‘Heteropatriarchy’ as a Dye Marker: Feminism as Lesbian Supremacy

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 3 Comments

If you are in a hurry, and don’t have time to read what I’m about to explain, do yourself a favor: Go to Twitter and search for the word “heteropatriarchy.” This word did not exist 30 years ago, and I will explain its origins and significance, but just scroll down through those Twitter search results. Even ignoring all the ironic joking hipster uses, as well as any anti-feminists invoking the word to mock Third-Wave nonsense, you will still find many people using this term with as much sincerity as Julius Streicher denouncing Jews in 1923.

What is the significance of the word “heteropatriarchy”? Where and how did it originate? To answer this, I will cite as authority Professor Claudia Card’s 1989 essay “Pluralist Lesbian Separatism” (in Lesbian Philosophies and Cultures, edited by Jeffner Allen, 1990, p. 133):

If openness in practice to any woman willing to identify herself as lesbian is not simply an expedient for finding women with certain loyalties, which is fundamental may be not having certain beliefs but, more promisingly, certain potentialities and relationships to histories of oppression. So understood, lesbian separatism would have as a purpose nurturing and supporting the lesbian(s) — the women-lovers — in all women. . . “Lesbian” derives from Sappho of Lesbos (ca 600 B.C.E.), an influential paradigm of woman-loving in European cultures. There are no doubt equally valuable paradigms yet to be discovered by many of us. A lesbian separatism with such flexibility would not be based on dissent, although it would dissent from what Jan Raymond has recently called “heteropatriarchy.” Such lesbian separatism would interpret feminist separatism by finding the devaluing of women’s woman-loving a key factor in women’s oppression.

Now, even the most well-informed student of feminist theory as it has developed since the late 1960s would probably have to read that passage quite carefully to grasp what Professor Card is implying here. The author she cites as having coined the term “heteropatriarchy” is Janice G. Raymond, a retired professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The 1986 book cited by Professor Card is Professor Raymond’s A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection, which deals with subjects along the same lines as Professor Lillian Faderman’s 1981 book Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love between Women from the Renaissance to the Present and Professor Sheila Jeffreys’ 1997 book The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880-1930. The reader must perceive, from the sample of references I’ve listed here, how many feminist professors spent years busy working on the same general idea: The fight against patriarchy (a synonym of “male supremacy,” as early Second Wave feminists called it) was also a fight against heterosexuality. The term “heteropatriarchy” represented this idea, and was coined by Professor Raymond who, not coincidentally, was a protege of Professor Mary Daly, arguably the most extreme pioneer of man-hating lesbian feminism. Read more

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Wonder Girls And Indians

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This weekend, the World Series has two teams that haven’t won it all for a total of 156 years: the Cubs since 1908, and the Indians since 1948, when the team was owned by legendary baseball promoter Bill Veeck, whose autobiography Veeck As In Wreck ought to be required reading for anyone serious about the history of baseball. So it seems natural for me to pick this week’s appetizer from the visit of girl group Wonder Girls to their best-known fan, outfielder Shin-Soo Choo of the Indians. I would have preferred this picture, but Blogspot pics and WordPress don’t play well together.
As always, many of the following links are to pics generally considered NSFW, and the management is not responsible for any clanks, muffs, errors, runs (earned or unearned), wild pitches, passed balls, hit batters, or other misfortunes caused by your failure to exercise discretion in the clicking.

The Wonder Girls pose with Miss Onion of the Cleveland Indians hot dog racers.

Ninety Miles from Tyranny leads off with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls With Guns, followed by Goodstuff with Loretta Swit, a/k/a Hot Lips Houlihan. Animal Magnetism checks in with Rule 5 Traveling Life Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, while The Last Tradition adds Laeann Amos and Lena Chase.

EBL’s heifers this week include Maria Bello, Susan Sarandon, Megyn Kelly, Nina Arianda, Mia Sara, Hillary as Fredo Corleone, and Raquel Welch.

A View from the Beach brings us The Other Raquel – Raquel Zimmerman, Friday Morning Wake Up, Don’t Bring the Garbage to the New Home, I Suppose a Fat Flannel Clad Dyke Would be More to Their Liking, I, For One, Welcome Our New Chinese Robot Goddess, Whew! That’s a Relief!, The Great Rhode Island Yoga Pants Protest, Clinton.com Incites Violence, Twins Come Out for Trump over Tramps, Redskins Attempt to Skin Lions, Some Rule 5 News for Sunday, IG Says EPA Late to Flint Rescue, and Floron du Jour: “Wait Just a Minute, While I Interview for a Job, Dad”.

Soylent Siberia returns with your morning coffee creamer, Tuesday Titillation Exhalation, Humpday Harvest, Falconsword Fursday, Latent Lingerie, and Weekender.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Laura San Giacomo, his vintage babe is Ann Southern, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Marilyn Monroe. At Dustbury, it’s Bat for Lashes and Sitashma Chand. (Not available at AutoZone.)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially the FMJRA linkagery that made last week’s Rule 5 Tuesday #1 in the list of most-linked posts here at The Other McCain!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Save

Category: Rule 5

SHOCKING: TRUMP SURGES IN POLL; HILLARY DOOMED BY F.B.I. PROBE?

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 3 Comments

Bad news today for “Crooked Hillary”:

Donald Trump has surged to within 1 point of Hillary Clinton in a national poll released Sunday morning.
Clinton leads Trump, 46 to 45 percent, in a four-way race including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in the latest ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll. Johnson has 4 percent support while Stein has 2 percent.
Clinton led Trump by 12 points in that poll, 50 to 38 percent, early last week.

(Hat-tip: Steve Bartin at News Alert.) The headline stack this morning at the Drudge Report looks very bad for the Democrat:

HILLARY AT WAR WITH FBI…
Attack Strategy Has Risks…
PAPER: Dems should ask her to step aside…
LYNCH MOVED TO SPIKE COMEY…
HUMALIATED: Clinton aide doesn’t know how emails ended up on computer…
WEINER’S TALE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION…
GOODWIN: HILLARY ONLY HAS HERSELF TO BLAME…
Huma Swore Under Oath She Gave Up ‘All Devices’…
Vowed she was not retaining copies of emails…

Ex-FBI official: Clintons are a 'crime family' https://t.co/sUyBCPxCdd pic.twitter.com/7pNf8oXlWp

— The Hill (@thehill) October 30, 2016

Readers will recall — and perhaps never forgive — that I pronounced the election over three weeks ago. There was no way, I concluded, that Donald Trump could win after the sudden torrent of revelations about his past sexual misbehavior. What I did not consider, however, was that no matter how much damage Trump suffered, Hillary might still lose, simply because of the sordid doings (and sordid people) of Team Clinton:

In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a second presidential run.
Then Carlos Danger happened.
Anthony D. Weiner, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired moniker.
The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs. Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named Sydney Leathers.
Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama. Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

Her husband is an accused rapist who lost his law license for perjury. She's being investigated by the FBI. Hillary IS the Democrat Party.

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 30, 2016

Yeah, creepy sex and lying under oath — this is the Democrat Party that everyone over 30 remembers so well from the 1990s, when Hillary’s husband was the Perpetrator-in-Chief. Millennials who did not live through that era, or who were mere toddlers when Bill Clinton wagged his finger in America’s face and said he did not have sex with “that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” might want to catch up on the history of deceit and corruption that is likely to repeat itself if Hillary is elected.

Category: Corruption, Crime, Election, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias, Polls

Feminism and the Cult of the True Self

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Feminism and the Cult of the True Self

“The stigma around STDs normally makes people think of cheaters, liars, teenagers who don’t know any better, and other various ‘dirty’ things when they think of sexually transmitted diseases. But there’s a new name circulating in the news lately who’s trying to battle this stigma: Ella Dawson.”
— Torii Johnson, April 30, 2015

Once upon a time, psychology was about helping people cope with the difficulties of life, to become “well-adjusted” to adulthood. Within my own lifetime — and I could cite my personal experience — practitioners of psychology sought to locate the “root cause” of behavioral problems in order to help people understand why they had the problems they had. This was the justification for what used to be called the “couch trip” of mid-20th century psychoanalysis. In his memoir New York in the Fifties, Dan Wakefield recounts how it seemed that everyone in his circle of young intellectuals was being treated by an analyst:

“Finding yourself” was the overall hope, the grand purpose of Freud’s method of treatment for the human condition, and those of us who entered it thought of the process as noble and ennobling, a search for the truth through painful dark passages of the past, a delving into the heart of the matter, whatever the psychic pain. The idea that the truth was buried, that the nub of our angst and disorientation was hidden like some precious stone in the tar pits of our earliest childhood memories, spoke to us in literature and art.

The Gospel of Sigmund, as we might call this attitude of reverence toward Freudian concepts (as popularly understood) gained a cult-like grip on the minds of bright young liberals like Wakefield. If you want to find the origins of the wild tumult that burst forth in the 1960s, a careful reading of Wakefield’s account of New York in the Fifties might help you understand this. The popularity of Freudianism among intellectuals in the 1950s could be seen as symptomatic of an existential crisis among secular liberals who, having abandoned Judeo-Christian belief as the roadmap by which to guide their lives, found themselves in need of a substitute religion. In a godless universe, people needed some sense of purpose in life, and “finding yourself” was it for the devotees of this Cult of the True Self.

This was really a celebration of narcissism. Ace of Spades summarized a typical latter-day result: “I gotta be me, as the douchebag credo goes.”

Few people understood the danger of this in the 1950s, when America had just won the Second World War and was coping with the major geopolitical and military problems of the Cold War. It was not until the next decade — when a generation of youth went off to college with this goal of “finding yourself” planted firmly in their minds — that suddenly everything seemed to go haywire. “Finding yourself” for many of these people turned out to require disrespect for authority, a rebellion against law and morality, an attitude that in the 1950s had been foreshadowed by the bohemian decadence of the so-called “Beat” writers like Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burrows and Jack Kerouac. Somehow this hedonistic nihilism — the “if it feels good, do it” mentality — got mixed up in radical politics, so that New Left leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) coined the motto, “Smash Monogamy,” engaging in orgies as a supposed means to revolutionary “liberation.”

All of this, as I say, originated with the psychoanalytic obsession, that “search for the truth through painful dark passages of the past” as Wakefield described it, which was how Freudianism was understood by the secular intellectuals who popularized the Cult of the True Self.

Because I was always skeptical toward Freud — all that “Oedipus complex” nonsense and so forth — I’ve sometimes found myself arguing with people who will assert that it was not Freud himself who was so wrong, but rather that his theories were misunderstood and that what flourished after his death was a corrupt forgery of actual Freudianism. This is partly true, and partly false. On the one hand, it is true the silly quest for “finding yourself” described by Wakefield was not what Freud himself sought to foist upon the world. On the other hand, you cannot deny that Freud planted the seed from which the massive tangled weed of “pop psychology” sprang up in 20th-century America. Attempting to exculpate Freud for the real-life consequences of his ideas is like claiming that Marx was not to blame for the evil deeds of Stalin and Mao.

During the Cold War, there were always socialists who, when confronted with the reality of totalitarian Communist regimes — in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — would insist that this was not really Marxism, that somehow there could be “true socialism” without a repressive police state to enforce it. Likewise, the defenders of “true Freudianism” insist that the Viennese quack’s misguided ideas can never be blamed for what has observably gone wrong in the field of psychiatric therapy in the past century. Oh, if only people were so lenient in judging Christianity! Yet every time some televangelist gets caught fooling around, the god-haters exult that the scandal proves how wrong Christianity is, and how everyone who believes in the Bible is a fool or a hypocrite. But I digress . . .

When we strip away the mysticism of “theory” from Freud’s work, we realize that the business of rummaging around in the patient’s childhood (“painful dark passages of the past,” as Wakefield says) was intended not to discover the “true self,” but instead was meant to discover why the patient was so unhappy. What was the origin of the neurosis or whatever it was that had brought the patient to the doctor? The attempt to understand this, from a developmental perspective, was seen as the necessary precursor to helping the patient successfully adjust to his situation in life. And this focus on adjustment — that is to say, learning to “play well with others,” to find a useful place in society and be happy with one’s place — was what psychotherapy was really supposed to accomplish. There are always angry misfits and helpless bumblers in the world, and whatever diagnostic label you apply to people who can’t cope, they can learn to cope better if you can get them to consider why they’re such a messed-up bundle of craziness, and also get them to see the importance of getting their act together so that they stop ruining other people’s lives.

Prior to the 1970s, one commonly heard the term “maladjusted” used to describe the basic problem of people who couldn’t get along with others, or couldn’t successfully manage their own lives. The maladjusted person often has some unrealistic idea of how life should be — e.g., a childish fantasy of “fairness” — and this makes them unable to deal with how life really is. You can read Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer to see how these misfits are often drawn to political movements as a means of trying to close the gap of cognitive dissonance between reality and their own mistaken ideals. We have seen this in recent times, with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement,, “Black Lives Matter” and the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria serving as vehicles for the emotional tantrums of maladjusted misfits. People whose lives are a carnival of folly love nothing better than to assemble in mobs with other kooks and weirdos, spewing deranged rhetoric of “social justice,” seeking political power on the basis of their imaginary victimhood.

“The fact is the ‘respectable girl from a nice family in Connecticut’ ship has already sailed.”
— Ella Dawson, July 2014

“Finding yourself” — the narcissistic mission of the Cult of the True Self — requires you to believe that the person you actually are is not authentic. If you’re a 24-year-old Gender Studies major with a bad attitude and a herpes infection, working in the non-profit sector, you do not want to believe that this is your True Self because, frankly, you’re a pathetic joke. It seems your destiny is to be lonely and unloved, binge-watching Netflix in a Brooklyn apartment with your cats and your Valtrex prescription. Once upon a time, you were so hopeful and full of potential, a popular student in high school, and when you look back to the once-promising person you were, it’s difficult to understand how far you’ve fallen in a few short years. Oh, but your True Self is innately wonderful, and so you must build mental barricades of rationalization around this concept, to cling to the belief that you are worthy of admiration, and that your own bad decisions were not actually wrong:

I’m bisexual, and everyone knows bisexual women are total sluts. We’re attracted to both genders: we are greedy and slutty. . . .
I am currently non-monogamous, because being able to date any gender is not enough for me. I also need to date everyone. One of these relationships is primarily sexual — we do weird s–t to each other and I call him “daddy” because in addition to being a slut, I am also a bad feminist. I often give my phone number to cute bartenders and flirt with YouTube celebrities on Twitter because not all of my needs can be met by one person, or even two people. I have a lot of needs as a twenty-first century career woman and slut. Everyone knows non-monogamous people are wild as f–k. Sexual exclusivity is so 2013. . . .
During college, I was the editor-in-chief of Wesleyan’s “art and sexuality magazine,” better known as Unlocked Mag. During my tenure, I did two semi-nude photo shoots and was Miss May in our 2014 calendar. I used the line “So how does it feel to f–k the editor of the sex magazine?” at least four times.
I wrote my senior thesis about the activist potential of feminist erotica, and I made a ton of jokes about what kind of research my thesis would require. I f–ked my college boyfriend in my thesis carrel at least once. . . .
I have herpes and thus I am a degenerate slut.

If you’re going to be a degenerate slut, I suppose, you might as well be as flagrant about it as possible, but one cannot build a society on the basis of such behavior. No responsible mother or father would ever want their daughter to become someone like Ella Dawson, nor would any mother or father want their son to date someone like Ella Dawson. She is utterly reprehensible, a toxic stain on humanity, her “feminism” more dangerous to society than her virus-infected genitalia. Read more

Category: Culture, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Go Tribe!

Posted on | October 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Tuesday
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Teaching Intolerance: How Columbia University Feminists Suppress Dissent
The New Americana
InversionSuicide
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState

FMJRA 2.0: Station To Station
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState

Welcome to 2016: ‘When the Insane Are Normal, the Normal Are Insane’
EBL@RedState

‘Quem Deus Vult Perdere, Prius Dementat’
EBL@RedState

News Flash: Feminists Hate Men
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState

Queer Feminism at Marquette University
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 10.24.16
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

The Clichés of Third-Wave Feminism
Regular Right Guy
InversionSuicide
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 10.25.16
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 10.26.16
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

The Really Important Headlines
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 10.27.16
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Radical Feminist @MeghanEMurphy Confronts the Transgender Menace
Inconceivable!
Regular Right Guy

In The Mailbox: 10.28.16
A View from the Beach
EBL@RedState

Suggestion For What To Do With Hillary

Posted on | October 29, 2016 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

When you’re on active duty in the military, much hay is made about the concept of a “lawful order”. You’re to obey all orders, per General Order Number 6. While you retain the absolute right of self defense, you also had better not violate International Law (e.g. Geneva Conventions), Civil Law, or engage in “conduct unbecoming”. The last is pretty much a blank check to burn anyone.

Having said all that, if you’re in any authority position (and your name doesn’t rhyme with “Squintin'”) you also need to make sure that the orders you give are lawful, and not just the ones you follow. Precisely how specifically that applies to the FBI I don’t know for certain, but I doubt that their approach varies significantly.

Which is why the whole concept of destroying the evidence in the case of Hillary’s email server seemed kind of squishy. Obviously the FBI isn’t an evidence storage depot, and so there may be plenty of procedure covering all that.

But Kerry Pickett over at The Daily Caller dropped the October Surprise of Justice:Agents within the Federal Bureau of Investigation never destroyed laptops given to them by aides of Hillary Clinton as previously reported, a Washington D.C. lawyer with a source close to the Clinton investigation says.
As a military type, I would have called the order to destroy that sort of evidence “unlawful”. But to have been a fly on the wall when that news reached Comey’s weasel den would have been exquisite. While Anthony Weiner is busy renewing his acquaintance with the underside of the bus, this smacks of a fig leaf. My surmise is that FBI agents communicated that the unlawful order to destroy the Clinton evidence was disregarded, and there was a signal that Comey could either drive the bus, or go under it. Weiner, therefore, goes under the bus instead.

Others have speculated that Obama bears some animus toward Her Majesty:The other angle here is that the Obama people have always hated the Clintons and a lot of people on the Left of the party still hold a grudge against Hillary. This could simply be a case where the Obama people are using this as an excuse to execute the kill shot on someone they truly loath. Politics is a blood-sport and Obama’s people play rough. They cracked open sealed divorce documents twice to help Obama win local campaigns in Illinois. They would not flinch at doing the old bag like this.Yeah, but a proper investigation of this hairball is going to severly risk fragging #OccupyResoluteDesk himself.

Which brings us to my suggestion of what to do with all this, given a Trump Administration.

Conduct a thorough, proper investigation. No malarkey.
Write a law pertaining to the 2018 election, treating the electorate as a jury.
Place a simple question on the ballot in every state: “Is Hillary Clinton guilty? Yes/No”. (Understand that a proper investigation might add some Big Other elected names to the list.)

Such a procedure would ensure that there is time to do the investigation correctly, and relieve any one person of Her Majesty’s wrath. It would also set a useful precedent, since the Founders really weren’t considering the Too Big To Jail case back when they put quill to parchment.
It would also provide substantial closure for an electorate that feels as though our government has devolved into a neo-aristocracy.

Well played. pic.twitter.com/abMQ7Bu61e

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) October 29, 2016

Category: Uncategorized

Doctor Kook and the Mysterious Case of the Bill-Paying Sperm Donor

Posted on | October 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

Suppose you were a very intelligent young man from Massachusetts. You are not only smart, but tall and handsome. You go to college, then go to law school, hire on with a good firm, you’re making good money and then you meet a woman. She’s from the Midwest and attended a good state university where she was a sorority member. Like you, she’s tall, and she’s also got a winning personality. You’re thinking: “Wife material.”

Being a smart young lawyer, you realize that marriage involves risk. So at some point, as your relationship with this charming young woman drifts into serious territory, you will find a way to determine her attitude toward divorce. Perhaps you might mention a friend or relative who has gone through a nasty divorce, and how rough it is on him, arguing with his ex-wife, the emotional trauma the kids are suffering. You just bring this up casually, maybe looking for situations — some news item on TV, whatever — that function as a plausible cue to raise the subject, in a way where she doesn’t realize you’re trying to gauge her response.

When a man is assessing a woman as wife material, of course, he wants a woman who condemns divorce in the strongest possible terms. Obviously you, the handsome young lawyer, would be a fine “catch” as a husband, and the one thing you definitely don’t want is to have your life wrecked by a woman who cheats, or gets bored with married life, or for whatever other reason decides in 10 or 15 years that she’s going to dump you, taking your kids and half your assets. No, sir, you never want to be that sad figure, the Divorced Dad, trying to start your life over encumbered with the burden of monthly child-support payments and feeling like you’ve got a gigantic flashing neon sign over your head: “LOSER!”

“One life, one wife” — that’s the way any smart fellow approaches marriage, and therefore when considering a woman as wife material, the successful young lawyer should be looking for a deeply conservative woman. You’re looking for a religious woman, who views marriage as a sacred institution, divinely ordained: “Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder,” and everything else in the Book of Common Prayer ceremony. This consideration is especially important to the young lawyer who’s bringing home good money, because the world is full of wickedness in the 21st century, and woe be unto him who marries a woman who does not take her wedding vows seriously. “Till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance,” etc.

As the reader may have guessed by now, the lawyer I’ve described is not merely a hypothetical character. Both he and the Midwestern sorority girl are real, and I omit their names for a reason. You see, in addition to inquiring into a woman’s attitude toward divorce, a smart fellow nowadays must keep in mind that their are many dangers out there in this world full of wickedness. Here once again, the successful young lawyer would be advised to seek a conservative and religious woman as his bride. And just to make sure she is authentic wife material, he should make sure to ascertain her attitude toward homosexuality.

“Yuck! Disgusting! A perverse abomination!”

That would be an acceptable reaction. Your standards might vary, but a young man should be cautious about marrying a woman whose attitude toward the LGBT crowd seems unusually . . . shall we say, tolerant?

Perceptive as we would expect a smart young lawyer to be, he could see that a woman with conservative and religious views about the sanctity of marriage — which, as I say, should be sine qua non for wife material — is likely to frown on the LGBT way of life. Not a hateful bigot, maybe, but not too tolerant. Because the world is full of wickedness. Read more

Category: Gays, Marriage, Sex Trouble