recently, and I drive a small, fuel efficient vehicle.
And imagine the financial burden of unplanned pregnancy and raising a child. For women without insurance coverage or with insurance that doesn't cover contraception, the costs create a significant financial burden.
See my above comments. This is getting old. Oh, and as for kids being a financial burden, I've had parents tell me this: if you wait till you can 'afford' kids, you'll never have them; you're NEVER ready to have kids!
Many women cannot medically use the least expensive types of contraception. As a result, many women, especially those 18 to 34 who have the most trouble affording contraception, simply go without. They face any number of medical risks as well as unintended pregnancy -- all of which damage their productivity and the health of their families.
Uh, would you care to elaborate on that, Miss Fluke? Why can't women use these inexpensive forms of birth control? Care to tell us that? How can anyone have trouble affording $15-$50 a month it costs to obtain birth control pills from Planned Parenthood?
Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.
If that's the case, then why do you and other poor women need help with purchasing your birth control, Miss Fluke? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.
Uh, who pays for it isn't the issue-at least not directly. No, what IS at issue here is The First Amendment; what is at issue here is religious freedom. Wouldn't religious freedom entail worshiping God as one sees fit? Wouldn't that mean allowing a church to REFRAIN from paying for birth control if that goes against one of the core tenets of their faith? Miss Fluke, while telling part of the truth here, doesn't tell the WHOLE truth: mainly that this regulation is a FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE-duh!
Those of us who call ourselves conservative (and I do, not that my long time readers need to be told that) never said it was an issue about taxpayers paying for birth control. What IS at issue is religious freedom; what is at issue is the government, in effect, TELLING the Catholic Church what to do, mainly violate a core tenet of their faith. Doesn't that make this a First Amendment issue? Isn't one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment freedom of Religion? How can we have religious freedom if the government is telling the Catholic Church what to do? Isn't the First Amendment one of the Bill of Rights? Ergo, can we not say that the First Amendment provides churches and religious organizations protection FROM government interference?
You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It's one of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution. You should have studied the Constitution during your first year of law school, Miss Fluke, so this shouldn't be news to you. How is this not a religious freedom issue?
I am talking about women who, despite paying their own premiums, cannot obtain coverage of contraception on their private insurance, even when their employer or university contributes nothing to that insurance.
What about buying a policy that covers birth control, hmmm? Better yet, what about obtaining it from Planned Parenthood or other entities providing birth control at a discounted price? If you can't afford $15-$50 a month for The Pill, how can you afford to have sex? If you're so worried about your health, what about abstaining from sex, and preventing pregnancy, not to mention a nasty STD?!
Restricting access to such a basic health care service, which 99% of sexually experienced American women have used and 62% of American women are using right now, is out of touch with public sentiment. In fact, more than 60% of Americans support this regulation and affordable access to contraception, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
How is access to birth control being restricted, Miss Fluke? How is it not available when you can go to any Planned Parenthood office and get it? And if Planned Parenthood doesn't have an office near you (I can't imagine THAT in DC), did you know that you can purchase birth control pills online?! It's true! You can buy birth control pills online. One of the vendors I Googled was Discount Pharmacy online. They have birth control pills available for $30 a month delivered to your door; you don't even have to leave home to get 'em. Talk about affordability and convenience!
Attacking me and women who use contraception by calling us prostitutes and worse cannot silence us.
And attacking our First Amendment rights will not silence US!
I am proud to stand with the millions of women and men who recognize that our government should legislate according to the reality of our lives -- not for ideology.
Government should legislate according to the Constitution and our First Amendment rights; it should legislate according to The Bill of Rights! If it pisses off little Feminazis like you, too bad.
-------------------
Guys, that concludes my thoughts on Sandra Fluke's CNN op-ed piece. I could have put in a lot more into this piece, but I didn't; I merely hit the blatantly obvious issues. Even limiting myself like that, it's taken me most of the afternoon to write this. Miss Sandra Fluke provided a 'target rich' environment; she made my job easy!
What I can't understand is why ANY guy would want to sleep with her. Did you see her? She's not at all hot. She has a thick neck and short hair which accentuates that. Someone on Mancoat said that she looked like a young Janet Reno-ouch! I wonder if she swings the same way as Reno does? Until next time...
MarkyMark
How Women Are Like The Final Word
Folks,
Do you remember a little, electronic toy that came out in the early 1990s? I believe it was called “The Final Word”™. You’d press a button, and an insult would be uttered. Press the button again, and a different insult would be uttered. There were a few insults programmed into the device, and pressing the button would give you a different insult until you’d cycled through all the insults; once you’d gone through all the insults, pressing the button would start you off with the original insult. The insults were uttered in the most obnoxious voice imaginable! There were two versions of “The Final Word”™: an ‘X’ rated version, and ‘G’ rated version. The ‘X’ rated version featured cuss words, whereas the ‘G’ rated version did not.
I’d forgotten about “The Final Word”™ until I was thinking about women and how they ALL use the same shaming language! Other bloggers have spoken about a common, female ‘hive mind’; others have wondered whether or not women operate under the aegis of some mother supercomputer; my own opinion was that they were programmed, a la the original “Terminator”, where you see Arnold’s cyborg brain throw some insults up, then select the response he’d utter. It doesn’t matter where you go; it doesn’t matter who the woman is who uses the shaming language; the remarks are ALWAYS the same-always the same! It reminded me of “The Final Word”™ when I thought about it, because they all use the same insults, and they don’t deviate from their ROM any more than that novelty box would. I mean, women and “The Final Word”™ operate in a similar manner, do they not?
If you’ll remember, the ‘X’ rated version of “The Final Word”™ would start off with, “F*&k you!” when you pressed the button the first time, followed by “Eat sh%t!” when the button was depressed the second time, and so on. There were a couple of more vulgar insults like that on that crazy little box, but I can’t remember them. When you’d gone through all the insults, you’d start off with the “FU!” again.
Women operate in the same way when they insult us. If you disagree with a woman, or even if you point out her BS hypocrisy, you will be insulted. Women cannot and will not admit defeat-especially to a man, who they consider to be untermenschen. Since they cannot counter your argument, women will insult you instead.
For example, if you point out women’s hypocrisy when they proclaim that they can do anything men can do, yet they want a man to change the water cooler, the standard canard is: “What’s the matter? You hate women?” If that doesn’t work, or if they use different shaming bit of language, then they’ll say, “What’s the matter, you have issues with mommy?” Still yet another bit of shaming language is “Boy, you need a girlfriend!” Still another favorite female insult is “What’s the matter, you can’t get laid?” If you’re not attracted to a woman who’s interested in you, she’ll ask, “What’s the matter, you gay?” I could go on, but you get my point. No matter where you go, and no matter who the woman is, the insults are ALWAYS the same! Women are much like “The Final Word”™ when you think about it. I find it almost comical, really.
Women cannot accept being wrong, especially if it’s a man pointing out this fact. They damn sure cannot accept defeat gracefully! Rather than just call it quits, or rather than address the issues you’ve raised, women will insult you. When they do, they’ll have a script they all follow; they all use the same insults-the same insults! It used to bother me back when I gave a damn about what women thought of me; now, I think I’d just laugh, then proceed to tear her apart. Much like that stupid little novelty box, “The Final Word”™, women use a small, canned routine that has no originality whatsoever.
14 March 2012
Bad Boys Have The Best Genes?
Guys,
There's been lots of discussion about bad boys in the manosphere. The theory is that young women pursue bad boys because they have the best genes. Here's Chris (in a discussion @ Oz Conservative about how older women, those 45 and up, cannot find men) offering what I think is a much better theory as to why women pursue bad boys nowadays: they're ENABLED-duh! Here's Chris' take on the matter, and a good take it is...
-----------------
---------------
I wish I could have come up with that myself. I knew that the theory often put forth by PUAs (i.e. women pursue bad boys for their great genes) had holes in it, but I could never quite articulate WHY. Chris did a BANG UP job on this one. Thanks Chris! Hope you all learned something too. Until next time...
MarkyMark
There's been lots of discussion about bad boys in the manosphere. The theory is that young women pursue bad boys because they have the best genes. Here's Chris (in a discussion @ Oz Conservative about how older women, those 45 and up, cannot find men) offering what I think is a much better theory as to why women pursue bad boys nowadays: they're ENABLED-duh! Here's Chris' take on the matter, and a good take it is...
-----------------
@Anonymous
"Nature does not care what you do when your fertility is gone. The goal is to get the best genes (whatever it means) and have offspring. That is the reason for chasing for bad boys."
But bad boys don't have the best genes. The state prevents middle class and upper-middle class men from putting them in their place.
Their appearance of the best genes is purely artificial as they can act out without fear of retribution from the state as they have nothing to lose. Jail means nothing to a criminal/thug/drug-dealer.
However, jail would destroy the life-style/life-strategy of Middle class men and hence they can't put 'bad boys' in their place, (as they would be able to in a state of nature), without the state coming full force down on them and taking away everything they own, (lose job, lose house/assets from civil litigation, lose career prospects, and hence lose the minimum sexual success they would obtain from all those things they just lost.)
A 100-130 IQ man/men in a state of nature is/are vastly superior (and I'm talking in a ruthless/vicious/ability to dominate and kill sense) to a 70-90 IQ man/men in a state of nature. It's just that today, 'the Leviathan' skews the market against them.
If you want to end this, your best off changing the system (the Leviathan) so that it doesn't work against middle-class and upper-middle class men. Do that and the women will come, for the middle-class and upper-middle class men's position of lower sexual attractiveness compared to 'bad boys' is not one that is inherent to them by nature, but is instead the result of the way our society has been structured.
---------------
I wish I could have come up with that myself. I knew that the theory often put forth by PUAs (i.e. women pursue bad boys for their great genes) had holes in it, but I could never quite articulate WHY. Chris did a BANG UP job on this one. Thanks Chris! Hope you all learned something too. Until next time...
MarkyMark
13 March 2012
Foul Balls
Foul Balls
Guys,
I was listening to Rush during lunch last week when I heard THIS story discussed. I swear, I cannot make this stuff up; I just cannot! Here we have a school principal in Canada banning all hard balls from school grounds. IOW, students (boys, of course, but we cannot say that out loud) cannot bring baseballs, soccer balls, or any other ball that is hard. I'll post the Daily Mail article below, then intersperse it with my commentary and analysis. Here goes...
--------------
School falls foul after banning footballs and baseballs because they are 'too dangerous'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:08 AM on 18th November 2011
Footballs and baseballs have been banned from a school in Toronto because the are 'too dangerous'. The principal of Earl Beatty Public School banned the hard balls after a parent suffered a concussion after being hit in the head with a soccer ball.
To quote former tennis great, John McEnroe, you cannot be serious! I have one question: why didn't the parent pay attention to what was happening on the field? Why didn't the parent-gasp-get out of the way?! I bet that the parent was a woman, because she thought the laws of physics didn't apply to her. Why wouldn't she think that? After all, women are given a pussy pass for everything else in life; they're exempted from obeying man's laws; shoot, they can even get away with murder! Remember Mary Winkler, anyone?
Principal Alicia Fernandez told CBC News that the ban was necessary because of ongoing concerns about injury.
WHAT ongoing concerns about injury, Miss Fernandez? Would you care to elaborate?
'Kids were coming in complaining of injury, or being scared,' she said.
Who the hell was complaining? Are you telling me that kids came to the principal's office complaining?! Come on! When I was in school, we didn't go to the principal's office unless we were FORCED to! I remember this one principal we had during elementary school; he was a Korean war vet who no one messed with; we damn sure didn't want to go to his office! If we did, we knew we were in trouble. Going to the office was not something we did voluntarily under any circumstances.
The ban, which has outraged students and parents, came into effect two weeks ago. Students can bring sponge or other soft balls to school to play with, but soccer balls, footballs, baseballs and even tennis balls must be left at home for 'safety reasons'.
Even tennis balls are banned?! You cannot be serious!
Youngsters took to the playground on Wednesday to protest against the ban chanting; 'We want our balls back!'
You mean BOYS chanted we want our balls back, don't you? One, girls wouldn't care about having their balls back; either literally or figuratively, they wouldn't care about that. Two, girls aren't competitive and aggressive like those stupid, icky boys. Is it any wonder that boys are chanting that they want their balls back though? After a lifetime of being emasculated, is it any wonder?
Some parents say the ban is excessive and unfair to children who like to play outside.
'My husband freaked right out. He thought, this is absolutely insane.' said Diana Symonds whose son goes to the school.
Chris Stateski, who has a son in second grade and a daughter in fourth, said he was 'disgusted' to hear about the ban, which he felt was an overreaction.
'A lot of things could happen. A child could trip on the asphalt, a child could fall off the monkey bars and break their arm,' Mr Stateski told CBC News.
Yeah, and a lot of school playgrounds here in America have either been dismantled, or pending dismantlement, are put off limits to the kids. After all, we can't have those kids fall off the monkey bars and break their arms now. At least that's the case here in America. As Rush said, we're raising a nation of wusses. Yet women wonder WHERE the 'real men' went-incredible...
'So many things could happen. What are they going to do — cover the schoolyard in pillows and take all the doors off the hinges?'
'It's just too much.'
Ontario Education Minister Laurel Broten said she stands behind the principal's decision but thinks a balance should be found between keeping kids safe and letting them play.
That's no surprise; Miss Fernandez' superior is a fellow, man-hating feminazi...
'I get the idea of wanting to ensure that kids are safe. I also know that principals know the lay of the land at their schools,' Ms Broten told CBC News.
'I feel confident that the right balance will be found and that we will see a community conversation happen with the principal, with the board and with parents at that school.'
The conversation that'll happen, if it's anything like here in America, will be a one way dictation from the school administration dictating that this is how things will be, and if the voters don't like it, tough.
A spokeswoman with Toronto District School Board says the ban is a temporary measure and the principal will consult with parents and staff to find a solution.
The only sensible solution is to rescind this stupid ban! Banning all balls but nerf balls-incredible...
Anna Caputo says the school — which has almost 350 students from junior kindergarten to grade eight as well as a daycare for younger children — has a very small yard and there have been a number of injuries.
As someone above pointed out, the kids could get hurt falling down, for cryin' out loud! What're we going to do, ban all outside play? That's happening at an increasing number of American elementary schools; recess (i.e. time on the playground) is being banned-all ostensibly for safety, of course. You know what I think? I think this is the result of the feminazi school administrators acting out on their hatred for anything male.
--------------
Before I close out, did anyone take a look at the source article? Though I reprinted it in its entirety, I don't include pictures and their captions, because it's too much of a PITA to do so. I also want my readers to check my sources, so they can see that: 1) I'm NOT making this stuff up; 2) that I'm reprinting everything from the article; 3) to see any and all pictures with the article; and 4) read the comments, which are often quite good. Anyway, Miss Alicia Fernandez looks like a dyke! If I hadn't known I was looking at a woman, I would have done a double take; I would have had to examine it closely to try to discern the person's sex. I'm serious! She looks like a soft butch dyke. I'd bet money on it.
Well, that concludes my thoughts on Miss Alicia Fernandez and the Earl Beatty Public School's RIDICULOUS ban on all hard balls. I cannot make this stuff up; I just can't! Until next time...
MarkyMark
I was listening to Rush during lunch last week when I heard THIS story discussed. I swear, I cannot make this stuff up; I just cannot! Here we have a school principal in Canada banning all hard balls from school grounds. IOW, students (boys, of course, but we cannot say that out loud) cannot bring baseballs, soccer balls, or any other ball that is hard. I'll post the Daily Mail article below, then intersperse it with my commentary and analysis. Here goes...
--------------
School falls foul after banning footballs and baseballs because they are 'too dangerous'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:08 AM on 18th November 2011
Footballs and baseballs have been banned from a school in Toronto because the are 'too dangerous'. The principal of Earl Beatty Public School banned the hard balls after a parent suffered a concussion after being hit in the head with a soccer ball.
To quote former tennis great, John McEnroe, you cannot be serious! I have one question: why didn't the parent pay attention to what was happening on the field? Why didn't the parent-gasp-get out of the way?! I bet that the parent was a woman, because she thought the laws of physics didn't apply to her. Why wouldn't she think that? After all, women are given a pussy pass for everything else in life; they're exempted from obeying man's laws; shoot, they can even get away with murder! Remember Mary Winkler, anyone?
Principal Alicia Fernandez told CBC News that the ban was necessary because of ongoing concerns about injury.
WHAT ongoing concerns about injury, Miss Fernandez? Would you care to elaborate?
'Kids were coming in complaining of injury, or being scared,' she said.
Who the hell was complaining? Are you telling me that kids came to the principal's office complaining?! Come on! When I was in school, we didn't go to the principal's office unless we were FORCED to! I remember this one principal we had during elementary school; he was a Korean war vet who no one messed with; we damn sure didn't want to go to his office! If we did, we knew we were in trouble. Going to the office was not something we did voluntarily under any circumstances.
The ban, which has outraged students and parents, came into effect two weeks ago. Students can bring sponge or other soft balls to school to play with, but soccer balls, footballs, baseballs and even tennis balls must be left at home for 'safety reasons'.
Even tennis balls are banned?! You cannot be serious!
Youngsters took to the playground on Wednesday to protest against the ban chanting; 'We want our balls back!'
You mean BOYS chanted we want our balls back, don't you? One, girls wouldn't care about having their balls back; either literally or figuratively, they wouldn't care about that. Two, girls aren't competitive and aggressive like those stupid, icky boys. Is it any wonder that boys are chanting that they want their balls back though? After a lifetime of being emasculated, is it any wonder?
Some parents say the ban is excessive and unfair to children who like to play outside.
'My husband freaked right out. He thought, this is absolutely insane.' said Diana Symonds whose son goes to the school.
Chris Stateski, who has a son in second grade and a daughter in fourth, said he was 'disgusted' to hear about the ban, which he felt was an overreaction.
'A lot of things could happen. A child could trip on the asphalt, a child could fall off the monkey bars and break their arm,' Mr Stateski told CBC News.
Yeah, and a lot of school playgrounds here in America have either been dismantled, or pending dismantlement, are put off limits to the kids. After all, we can't have those kids fall off the monkey bars and break their arms now. At least that's the case here in America. As Rush said, we're raising a nation of wusses. Yet women wonder WHERE the 'real men' went-incredible...
'So many things could happen. What are they going to do — cover the schoolyard in pillows and take all the doors off the hinges?'
'It's just too much.'
Ontario Education Minister Laurel Broten said she stands behind the principal's decision but thinks a balance should be found between keeping kids safe and letting them play.
That's no surprise; Miss Fernandez' superior is a fellow, man-hating feminazi...
'I get the idea of wanting to ensure that kids are safe. I also know that principals know the lay of the land at their schools,' Ms Broten told CBC News.
'I feel confident that the right balance will be found and that we will see a community conversation happen with the principal, with the board and with parents at that school.'
The conversation that'll happen, if it's anything like here in America, will be a one way dictation from the school administration dictating that this is how things will be, and if the voters don't like it, tough.
A spokeswoman with Toronto District School Board says the ban is a temporary measure and the principal will consult with parents and staff to find a solution.
The only sensible solution is to rescind this stupid ban! Banning all balls but nerf balls-incredible...
Anna Caputo says the school — which has almost 350 students from junior kindergarten to grade eight as well as a daycare for younger children — has a very small yard and there have been a number of injuries.
As someone above pointed out, the kids could get hurt falling down, for cryin' out loud! What're we going to do, ban all outside play? That's happening at an increasing number of American elementary schools; recess (i.e. time on the playground) is being banned-all ostensibly for safety, of course. You know what I think? I think this is the result of the feminazi school administrators acting out on their hatred for anything male.
--------------
Before I close out, did anyone take a look at the source article? Though I reprinted it in its entirety, I don't include pictures and their captions, because it's too much of a PITA to do so. I also want my readers to check my sources, so they can see that: 1) I'm NOT making this stuff up; 2) that I'm reprinting everything from the article; 3) to see any and all pictures with the article; and 4) read the comments, which are often quite good. Anyway, Miss Alicia Fernandez looks like a dyke! If I hadn't known I was looking at a woman, I would have done a double take; I would have had to examine it closely to try to discern the person's sex. I'm serious! She looks like a soft butch dyke. I'd bet money on it.
Well, that concludes my thoughts on Miss Alicia Fernandez and the Earl Beatty Public School's RIDICULOUS ban on all hard balls. I cannot make this stuff up; I just can't! Until next time...
MarkyMark
12 March 2012
Inc. Magazine
Guys,
Last year, I went to the shop to get my car's wheels aligned; I also had my tires rotated, since it was time for that too. While I was there, I read the then new issue of Inc. magazine. Inc. is SUPPOSED to be about business, but it seemed to feature lots of feminist style, 'grrl power' cheerleading. You can view the article, '30 Under 30', here for the online edition of what I read in print earlier this morning.
I have to wonder who did their math though, because there are 49 featured entrepreneurs in total-far greater than the number 30! When I was in school, 49>30; as far as I know, it still is; 49 is certainly far past 30 on the number line. Anyway, if you scroll through the pics of these business people, you'll note that 36 of the 49 are men, or approximately 73% of the total. Even when the entrepreneur is a woman, you'll more often than not notice that a man is in the venture with her, e.g. the private jet concern; only a few of the business owners are women doing it alone.
While at the shop, I read the hard copy (i.e. print) edition of this article., which was about the most dynamic, young entrepreneurs in America today; it featured 30 of the most successful, under 30 entrepreneurs. When you looked at all of them (including the sidebars on the article's pages), the majority of them were male; that is to say the most of the successful, young businessmen in America today are MALE. That shouldn't surprise anyone, since we men are hard wired for competition, risk, and need of money to attract the best possible women, courtesy of female hypergamy. The more successful you are, the higher quality woman you can get. You think Donald Trump would have bagged Melania Knauss if he were an average guy?! Come on! Ergo, men are hard wired to go get the most bacon they can, so they can bring it home to the hottest chick they can find.
However, when you looked at the article layout; when you looked at who was most PROMINENTLY displayed, it was all women-all women! If you didn't look at all the entrepreneurs along the pages' sidebars (and many readers won't; they'll just look at the photos and accompanying bios for the women), you'd have thought all the go-getters are women, and that the men of America are just a bunch of lazy slackers. Here are beautiful, successful women just tearing it up, while men are a bunch of lazy bums. Is this a business magazine, or is it another, feminazi, male bashing propaganda rag?
It seems as if this feminist claptrap, agitprop, and propaganda is everywhere; there's no getting away from it. Even in endeavors which have nothing to do with feminism, feminism and girl power is somehow made part of the mix. For example, look at the aforementioned article, which has the women prominently displayed. What purpose does that serve, other than to glorify women and bash men? Does anyone care to tell me? If I were reading Inc., it's because I have a business, and I want to know what I can do to make it more successful; I don't want or need to read a bunch of feminist cheer leading-sheesh! That doesn't help me RUN my business any better! And the old media (newspapers and magazines would be old media) wonder why they're HAEMORRHAGING a ton of red ink?! Come on! It's because they're trying to disguise propaganda as news and useful information, rather than just giving us what we purchased the magazine for in the first place-news and useful information. If we can't get useful information from a magazine purporting to give us that, then we'll procure that information elsewhere-end of story.
I'm out of here. In closing, this feminist clap trap, girl power BS is everywhere; there's no getting away from it. Even if you follow guy sports like racing (and I do), this BS is some how worked into the equation. If you read a business magazine, the articles are more about feminist, girl power cheer leading than they are about what they PURPORT to be-about business. If I were to purchase a business magazine, it's because I want to learn about-gasp-business! It's not to have more of this glorified, Hanna Rosin, 'end of men' crap shoved down my throat! THAT is why I seldom buy magazines anymore. Not only do I get feminist clap trap and agitprop shoved down my throat; I PAY good money to have it done! Come to think of it, I'll just go online, or talk to a successful businessMAN myself if I need this sort of information in the future. It'll be cheaper, not to mention more edifying and more useful. Thank you, and good day...
MarkyMark
Last year, I went to the shop to get my car's wheels aligned; I also had my tires rotated, since it was time for that too. While I was there, I read the then new issue of Inc. magazine. Inc. is SUPPOSED to be about business, but it seemed to feature lots of feminist style, 'grrl power' cheerleading. You can view the article, '30 Under 30', here for the online edition of what I read in print earlier this morning.
I have to wonder who did their math though, because there are 49 featured entrepreneurs in total-far greater than the number 30! When I was in school, 49>30; as far as I know, it still is; 49 is certainly far past 30 on the number line. Anyway, if you scroll through the pics of these business people, you'll note that 36 of the 49 are men, or approximately 73% of the total. Even when the entrepreneur is a woman, you'll more often than not notice that a man is in the venture with her, e.g. the private jet concern; only a few of the business owners are women doing it alone.
While at the shop, I read the hard copy (i.e. print) edition of this article., which was about the most dynamic, young entrepreneurs in America today; it featured 30 of the most successful, under 30 entrepreneurs. When you looked at all of them (including the sidebars on the article's pages), the majority of them were male; that is to say the most of the successful, young businessmen in America today are MALE. That shouldn't surprise anyone, since we men are hard wired for competition, risk, and need of money to attract the best possible women, courtesy of female hypergamy. The more successful you are, the higher quality woman you can get. You think Donald Trump would have bagged Melania Knauss if he were an average guy?! Come on! Ergo, men are hard wired to go get the most bacon they can, so they can bring it home to the hottest chick they can find.
However, when you looked at the article layout; when you looked at who was most PROMINENTLY displayed, it was all women-all women! If you didn't look at all the entrepreneurs along the pages' sidebars (and many readers won't; they'll just look at the photos and accompanying bios for the women), you'd have thought all the go-getters are women, and that the men of America are just a bunch of lazy slackers. Here are beautiful, successful women just tearing it up, while men are a bunch of lazy bums. Is this a business magazine, or is it another, feminazi, male bashing propaganda rag?
It seems as if this feminist claptrap, agitprop, and propaganda is everywhere; there's no getting away from it. Even in endeavors which have nothing to do with feminism, feminism and girl power is somehow made part of the mix. For example, look at the aforementioned article, which has the women prominently displayed. What purpose does that serve, other than to glorify women and bash men? Does anyone care to tell me? If I were reading Inc., it's because I have a business, and I want to know what I can do to make it more successful; I don't want or need to read a bunch of feminist cheer leading-sheesh! That doesn't help me RUN my business any better! And the old media (newspapers and magazines would be old media) wonder why they're HAEMORRHAGING a ton of red ink?! Come on! It's because they're trying to disguise propaganda as news and useful information, rather than just giving us what we purchased the magazine for in the first place-news and useful information. If we can't get useful information from a magazine purporting to give us that, then we'll procure that information elsewhere-end of story.
I'm out of here. In closing, this feminist clap trap, girl power BS is everywhere; there's no getting away from it. Even if you follow guy sports like racing (and I do), this BS is some how worked into the equation. If you read a business magazine, the articles are more about feminist, girl power cheer leading than they are about what they PURPORT to be-about business. If I were to purchase a business magazine, it's because I want to learn about-gasp-business! It's not to have more of this glorified, Hanna Rosin, 'end of men' crap shoved down my throat! THAT is why I seldom buy magazines anymore. Not only do I get feminist clap trap and agitprop shoved down my throat; I PAY good money to have it done! Come to think of it, I'll just go online, or talk to a successful businessMAN myself if I need this sort of information in the future. It'll be cheaper, not to mention more edifying and more useful. Thank you, and good day...
MarkyMark
10 March 2012
Alcuin's Hidden!
Guys,
Alcuin has HIDDEN his blog! When you try to visit his blog, you get a note saying that it's open to invited readers only. I don't understand why he hid it, because he's over in Asia; he's not subject to any actions the SPLC can take, either direct or indirect. He's orginally from Canada anyway, so the SPLC can't do anything to him in his homeland, either.
That's a pity, because Alcuin puts out some of the BEST material out there. He has powerful, thought provoking posts. He's the blogger I WISH I could be; I'm serious! Now, we cannot even access his fine blog. I don't understand it, because he's in Asia, far away from the SPLC's reach or the reach of the American government. I hope he changes his mind, and that he once again opens his blog to everyone...
MarkyMark
Alcuin has HIDDEN his blog! When you try to visit his blog, you get a note saying that it's open to invited readers only. I don't understand why he hid it, because he's over in Asia; he's not subject to any actions the SPLC can take, either direct or indirect. He's orginally from Canada anyway, so the SPLC can't do anything to him in his homeland, either.
That's a pity, because Alcuin puts out some of the BEST material out there. He has powerful, thought provoking posts. He's the blogger I WISH I could be; I'm serious! Now, we cannot even access his fine blog. I don't understand it, because he's in Asia, far away from the SPLC's reach or the reach of the American government. I hope he changes his mind, and that he once again opens his blog to everyone...
MarkyMark
Not Attracted to My Husband
Guys,
Props go to Laura Grace Robins, who gave me the link to this site. The site, The Secret Society of Women, is just chock full of women and their bullshit. I could keep this blog going for ETERNITY if I only posted material from that site; I kid you not! Reading posts like this make me glad I'm single. Fellas, when you get that longing for a 'special someone', this is what you're missing; this is what you don't have. Remember that!
Anyway, the post that follows is authored by a woman who calls herself 'Magica'. She's a woman who loves her husband, but is not longer 'in love' with him. Yes, she's cheated. Yes, she has contempt for her husband. You know the drill. Guys, if you're dumb enough to marry, THIS is what you're getting into...
----------------
My life changed completely, and it was the hardest thing in my life to overcome, a new country/language/culture, a new set of very conflicted in-laws and becoming a wife. Now that I think about it, it makes sense he fell for me, because he could have someone to love while he was away doing his thing (he traveled 10 months of the year for work) and also he could keep his distance, same distance he keeps now and has always kept.
He’s very nice, sweet, he cares about me and our child, but he’s always kept himself out of reach, even with me. It all has to do with his upbringing, but I won’t get into that now. The only thing he’s truly passionate about is what he does for work, which he loves. And that’s great, but the fact that I and my kid always come second, and the distance, the cold distance he keeps from everyone, not on purpose, he doesn’t even notice it, but it hurts.
So even when we were dating, I knew I had to fill the gap. I thought then it was because we were so far away, but in the back of my mind there was always an alarm sign I didn’t want to look at.
Enter Ex Boyfriend Number 1 in the picture, with whom I always had the most intense, intoxicating, strong, blow your mind, sexual chemistry. It was something you could almost touch when we were together under the same roof. We run into each other at a birthday party and began having an affair. He had a girlfriend also back then, so we were both cheating. Those nights were probably some of the bests of my life; because our connection wasn’t only sexual, we could almost read each others mind all the time.
It ended when we both had to move away, after we graduated. We had one last night, we thought we were both gone overseas and when we saw each other, pass the initial shock we couldn’t stop hugging, we almost didn`t talk. It was intense and beautiful. We never saw each other again.
But the magic of the web, we kept in touch via email. We would write almost every day, and it kind of faded away with time. Then I found out he had cancer and almost died, and I felt my world tumble around me, I emailed him immediately and got a response in a second, he was ok, but I told him how scared I was with the thought of him not being well.
Then enter Married Man number one. I had another affair, with a man I met online, and who traveled half way around the globe (his excuse was a business meeting) to be with me for a week. He stayed in a hotel near my house, and after the week was done he left, after we had an emotionally devastating fight, because he realized I would never leave my husband for him. And he was right, and I was right. Even though he had it all planned out, and he had the kind of personality that thinks everything is possible just by the power of your own will… so when he set out to get me, he was convinced he was going to get me no matter what. It was a really dark, sad period of my life. He ended up confessing to his wife, and she found me out through his phone records, and emails (he had promised he’d be careful, he’d use phone cards, never would call from home, only email from his work computer but I guess in the end, he put me at the most risk when he confessed, told her my name, and let her call me in such rage, rightfully so… but I always wonder if he confessed to her about the other affairs he had, before me, which I don’t think he did)
So yes, rock bottom, the worst kind of woman I could have possibly become. That I was.
I never came clear to husband, and will never tell him. It’s history now. We stopped all communications right away, and the last I heard from him was long time ago, I know he’s still married and had a couple children afterwards. I don’t think you should tell your spouse about an affair, I wouldn’t want to know, especially if it has ended. That kind of pain is not worthy of you getting rid of your guilt (like in his case) or the total honesty thing….
And here I am now. I haven`t cheated physically, but still, the distance I have from my spouse, makes me feel unattached to him, I’m not attracted to him at all, our sex life is very poor, once a month and I do it mostly because I feel obligated. I’ve spent most our married years alone while he was away for work, and now he’s here all the time, the distance is even more real. He does not make me feel attractive, he thinks joking around and trying to humor me will make me want to be intimate with him when all it really does is make me want to slap him and kick him out of the bed. I want to feel desired, attractive. He doesn’t look at me that way, he’d say “oh that looks nice on you” But will never look at me “that way”. And I too feel the need to have a better sex life; I don’t want the better years of our lives to go by like this.
But it happens that I find that spark in other men’s eyes, when they look at me. I know they still find me beautiful, and would be with me in a heartbeat. So I develop all this crushes, some of them borderline flirtatious, and I feel guilty, but then I think hey if I’m not appreciated at home, then I deserve to have someone flirt with me, compliment me, look at me a certain way.
I don’t want to cheat again, I would not cheat now that I’m a mother, but it’s also so unfair to me, because I do love my husband, I’m just not “in love” with him anymore and I haven`t been for a long long time… I’m just his roommate, whose breasts he gets to “playfully” grab while I`m washing dishes….
----------------
What can I POSSIBLY add to that? I could rip parts of this woman's rantings and ravings, but why bother? What she says speaks for itself. Oh, and if you get a chance, read the replies to this opening post; they're enlightening too. Again, THIS is what you're signing up for if you get married, Fellas! Until next time...
MarkyMark
Props go to Laura Grace Robins, who gave me the link to this site. The site, The Secret Society of Women, is just chock full of women and their bullshit. I could keep this blog going for ETERNITY if I only posted material from that site; I kid you not! Reading posts like this make me glad I'm single. Fellas, when you get that longing for a 'special someone', this is what you're missing; this is what you don't have. Remember that!
Anyway, the post that follows is authored by a woman who calls herself 'Magica'. She's a woman who loves her husband, but is not longer 'in love' with him. Yes, she's cheated. Yes, she has contempt for her husband. You know the drill. Guys, if you're dumb enough to marry, THIS is what you're getting into...
----------------
I met my husband at the age of 12. It doesn’t mean we’ve been together since but we always liked each other, and finally got together in our mid 20’s, dated long distance (and I mean long distance, he was in another country) for 3 years until I graduated college and moved with him to that country.
My life changed completely, and it was the hardest thing in my life to overcome, a new country/language/culture, a new set of very conflicted in-laws and becoming a wife. Now that I think about it, it makes sense he fell for me, because he could have someone to love while he was away doing his thing (he traveled 10 months of the year for work) and also he could keep his distance, same distance he keeps now and has always kept.
He’s very nice, sweet, he cares about me and our child, but he’s always kept himself out of reach, even with me. It all has to do with his upbringing, but I won’t get into that now. The only thing he’s truly passionate about is what he does for work, which he loves. And that’s great, but the fact that I and my kid always come second, and the distance, the cold distance he keeps from everyone, not on purpose, he doesn’t even notice it, but it hurts.
So even when we were dating, I knew I had to fill the gap. I thought then it was because we were so far away, but in the back of my mind there was always an alarm sign I didn’t want to look at.
Enter Ex Boyfriend Number 1 in the picture, with whom I always had the most intense, intoxicating, strong, blow your mind, sexual chemistry. It was something you could almost touch when we were together under the same roof. We run into each other at a birthday party and began having an affair. He had a girlfriend also back then, so we were both cheating. Those nights were probably some of the bests of my life; because our connection wasn’t only sexual, we could almost read each others mind all the time.
It ended when we both had to move away, after we graduated. We had one last night, we thought we were both gone overseas and when we saw each other, pass the initial shock we couldn’t stop hugging, we almost didn`t talk. It was intense and beautiful. We never saw each other again.
But the magic of the web, we kept in touch via email. We would write almost every day, and it kind of faded away with time. Then I found out he had cancer and almost died, and I felt my world tumble around me, I emailed him immediately and got a response in a second, he was ok, but I told him how scared I was with the thought of him not being well.
Then enter Married Man number one. I had another affair, with a man I met online, and who traveled half way around the globe (his excuse was a business meeting) to be with me for a week. He stayed in a hotel near my house, and after the week was done he left, after we had an emotionally devastating fight, because he realized I would never leave my husband for him. And he was right, and I was right. Even though he had it all planned out, and he had the kind of personality that thinks everything is possible just by the power of your own will… so when he set out to get me, he was convinced he was going to get me no matter what. It was a really dark, sad period of my life. He ended up confessing to his wife, and she found me out through his phone records, and emails (he had promised he’d be careful, he’d use phone cards, never would call from home, only email from his work computer but I guess in the end, he put me at the most risk when he confessed, told her my name, and let her call me in such rage, rightfully so… but I always wonder if he confessed to her about the other affairs he had, before me, which I don’t think he did)
So yes, rock bottom, the worst kind of woman I could have possibly become. That I was.
I never came clear to husband, and will never tell him. It’s history now. We stopped all communications right away, and the last I heard from him was long time ago, I know he’s still married and had a couple children afterwards. I don’t think you should tell your spouse about an affair, I wouldn’t want to know, especially if it has ended. That kind of pain is not worthy of you getting rid of your guilt (like in his case) or the total honesty thing….
And here I am now. I haven`t cheated physically, but still, the distance I have from my spouse, makes me feel unattached to him, I’m not attracted to him at all, our sex life is very poor, once a month and I do it mostly because I feel obligated. I’ve spent most our married years alone while he was away for work, and now he’s here all the time, the distance is even more real. He does not make me feel attractive, he thinks joking around and trying to humor me will make me want to be intimate with him when all it really does is make me want to slap him and kick him out of the bed. I want to feel desired, attractive. He doesn’t look at me that way, he’d say “oh that looks nice on you” But will never look at me “that way”. And I too feel the need to have a better sex life; I don’t want the better years of our lives to go by like this.
But it happens that I find that spark in other men’s eyes, when they look at me. I know they still find me beautiful, and would be with me in a heartbeat. So I develop all this crushes, some of them borderline flirtatious, and I feel guilty, but then I think hey if I’m not appreciated at home, then I deserve to have someone flirt with me, compliment me, look at me a certain way.
I don’t want to cheat again, I would not cheat now that I’m a mother, but it’s also so unfair to me, because I do love my husband, I’m just not “in love” with him anymore and I haven`t been for a long long time… I’m just his roommate, whose breasts he gets to “playfully” grab while I`m washing dishes….
----------------
What can I POSSIBLY add to that? I could rip parts of this woman's rantings and ravings, but why bother? What she says speaks for itself. Oh, and if you get a chance, read the replies to this opening post; they're enlightening too. Again, THIS is what you're signing up for if you get married, Fellas! Until next time...
MarkyMark
Insults for Women, by Roy Scott Morvich
Guys,
I was over @ Roy's Online Thoughts when I came across THIS beauty of a post. I'm sharing it with my boys, because this deserves a wider audience. In his fine post, Roy gives us insults we can use on women. This is good stuff! Enjoy...
------------------
L'art d'insulter les femmes
----------------
Was that good, or was that good? I thought it was good-no, make that great! Roy, thanks for writing this, so I could share it with my readers. Hopefully, this masterpiece will be spread far & wide, so we can put skanks in their place-yeah, Baby! Until next time...
MarkyMark
I was over @ Roy's Online Thoughts when I came across THIS beauty of a post. I'm sharing it with my boys, because this deserves a wider audience. In his fine post, Roy gives us insults we can use on women. This is good stuff! Enjoy...
------------------
L'art d'insulter les femmes
I'm opening 2010 by declaring war on shaming language. Feminists have gotten away with shaming language for too long. Far too long.
Its time we got our own back.
And since women in general have not stood up to defend men, it stands that all women are tarred with the same brush. Therefore ALL women are to be denigrated equally.
Fair's fair.
Here are a choice sampling of insults to deride women with.
Try them and see. I did. And watch their ordure (translation: s**t) hit the roof!
Modern one-liners
- Your's is even smaller than mine.
- It'll be way bigger than anything you'll ever have.
- Mine isn't too small, your cooch is too wide/large/loose.
- The one you try to have is even smaller than mine.
- Oooh! Bad mood! Did you run out of batteries?
- You sound really old.
- You don't look your age. [Pause] You look [longer pause] old.
- You look good enough to be my great-great grandmother.
- You were/are a lousy lover.
- You must be having constant periods.
- It must be cotton pony rodeo time huh?
- Did one of your cats just die?
- You must not be married yet.
- Can't have kids huh?
- There's nothing a woman can do for me that my right hand can't do better.
- Even dung beetles are higher than women and feminists.
- You obviously have one of those super large and deep ginas a man has to strap a plank to his back to prevent him falling into.
Anything that implies her plumbing isn't clean, has diseases or a foul smell.
Literary Gems
Shakespeare
- "Her beauty and her brain go not together" (Cymbeline)
- "The tartness of her face sours ripe grapes" (Coriolanus)
- "... she's the kitchen wench and all grease; and I know not what use to put her to but to make a lamp of her and run from her by her own light. I warrant, her rags and the tallow in them will burn a Poland winter: if she lives till doomsday, she'll burn a week longer than the whole world." (The Comedy of Errors)
- "Swart, like my shoe, but her face nothing half so clean kept: for why, she sweats; a man may go over shoes in the grime of it." (The Comedy of Errors)
- "No longer from head to foot than from hip to hip: she is spherical, like a globe; I could find out countries in her." (The Comedy of Errors)
- "... thou hast pared thy wit o' both sides, and left nothing i' the middle" (King Lear)
- "You should be women and yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so." (Macbeth)
- "You have such a February face, so full of frost, of storm and cloudiness." (Much Ado About Nothing)
- "Would thou were clean enough to spit upon!" (Timon of Athens)
Others
- "She may very well pass for forty-three / In the dusk, with a light behind her!" (Trial by Jury, Gilbert & Sullivan)
- "Perhaps you have gravely misunderstood." (Miss Manners a.k.a Judith Martin)
But at the end of the day, given that women are devoid of logic and wit, using such choice insults is wanton waste.
Better to ignore them completely.
And since modern women, with their over-inflated sense of entitlement cannot abide being ignored, this is just as dramatic and effective as any insult.
----------------
Was that good, or was that good? I thought it was good-no, make that great! Roy, thanks for writing this, so I could share it with my readers. Hopefully, this masterpiece will be spread far & wide, so we can put skanks in their place-yeah, Baby! Until next time...
MarkyMark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
