Tag Archives: slut club

Murder Is A Bitch

You are always haunted by victims “bleeding out.”

You start it with killing animals and learning to suppress any sympathy for your
victims. I had always assumed that the point of showing Catholic imagery of
Christ cruicified was to instill sympathy/guilt for your torture victims.

But in some ways I suspect that deep, explicit sympathy for your torture victims
actually provides a sort of immunity to what you are doing; by “empathizing”
with your victims, you are actually emotionally accimlizing yourself to their
reactions to the torture.

They kick, you empathize without removing the impetus for their kicking.

It’s heady stuff.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18787450-former-drone-operator-says-hes-haunted-by-his-part-in-more-than-1600-deaths

http://anolen.com/2014/11/16/the-banality-of-mind-control/

http://www.salon.com/2002/12/04/un_sm/

The private predilections of Harvey John Jack McGeorge, a United Nations weapons inspector to be sent to Iraq, probably were the tawdry subject of more Thanksgiving Day dinners than he d care to know about. His enthusiastic taste for S/M made the front page of the Washington Post and, as a slow holiday news weekend lurched into gear, spread quickly to the cable news channels.

McGeorge, president of Public Safety Group Inc., which offers bioterrorism research, analysis and training to different governments, is a former Marine and Secret Service specialist. He is also, the Post revealed, the co-founder and past president of Black Rose, a Washington-area pansexual S&M group, and the former chairman of the board of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and a founding officer of the Leather Leadership Conference Inc., which produces training sessions for current and potential leaders of the sadomasochism/leather/fetish community, according to its Web site. Not only that, but his seminars mysteriously involve various acts conducted with knives and ropes.

There was immediate posturing. The State Department, which passed the resumes of McGeorge and other candidates over to the U.N without a security check grew defensive. McGeorge offered his resignation, but chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix refused it. “We believe that Mr. McGeorge is a highly qualified and competent technical expert,” Ewen Buchanan, Blix’s spokesman, told the Post. And so McGeorge remains in New York, preparing to square off with Saddam.

McGeorge politely declined Salon s request for an interview. But a friend and colleague in various S/M groups, Jonathan Krall, agreed to talk about McGeorge and his role in the D.C. S/M community. Krall is the founder and director of District of Columbia Sexual Minority Advocates, where McGeorge is co-chair of the education program. He says he has known McGeorge for more than 15 years through his very public participation in various S/M clubs.

In the process, Krall believes, he s routinely witnessed the leadership qualities that will make McGeorge a fine arms inspector.

What was your reaction when the Post broke the story about McGeorge s participation in Black Rose, and the S/M?

Well, I was not at all happy about it. The story itself is about background checks of U.N. weapons inspectors, and there s no problem with that. But the S/M aspect of it was completely irrelevant to counterterrorism. One has nothing to do with the other, first. And second, all Jack s work in volunteer organizations or not-for-profit organizations is somehow a bad thing, and I don t get how leadership in a volunteer organization is a bad thing.

Wait. Volunteering for organizations like Black Rose?

Well, and the Leather Leadership Council and National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. Those are all volunteer organizations. NCSF has one paid staffer.

He should be getting credit for having leadership capabilities. But the fact is it s really not relevant. It s his background in counter-terrorism.

Were you surprised that he offered to resign?

No. I mean, this is a difficult thing. This speaks to whether someone s S/M life is relevant to their work life Lots of us have jobs where we work in public with a company s name tag, and the question is: Is that the only public persona you re allowed to have? And lots of people have lives outside of work, where they also appear in public doing volunteer work or some such thing, and that should be perfectly legitimate. And there s no reason to mix the two up.

But I think a lot of people assume that your work identity is your identity, and that your identity everywhere should reflect positively on your work identity.

Right. Though he s a government employee, and I think there are critics on the right, say, the Christian right

They don t like anybody having fun.

Right, but even some on the left who might say: Look, a private life is one thing, but McGeorge has made this a very public part of his life, and that makes it more complicated. Fair?

No. I think people really should be allowed to separate their professional lives and their private lives. And by their private lives, I guess I mean their nonprofessional lives, even if your nonprofessional life is public.

If Jack was really closeted about his S/M work, then he could be the subject of blackmail. The big issue would be if he tried to hide it from anybody whom he applied to a job for, and he didn t, as far as I understand it.

But the reason this is news is not because he was open about just any hobby. To a lot of people, there s something a little menacing about the idea of S/M, there s a

A stigma, yes.

And where do you think that comes from?

Oh, I think there s always a stigma on whatever the sexual cutting edge is. I m old enough to remember when full frontal nudity in the movies was a big issue of public debate.

Except there s violence involved, and the idea that violence is sexy makes people uncomfortable.

Which, of course, if you watch any network television show and watch the advertising for the movies you see violence and sex all the time. Sexy villains are there all the time. It s like Batman nobody wants to play Batman because the villains are sexier.

I think what s happening with S/M, in part because of the Internet, in part because it was taken out of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual [of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association] it was rewritten [described here] in such a way a typical S/M er is no longer considered mentally ill, that people are freer to do it, freer to find each other, and it s just become more apparent. And I just think it s showing up in more places that are surprising people, you know.

This will change as more S/M ers come out of the closet.

So it s a movement?

Well, I don t think the intent is a movement. That term is probably pushing it, but the effect is getting kind of like that. I mean, there s a huge number of people and huge number of gatherings, which is all great because of the Internet, because people can hook up, and if people can hook up without learning what they re doing they can get into all sorts of dangerous situations.

So you d call it a hobby?

Everybody s different. I mean, you take a spectrum of people, from the hobbyist who is into the equipment, to someone who has had fantasies since they were very young, and for whom it is, for all intents and purposes, a sexual orientation.

That s anecdotally what I ve run into.

When you say it s a sexual orientation, there s an implication that it s like gay rights, and should be treated as such.

Yes. Any personal-freedom issue, this is the equivalent to it.

I think the problem here is that the community has a habit of being closeted, and it s done a very good job of that. But the fact is, the S/M lifestyle isn t news, it s just one more choice.

But when people rely solely on the personal freedom argument, there s always someone who will ask: What s next, bestiality?

The thing about the S/M community is that there s standards. It really is a community, and you have standards for a number of things. They talk about safe, sane and consensual What s safe, which is a very fuzzy boundary. What s sane? Which, if you follow what s in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, sane basically means functional, if you re able to function in life and it s not messing up your life. And consensual is very important. Animals, children can t consent.

And the community has these standards for a number of reasons. [For example,] in the S/M community a standard for an event is to have dungeon monitors in the play area, and to have things closed off so the public can t get in, so people can feel like they can be safe and comfortable there.

Are these codified somewhere? Is there a manual?

Yeah, for the most part it s just sort of understood. It s very local. The S/M community is very local. Individual groups will have these things standardized in a sense to have dungeon monitor manuals explaining what s appropriate and what s not appropriate and they ll have rules.

McGeorge threw these seminars on these sorts of rules, and standards, right?

Yeah, he was a real proponent of these things.

He also has gotten some attention for other seminars, though. Like the one on knife play. Can you explain that?

Well, I mean, picking up a knife and rubbing it across your lover s body to titillate them doesn t sound nearly as dangerous to me as bungee jumping. I mean, seriously.

Hmmm. It sounds more menacing, though.

Well, but the whole part about role playing is that you re trying to create a fantasy environment, and for a lot of people, a fantasy environment is really something that gets their adrenaline going and is kind of edgy, exciting.

So you have lots of buzzwords. And the S/M community is full of buzzwords that have [nothing] to do with reality. I mean, slavery [is one]. Someone can say, Oh, I m a sex slave. But they re not a sex slave. They re somebody who is married and has kids and a mortgage in some suburbia.

But could there be a concern that someone like McGeorge, whose professional duties we could come to depend on to keep us out or throw us in to a war, could be too engaged with his fantasy life, especially when he engages in it so publicly?

Well, I d say that someone who has been as successful, who has worked to become a U.N. inspector, would have a pretty good handle on the difference between fantasy and reality.

But, speaking about the whole slave thing

Oh yeah, yeah. Jack has been very interested in the psychology of people who get into service-oriented submission vs. just fantasy playing vs. a number of other things.

Well, but it looks like he posted his own ad for a slave [referenced here] that was up until fairly recently.

Yeah, right. He s a real person and has a personal life.

OK, but you re saying he wasn t, obviously, really looking for a slave. What was he looking for?

It means you set aside a part of your life to play a fantasy role, and if you re doing that you re doing it in a very service-oriented way, so not only are you doing your fantasy, you re doing something useful for the person who is your master. Or mistress. It s a private role-play.

I mean, the one thing you have to realize with Jack is his public stuff is education, leadership, lobbying, like with the NCSF, and his private stuff is sex. It s not like he s having sex in public he s advocating in public. And advocating for personal freedoms is a very acceptable thing to do.

But some of the things he s advocating for, like how to handle a female slave in public, [see “Out in the Streets: Private Play in Public With Jack McGeorge”] makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially since we would be sending him over to a country of Muslims, where women are routinely oppressed. That s essentially why some feminist groups, like NOW, have been critical of the S/M movement, right? The power dynamics?

He was teaching sexual freedom. Sexual freedom is not about oppression.

People [in NOW] have the right to their own sexual determination. Women who are members of NOW, and I know plenty of them, like having sex lives. And it s their personal choice how they do that.

So his going over there isn t, at least, awkward to you?

No.

The fact is that people in the S/M community lose jobs and sometimes they lose custody of their children over their private lifestyle. It happens.

And it happened to Jack in the past; he s lost contracts because somebody at some agency couldn t handle his private life. And it s sad to see that happen. These are capable people.

The fact is, someone who is really capable enough to have the range of skills to do the U.N. inspection job is not going to be your average Joe, and that type of person is probably going to have an interesting private life as well as an interesting professional life. Go for it. Take it. Take advantage of it.

It s a bonus?

It s a bonus that you have the type of person who can do leadership things, who can step outside the mainstream, who has done a certain amount of self-exploration.

And if this works out, if he s sent over, is it a victory of sorts for the S/M community?

Oh, definitely. The Post story was absurd but what I would like to see is a lot of people write letters to the Post and say this was not appropriate. I mean, if a former chairman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was given similar treatment, I don t think people would put up with it.

So yeah, if he continues, it will be a victory, and it would be one more public person who is known to have an interesting social life.

One last, pedantic question. In one of McGeorge s bios, he s identified as a het switch. Translation?

You can identify yourself as a dominant, a submissive or a switch, which means you play top sometimes and you play bottom sometimes. And het means he s a heterosexual.

Ah.

A lot of people say heterosexual to distinguish from gay, of course, and personally I don t like the word straight so I use heterosexual, or het.
Kerry Lauerman

Kerry Lauerman is Salon’s Editor in Chief. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

http://www.salon.com/2002/12/04/un_sm/

http://anolen.com/2014/10/06/great-users-of-people/

The Manosphere, Feminists, And Their Discontents

The internet selects for certain types of people. Introverts, firstly, and also people that like to read and write. Those with somewhat of an analytical bent. In the third generation of the Sexual Revolution, it was really only a matter of time until the “manosphere” happened.

Men bitching about women.

But as usual, yours truly – the White Henry Kissinger – will take the interests of my constituents and turn those interests into an agenda that can be acted upon. If you will notice, the manosphere has a few common complaints, some quite legitimate and others merely bitching.

First, let’s look at the legitimate complaints of the Men’s Rights Activist types: family and divorce court.

Men get shafted in family and divorce court. Collectively, as a culture, in a child custody dispute, we generally side with the mother. For very young children, this makes perfect sense. Certainly, if it’s a baby, still breast feeding, it must be with the mother, excepting some extremely negative situations. We generally leave boys in the custody of women until somewhere between the ages of seven and puberty. Alimony – a leftover from the days when women did not do wage work – just now gives women a financial incentive to divorce for “cash and prizes.” Women – being people – *just* people – respond to incentives like everyone else. The number one predictor of a woman divorcing is whether or not she will gain financially from it. If she will gain financially from a divorce, she might justify it with all sorts of reasons (unhaaaapiness, he looked at porn, “abuse,” etc.) but at the end of the day, she is divorcing because she has a financial incentive to do so.

However, other than that, there really are no “men’s rights” under fire in the modern world, as it relates to women. Domestic “abuse” is mostly bullshit. Here’s a fun experiment. Look at the campaign posters and images for “domestic abuse” and you’ll find it looks a hell of a lot like BDSM porn, doesn’t it? So for men to hop on this bandwagon of “domestic abuse” is honestly a pitiful thing. Sure, of course, women hit men, but if you are really cowering in fear from your woman, the problem is you being a pussy. Also true, if she’s the hitter, you’re still going to be blamed by the cops. So, you simply dump her cold. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

Men bitch about hypergamy. Women’s hypergamy can seem a bit unintuitive at first, but once you understand it it makes perfect sense. In a man, women want the best. The top dog. The “Alpha.” A woman will be perfectly happy if she has the top ranking man, the best looking, the richest, the tallest, the strongest. The man that dominates other men, that’s the man a woman wants.

Now, certainly, men want the best looking, the sexiest woman. But men have a built in need for variety in sex. There’s even an old saying, “look at the hottest woman and realize there is a man tired of putting up with her shit.” It’s called “The Coolidge Effect” and it has been scientifically studied. So, they hooked a bunch of college men to one of those machines that measures their erections. They showed them a porn movie, and the men got erections. While you hardly need an experiment to figure that out, what happened was the more the men watched that same film, the less erect they got. After watching the same film a few dozen times, the men barely got hard.

Yet the first time they were shown a *new* porn film, they all got just as erect as the first time. Men are programmed for variety, it’s nature.

Women are not polygamous like men, instead, they are hypergamous. A woman will be perfectly happy with her husband, but once her husband’s boss – or a hunky handyman – enters the picture, she will find all sorts of reasons to not be satisfied with her husband anymore. But she isn’t going to collect a bunch of boy toys the way men will collect hot yuong things – she just wants the one – the best one. If she has to share the best one with a few other women – so be it, that will just make him even more “alpha.” Hence, women really don’t have a problem being the member of a harem, as long as she is the harem slave of a top man, an “alpha.”

The other main complaint of the manosphere is “alpha fucks, beta bucks.” This is the supposed “strategy” of women, that when they are are young, sexy, and beautiful, they will ride the “cock carousel” – lots of sex with lots of sexy men, but “out of her league” relationship wise. They will fuck her, but won’t settle for a relationship with her. Then, after being rode hard and put away wet by the sexy hipster boys, when she starts to age and lose her looks, she’ll start looking for a “beta” – a “nice guy” – who will provide that stability, at the cost of not being the sexy assholes she used to service.

The manosphere types, especially the younger ones, have this revenge fantasy. When a woman is 30 and hits “the wall” she will come running to these “beta nice guys” and the manosphere types will say, “oh you want me now that I’m 30, making lots of money, and have a convertible? But in high school you gang banged the hockey team? No thanks, I won’t be your beta bucks!”

Again, this is a revenge fantasy, the reality is all those “betas” will, in fact, “wife up” an old whore the first chance they get. The manosphere is lots of big talk but that’s all that it is.

Of course, women go nuts when they see men figuring out their behavior. Women have all sorts of “legitimate” reasons why they engage in this behavior, but it is all so much “hamstering” – just post-hoc justifications for perfectly self-interested behavior.

What the feminists and the manosphere types – and especially the Christians and the church ladies – totally, utterly miss is the central thing that changed an age old mating culture for the Hookup Culture we have now – birth control.

Notice that billions and billions of pages are written about sex and no one ever mentions the technological advance that started it all – reliable, scientific birth control, from latext condoms to the pill to abortion. What did birth control change more than anything?

Again, it’s so simple it surprises me that everyone is so dim they never figured it out. Before birth control, men and women hit puberty, their sex drives ramped up, they would pair off, have sex, and have children. Birth control meant men and women could get sexual satisfaction without “worrying” about pregnancy. Since men don’t want to be cuckolds, generally speaking, once a woman has a child, she’s done. No other men really want her. The father of her children has her, she is his responsibility, along with his kids.

But thanks to birth control, women can gang bang all sorts of sexy guys without having to settle down with just one and have his family. Like the paradox of choice, now she can postpone the family formation for a long time – from 15 – 30 – and then pop out 1.5 kids – then divorce and shack up with a hunky handyman millionaire. Women want to “stay on the market” as long as possible because once she actually has a man’s kids, she is pretty much done and other men generally speaking don’t want her anymore.

Everything the manosphere bitches about is caused first and foremost by the reality of reliable, scientific birth control. Virginity? The age that women mate? The “alpha fucks, beta bucks” strategy? It’s all due to birth control.

Women, of course, will never admit this, and will continue to whine and bitch about porn, older men with younger women, “abuse,” sexism, “misogyny” and all the rest. But men themselves want to take advantage of this as well. Yours truly certainly had my fill of the Bad Girls on birth control – girls that were the type you bang, but most certainly not the type you impregnate.

So for all the fake “traditionalists” – men and women, the betas and the church ladies – if you really wanted to go back to the old ways, what would happen if there was no birth control?

Simple. Your 15 year old daughter would get “hot pants” and you’d marry her off before she got knocked up by the farm hand. She would have a lot of children and hopefully everyone would live happily ever after.

But be honest – neither men nor women really want that, family formation at a young age. Everyone wants to have fun in Slut Club first.

So, we will continue to have to listen to the whining of the “Betas” who never get laid, and the whining old Eldersluts who aged out of Slut Club and can’t find any decent “beta bucks” because these aging bitter “betas” will probably be into porn and sex dolls at that point anyway.

As for the “alphas” – no problem. As for the young hotties – no problem. As said in the film “Dazed and Confused:”

“That’s what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, and they stay the same age!”

Feminists and White Knights

Feminists and White Knights both share a certain assumption; that is that women are morally superior to men. I would posit it is exactly the opposite, by anyone’s usual understanding of morality, men are morally superior to women. The most obvious case is in the example of truth – men tend to want the truth and want to tell the truth. Women lie automatically, women are deceptive by nature. Because men tend to be physically stronger than women, women have evolved to do things indirectly; they manipulate men indirectly because they generally can’t bash men over the head with a club and make them do what they want.

Why is it women get so furious at the idea of an older man with a younger woman? Isn’t it obvious? They are jealous of younger women. They used to be young, fertile, and sexy. Then, they age, and are no longer young, fertile, and attractive, so they lash out.

You will notice, however, it’s only OLD women that have a problem with younger women and older men. Younger women LOVE the attention of older men.

Since women – through feminism – liberated themselves from patriarchy, they have come up with a new system of morality that they expect men to follow. According to this logic: it’s ok when women are promiscuous, no slut shaming. It’s ok when older women go with younger men – cougars are liberated. But it’s bad when older men go with younger women. Why? It’s simply because that’s when men have more power.

When women come up with a system of morality, it’s hilariously self-serving. In whatever situation women have the upper hand, that’s good, and in whatever way men have the upper hand, that’s bad.

Mrs. Duggar - a Christian, not a White Nationalist - that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.
Mrs. Duggar – a Christian, not a White Nationalist – that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.

Did you know that in the beginning of feminism, in the earliest days, feminists did NOT pose as victims? In the book that started it, The Feminine Mystique, the Jewish Communist author shamed women for wanting domestic life. There was no assumption that women were victims of men. But that sort of feminism didn’t last, becuase by pretending men were “oppressing” women with patriarchy, anything a woman did was ok, anything a woman did was justified, because it was a “strike against patriarchy.” Sort of like how a shoplifter justifies his theft because “the big companies rip off people anyway” women justified any selfish and immoral thing they did because “well, men are oppressing us.”

Since women revolted against monogamy, they had to come up with a new system of morality to serve their interests. Hence, the absolute rage at older men dating younger women. That’s their new rule. “It’s ok for women to be promiscuous, it’s ok for women to use birth control, have abortions, but when we are ready, at 30, men must then marry us, settle down, and not go with younger women.”

It’s just that – self-serving, and nothing else. Women, generally speaking, aren’t even smart enough to hide their self-interest in this case. I mean, just get a load of this article – this is “alpha fucks, beta bucks” spelled out openly and in detail. And the bimbo who wrote it just can’t understand why men are disgusted with her attitude.

http://www.rantchic.com/2014/01/14/men-you-marry-vs-men-you-bang/

Monogamy was good for women, and it was especially good for OLDER women. Monogamy meant that a man wasn’t allowed to toss aside an aging wife for a hot young thing. But women rebelled against monogamy – they just wanted to get rid of the part that reigned in THEIR behavior, while keeping the parts that reigned in MEN’S behavior.

Monogamy was good for FAMILIES. When women had children YOUNG – as in late teens and early 20s – they lived long enough to see their grandchildren, and sometimes their great grandchildren. When women had many children, not just one or two, you had tight knit clans. A woman would AGE GRACEFULLY – she would become a well respected Matriarch of a family, adored by her children, grand children, and great grandchildren.

Mostly, what women accuse men of doing is what they themselves are doing. Women say that men aren’t “aging gracefully” – that’s just a projection. It’s women that have stopped aging gracefully. I mean, Botox? Hair dye? It’s laughable.

Now, young men, look around you. Read the women’s blogs. Is there a SINGLE example of a White Nationalist woman mentoring younger women? Is there a SINGLE example of old WN women warning younger women to avoid the mistakes that they themselves made?

Not on your life. It’s the exact opposite. The WN movement is FULL of old divorcees whining about men. That is why I said to younger men, on MWIR a while back – go for Christian women. Christian women are the ONLY ones that still at least pay lip service to traditional morality. There are lots and lots of Christian women blogs (like SunshineMary’s old blog) mentoring younger women to avoid the Slut Club.

White Nationalist women? Not a one. The type of women that are attracted to controversial social movements like White Nationalism are outliers – they tend to be more masculine, less feminine, and more “feisty” – meaning, bitchy.

These WN women are doing no one any favors. Most of them – with a few notable exceptions – do nothing but chant “nigger kike spic” – which makes US look bad and makes our enemies look good by comparison. They are an embarrassment to the movement. They are the female equivalent of the Costume Clowns, fat dudes with swastikas on their arms chanting about how much they hate people. There’s a reason people often get suspicious that these people are being paid by the enemy, because they do the enemy’s work for them.

Here’s a fun experiment – go to some moron Nazi site like DailyStormer – read the WN women that post there. Long, obscene screeds, weird homoerotic rants about anal sex, and superstitions about Jews. Compare and contrast a fact-based deconstruction of Jewish anti-Whiteness from someone like Kevin MacDonald to the faux-Catholic White Nationalist women. There’s just no comparison.

It’s so ironic that, as far as I can tell, most of the women that troll the WN sites are DIVORCED, OLD, and in many cases, CHILDLESS. These are the women that many WN men “white knight” for. These are the women that screech the loudest about the “manosphere” too.

Here’s another eye-opening thing to see: go to the DailyStormer thread about 50 Shades of Grey. Read an article there posted by some woman saying that 50 Shades of Grey is “pedophilia hiding in plain sight.” How is 50 Shades of Grey really about pedophilia?

*Because the character was a virgin.*

You hear that men? If you want to marry a virgin bride, you’re actually a pedophile, according to old feminist faux-traditionalists. You can see the Feminine Imperative in action. If you don’t want to marry an old whore, you’re a pedophile.

Mrs. Romney - a Mormon, not a White Nationalist - that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.
Mrs. Romney – a Mormon, not a White Nationalist – that fulfilled the 14 Words better than any WN woman.

At the end of the day, however, women are just women looking out for their own interests. They evolved to be the way they are, and there is nothing wrong with the way they are. The real question is – why do men “white knight” for these feminists?

I can guess. These “white knight” men are submissive men. They are looking for a Mommy Figure and probably get off on a Dominatrix type. Hey, different strokes for different folks, but I, like most men, tend to want to wear the pants in a relationship.

Here’s the deal, religion aside: sexual morality is a JOKE when young, fertile women are having promiscuous sex on birth control. Complaining about “PUAs” is idiotic when young fertile women – the people who create the race – are “pick up artists” themselves. Complaining about men is a JOKE when white women are aborting nearly as many white babies as they are bearing. Bitching about men fucking younger women is laughable when women divorce their husbands and split up their families nearly half the time. Talking about the 14 Words is one big pile of steaming nonsense when not a one White Nationalist woman is even promoting the idea of women marrying and having children young.

As is usual, this battle will be fought and won by white men, and white women will be dragged along, kicking and screaming. For the most part, it’s best to just ignore them – ESPECIALLY the old ones.

Now, a quick parting shot AGAINST the “Christian manosphere.” There are thousands of “Christian manosphere” blogs complaining about Christian women, saying that Christian women are just as slutty as their secular counterparts and that Christian women aren’t interested in Christian men.

YET – however – one of the most prominent Christian manosphere bloggers has a young, virgin Christian woman – who is quite pretty – that is perfectly willing to marry him – but he won’t marry her. He continues to blog about how there are no good Christian women, yet he has one who all but offered herself to him, and he still wouldn’t marry her.

He really has no right to complain. I know both of them read this blog at least occasionally.

Uh – MAN UP, dude. You know who you are.