The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

How Sick Is Hillary?

Posted on | September 12, 2016 | 1 Comment

The Democrat nominee’s health has become a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign. Her coughing fit at a Labor Day rally in Cleveland was at first dismissed as a random incident, but after she appeared to collapse Sunday after a 9-11 remembrance in New York, the Clinton campaign admitted the former Secretary of State has pneumonia, and she took a day off to recuperate. Now some Democrats are worried, and are wondering why the campaign hid Hillary’s problem so long:

As Hillary Clinton’s health moves from the fringes to the center of the 2016 presidential campaign, there’s a lot we still don’t know about her scare this weekend.
Here’s what we do know: Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. During a Sept. 11 memorial event on Sunday at Ground Zero, she was unsteady and clearly needed help getting into a van after becoming “overheated and dehydrated.” And Clinton canceled a planned to trip to California for Monday while she rests at home. . . .
Clinton suffered a coughing attack last week during an appearance in Cleveland, which she dismissed as seasonal allergies. She received her pneumonia diagnosis on Friday, but the public was not told about it until hours after the incident at the memorial, raising questions about whether Clinton had any plans to ever inform the public. Between the diagnosis and the near-collapse, Clinton appeared at two fundraisers, ran a national security working session, and held a press conference.
Clinton’s campaign appears to have, at best, withheld information from the public and — at worst — misled them by aggressively batting down “conspiracy theories” that her coughing fit was anything more than allergies. Opponents are already seeing the incident as proof of their claims that Clinton has been hiding health issues. And others may now be more incredulous of the campaign’s statements on her health.

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Category: Hillary Clinton

Greetings, My Fellow ‘Deplorables’!

Posted on | September 11, 2016 | 1 Comment

 

Speaking at an “LGBT for Hillary” gala in New York where the headliner was Barbra Streisand and the guests included millionaire entertainment industry moguls Barry Diller and Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton made it clear she hates me, and she hates you, too:

The Democratic presidential nominee sparked an uproar late Friday when she described Trump’s supporters at a fundraiser.
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
She added, “And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”
Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.” . . .
“Isn’t it disgraceful that Hillary Clinton makes the worst mistake of the political season and instead of owning up to this grotesque attack on American voters, she tries to turn it around with a pathetic rehash of the words and insults used in her failing campaign?” Trump said in a statement. “For the first time in a long while, her true feelings came out, showing bigotry and hatred for millions of Americans.”
Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, forcefully condemned Clinton “in the strongest possible terms” Saturday at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.
“The truth of the matter is that the men and women who support Donald Trump’s campaign are hard-working Americans, farmers, coal miners, teachers, veterans, members of our law enforcement community, members of every class of this country, who know that we can make America great again,” Pence said.
“Let me just say, from the bottom of my heart, Hillary, they are not a basket of anything,” Pence continued. “They are Americans and they deserve your respect.”

There are two kinds of people in America, according to Mrs. Clinton: Democrats and “deplorables,” and I sure as hell am not a Democrat.

To just be “grossly generalistic,” Democrats suck.

 

Category: Election, Hillary Clinton

The Tragedy of Lesbian Divorce

Posted on | September 10, 2016 | 1 Comment

Excuse the cruel irony of the headline. You were correct in your suspicion that I quite literally laughed out loud at this story from England:

A mother-of-two who repeatedly posted naked pictures of her ex-wife on social media to “scorn her for finding a new partner” has been given a restraining order.
Alissia Wright, 32, posted a series of explicit images of her partner of six years on Instagram after they split as part of a revenge porn attack.
Wright captioned the naked images with offensive hashtags and deliberately tagged others in each post so they would see them. . . .
Wright was handed a three-year restraining order at Southampton Magistrates’ Court, Hants, and was given a 12-month community order.
Wright, of Southampton, admitted two counts of disclosing private sexual photos with intent to cause distress and was also fined £100 and ordered to attend a 30-day behaviour programme. . . .
The court heard Wright, a trained carer, shared the nude images after her split with her ex-wife as she found love with a new woman. . . .
Southampton Magistrates’ Court heard the couple, who married in January 2015, split up before the offences in March this year.

So, these two lesbians had been together about five years until they got married in 2015 and broke up barely a year later. But who, we are left to wonder, was the father of Ms. Wright’s two children? Were these babies the lesbian couple created through artificial insemination, or remainders from Ms. Wright’s heterosexual past? How does this affect the lesbian ex-wives in terms of visitation and child-support payments? So many questions, which nobody bothered to examine carefully before “marriage equality” was imposed on society by government fiat, must now be worked out in real life with real people. Someone should write a book: Heather Used to Have Two Mommies, But Now They Hate Each Other.

(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)

UPDATE: Checking the files, I see the same headline was used for the news of Rosie O’Donnell’s divorce in February 2015, and that last month, I headlined an article, “Lesbian Divorce: Comedy or Tragedy?”

 

Category: Gays

@instapundit: “I Was Never #NeverTrump”

Posted on | September 10, 2016 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

For that matter, I was never #NeverTrump. I’ve always said that I’d support him as the nominee, even though he wasn’t my first, or second, or third choice. Even Ed Driscoll here isn’t a #NeverTrump guy.

I was always Trump-willing in the specific case of a third-party run with a JEB nomination. We see how that turned out.

Lately, Tribble-head seems to be less of an Archie Bunker/Billy Mays/Tommy Boy chimera as the 2016 Crap Cabaret oozes down the hillside; underneath all that spin and whitewash you might detect my lack of enthusiasm for the chap.

Still haven’t figured out what to do with the ballot. I’ll be voting early, as I’ll be staffing the actual election. It’s also important to note that I’m in a district so blue that Her Majesty could stand before the polling station tossing puppies into a wood chipper and she’d still take VA-8 handily. Trump has been running ads here, so I guess someone thinks the state that elected Greasy Terry McAuliffe is in play.

As flaky as this whole experience has been, I think we have a major earthquake or three yet to play out. Given her status as a Gold Medal Liar, it’s unclear whether the whole hacking cough thing is legitimate frailty, or a convenient offramp, since the old rules about having a scandal (Benghazi, Chappaquaiddick, &c) age off seem a bit flaccid in the face of social media.

Irrespective of the results in two months, if the Republican insiders [are] ready to overhaul the GOP after the election or something one hopes that the conservative movement doesn’t sell out like a battered spouse who has somehow acquired a masochistic streak. Probably the hardest thing to stomach on social media has been the normally level-headed people asserting anyone has to vote a certain way, or they are secretly supporting The Candidate That Must Not Be Named. Haven’t we had enough intellectual dishonesty? Trump has, if nothing else, clarified the value of Tea Parties trying to reform the GOP internally. The post-Reagan GOP is an “irredeemable” Basket of Progress. (Redemption is not a corporate concept.)  But no worries: it’s more important that we get past the idea of party loyalty than anything else.

Keep the faith, people.

Category: Uncategorized

FMJRA 2.0: The Last Tango

Posted on | September 10, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

FMJRA 2.0: Good Time Charlie’s Got The Blues
The Pirate’s Cove
EBL@RedState

Herpes-Infected Feminist Ella Dawson Decides the 2016 Election Is About Her
The Pirate’s Cove
The Political Hat
EBL@RedState

Rule Five Sunday: Labor Day Weekend Edition
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Occidental Professor @LisaWade: Heterosexual Men Are Predators
Living In Anglo-America
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 09.06.16
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Update From The Patriarchy™
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 09.07.16
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Woman Killed After Being Assaulted by Heterosexual White Male. No, Wait…
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 09.08.16
Regular Right Guy
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’
EBL@RedState

In The Mailbox: 09.09.16
EBL@RedState
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1.  EBL (11)
  2.  Proof Positive (5)

No links from A View from the Beach this week since Fritz is dealing with a death in the family. Your prayers for him and his family would be appreciated.


Category: FMJRA Award

‘A Mad Scramble for Victim Status’

Posted on | September 10, 2016 | Comments Off on ‘A Mad Scramble for Victim Status’

 

Christina Hoff Sommers is old enough to remember the 1960s, and must be amused by the absurd protests that erupt whenever she appears on university campuses. Back in the day, when students rioted over the Vietnam War and the governor sent in the National Guard, it was a serious thing. Nowadays? Fat white girls shouting “racist” at a speaker they don’t like — this is difficult to take seriously and yet, because young people themselves take this quite seriously, it requires our attention.

Dr. Sommers spent years in academia, teaching at the University of Massachusetts and Clark University. During a recent interview with North Dakota State University Professor Clay Routledge of Psychology Today, Dr. Sommers elaborated her critique of modern feminism:

Women are not children. We are not fragile little birds who can’t cope with jokes, works of art, or controversial speakers. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are an infantilizing setback for feminism — and for women. . . .
There is a theory behind the culture of victimhood: It’s called “intersectionality.” This theory posits that racism, sexism, classism, ableism, etc. are interconnected, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing. Together they form a “matrix of oppression.” This matrix is not visible to all of us because elites disguised it via manufactured concepts. Examples include “reason,” and “evidence,” which are supposedly objective, but are in fact can be masculinist, heterosexist, and colonialist “ways of knowing.” . . . However, the theory, following Foucault, teaches that “marginalized others” have access to other ways of knowing, and therefore to deeper, more authentic truths about human reality. They can share that knowledge by speaking about their lived experience while in a safe space. But to provide this kind of safety, members of privileged groups, i.e. white, able-bodied, cis-gendered middle class men, must keep quiet. It’s no wonder there is a mad scramble for victim status on many campuses today. It confers authority and prestige.

You can read the whole thing. My disagreement with Dr. Sommers, as I’ve explained several times over the years, is that she insists there is something called “feminism” which is worth defending, and that the feminist movement has been hijacked by radicals. By contrast, my opinion — and I have provided abundant evidence to justify this view — is that radicals didn’t “hijack” the feminist movement, because they were the ones who built it. Feminism was always inherently radical, intolerant of dissent, and destructive in its goals. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and therefore must be opposed with unflinching determination. This was the stance that made the late Phyllis Schlafly such a heroic figure in conservative history. Despite her own heroic courage and brilliant scholarship, Dr. Sommers’ effort to save feminism from itself is ultimately doomed. Feminism is a cult, and university campuses are the sacred temples of the feminist cult, so that anyone on campus who expresses skepticism toward the cult’s ideology is denounced as a heretic. “Hate speech” is the new blasphemy.

Student protesters accuse Christina Hoff Sommers of ‘hate speech.’

Feminism is a species of mental illness, as I have explained:

For more than two years, I have been urging conservatives to begin Taking Feminism Seriously. When I was assigned to cover the DC SlutWalk protest for The America Spectator in August 2013, I saw first-hand and at close range the kind of delusional madness that has taken hold in the minds of young women under the influence of so-called Third Wave feminism. While it can be argued that Second Wave feminism (i.e., the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1960s and ’70s) was similarly insane, Third Wave feminism has taken this lunacy beyond every hitherto imaginable limit.

If ever there was any hope that feminism could be reformed, to become a movement that rational and responsible adults could support, that hope was long ago eradicated by the fanatics who lead the movement, including the hundreds of radical professors who are paid to indoctrinate some 90,000 students annually in Women’s Studies programs on more than 700 campuses nationwide. It is these students — irrational extremists trained in the movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology — who become feminist leaders, acting as commissars who enforce unwavering adherence to the movement’s quasi-religious hate doctrines.

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
— Pat Robertson, 1992

Every single word of that is as true today as it was in 1992, and certainly Dr. Sommers is aware of the lesbian witchcraft aspect of feminism, considering that her high-school best friend Miriam Simos grew up to become the lesbian feminist witch known as Starhawk. Claims of “access to other ways of knowing, and . . . deeper, more authentic truths,” as Dr. Sommers says, are why feminism is essentially a religion.

“Right now, today, as of writing this, I identify as queer. But I didn’t always. And no, I’m not referring to that awkward, uncomfortable time in my life where I knew that something felt ‘off,’ but I couldn’t quite place it, and so I paraded around in the charade of ‘straight.’ I mean that a few years ago, I identified as homoflexible. And before that, a lesbian. And even before that, bisexual.”
— Melissa Fabello

Melissa Fabello hates men so much that she is now managing editor of Everyday Feminism, a site dedicated to abolishing heterosexuality by promoting LGBTQIA feminism. She condemns heterosexual men as perpetrators of “the male gaze,” “rape culture” and “male sexual entitlement” and boastfully identifies herself as a “patriarchy smasher.”

Ms. Fabello’s outspoken contempt for males is an attitude that is now obligatory in the movement. To quote the title of a recent textbook by Women’s Studies Professor Mimi Marinucci, Feminism Is Queer, and the movement’s implacable hostility toward heterosexual men requires an intensity of devotion that can only be described as religious zealotry.

Melissa Fabello preaches the transformative gospel of her feminist faith:

I often joke with people that feminism has been like a born-again religion for me — that once I found it and let it into my life, my entire perspective shifted in such a way that suddenly, everything made sense — and that I feel compelled to spread that gospel.
See, because when I first started discovering feminism, I realized how many of the bad things that have happened in my life, big and small, have been part of a larger social system. And coming to understand that it was never my fault or about me individually gave me space to start an immense healing process.
And when intersectional feminism found its way into my life, I was even more enamored: Not only did feminism explain what had gone wrong in my own life and the lives of other women, but it explained essentially every awful thing in the world. . . .
Because feminism has changed everything — has regenerated every cell in my body so that I am a completely different person with it than I was without it.
And I’m thankful for that every single day.

Facts and logic mean nothing to fanatics like Melissa Fabello. Feminism’s cult followers are devoted to a satanic doctrine of radical hatred.

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.




 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 09.09.16

Posted on | September 9, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 09.09.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Milo Explains The Alt-Right To CNBC
Twitchy: Who Gets To Tell President Obama The Bad News On North Korea?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #17 – The Unicorn Episode Plus Weekly Links
American Power: Mao Died Forty Years Ago; China Still Struggles With His Monstrous Legacy
American Thinker: The D.C. Gaslight District
Animal Magnetism: Rule 5 North Korea Friday
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Debt to Pay by Reed Coleman
Da Tech Guy: Screwtape Applauds Sister Jane Marie Klein
Don Surber: Whither The Democratic Party After Clinton?
Dustbury: Tebow Still Unbowed
Jammie Wearing Fools: The Science Is Settled – Most Doctors Say Granny Clinton’s Health A Serious Concern
Joe For America: Two Women Marry; Half A Year Later, Police Discover Their Nasty Secret
JustOneMinute: Dash To Dumb, World Class Olympic Edition
Pamela Geller: Three Muslim Women Arrested In Paris For Planning Attack On Railway Station
Power Line: Colin Powell’s E-Mail To Hillary Casts Her In Even Worse Light
Shark Tank: Trump, Clinton Tied In Florida
Shot In The Dark: The Raj
STUMP: Kentucky Pensions Update – Governance Woes
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – No Jews=Ethnic Cleansing
The Political Hat: Socialist On The Run
This Ain’t Hell: Elisa Lazzarino Argues Military Service Is Indentured Servitude
Weasel Zippers: Bill Clinton Mocks “Coal People” Of Kentucky, West Virginia For Supporting Trump
Megan McArdle: You’ll Miss What You Don’t Use On The New IPhone


Today’s Digital Deals
Woot! Deals
Shop Amazon – The Handmade Baby Store

Category: Linkagery

Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

Posted on | September 9, 2016 | Comments Off on Sex Facts: Robots Don’t Have Babies and There Is No ‘Teenage Pregnancy Crisis’

 

In 1999, Maggie Gallagher published “The Age of Unwed Mothers,” in which she conclusively demonstrated that the panic about teenage pregnancy (“kids having kids”) was fundamentally misguided. Contrary to what the media and politicians were telling Americans, teenage motherhood had significantly declined since the 1960s, and what had actually changed about motherhood was the decline of marriage rates for young women. Gallagher showed that the astonishing increase of unwed motherhood — now 40% of U.S. births are to unmarried women — was largely a phenomenon involving women in their early 20s.

 

Teen motherhood is not a pathology. In fact, the highest rates of teenage motherhood in recent U.S. history were during the 1950s, the Golden Age of “Family Values.” The birth rate for females ages 15-19 was 96.3 per thousand in 1957, and is now a measly 26.6 per thousand. In “The Age of Unwed Mothers” (which you absolutely must read, if you’ve never read it before), Gallagher pointed out that statistics about “teenage pregnancy” had been consistently misrepresented in the media so that births to young adult women (ages 18 and 19) were conflated in the public mind with a negative stereotype, i.e., the 15-year-old girl who was doomed to be a high-school dropout and pass on to her child a legacy of poverty.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their agenda, however, so the scare campaign about teenage motherhood has been leveraged to promote sex education in schools. Am I the only person in America who sees how redundant “sex education” classes are in the 21st century?

If kids have questions about sex — e.g., “How does pregnancy happen?” — it doesn’t require much skill to Google it. Insofar as teenagers have a problem with sex, it is not because of a lack of information, but a lack of virtue. The basic function of human reproductive organs is not exactly a mystery, and requires no more than a day or two to explain in an eighth-grade biology class. However, teaching kids the Latin names for what’s in their pants (“scrotum,” “labia,” etc.) is less important than teaching them how to keep their pants on. What kids need to be taught are lessons about courtesy, morality, and personal responsibility.

What most Americans don’t realize is that the push for sex education in schools is directly connected to Planned Parenthood’s agenda of promoting contraception and abortion, to reduce the U.S. birth rate as part of deliberate program of population control funded by major tax-exempt foundations and implemented worldwide by the United Nations. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” but is a matter of historic fact best explained in Donald Critchlow’s 2001 book Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. John D. Rockefeller III and Hugh Moore were among the most influential proponents of what can fairly be described as an anti-motherhood crusade that led to both the development of the contraceptive pill and the legalization of abortion. Considering how contrary this was to the moral and religious beliefs of most Americans, the population-control movement set about to undermine those beliefs with a propaganda campaign, fostering a myth that reached its apogee with the 1968 publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich wrongly predicted worldwide mass starvation as a result of overpopulation, based on a fallacy of limited resources.

It was this misguided neo-Malthusian anti-baby agenda, rather than any concern for “women’s rights,” which was the driving force behind Planned Parenthood and the politics that led to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. As part of this campaign, Planned Parenthood lobbied for sex education programs to indoctrinate children with beliefs and attitudes that conform to and support the population-control agenda. When parents complained about what their children were being taught about sex at taxpayer expense, defenders of these programs claimed sex-ed classes were necessary to prevent teenage pregnancy. If this “education” is based on falsehood, guess what happens when these programs are implemented?

The lifelike dolls are meant to teach teenage girls what it’s like to raise an infant, warts and all. As part of high school sex-ed programs around the world, teachers give infant simulators to their female students, who care for the robots over the course of a few days.
The babies, which can run about $1,000 apiece, are programmed to cry, scream and sleep. Computers tucked within the dolls register when the babies are changed, burped, fed or — in instances where everything goes drastically wrong — when they “die.”
“We’ve had midnight telephone calls from parents saying: ‘Please tell me how to turn it off, my daughter’s going crazy,’” as Janette Collins, a London-based youth counselor said to the Financial Times last October. “It’s the very few girls who score really well that you have to look out for. In my experience they’re the ones who go off and get pregnant for real — you’ve accidentally taught them they can cope.”
Collins might have been onto something. In fact, according to a study published [Aug. 25] in the journal Lancet, putting a robot baby in the hands of 13- to 15-year-old Australian teens seemed to backfire.
Girls who participated in the virtual infant parenting, or VIP, program were more likely to become pregnant or have an abortion by their early 20s than those who did not, the authors found.
The Australian VIP program is similar to the RealCare babies — formerly, Baby Think It Over dolls — supplied by the U.S.-based company Realityworks. Researchers in the United States had previously criticized the Baby Think It Over dolls, but this marked the first randomized control trial examining the dolls’ efficacy. During the study, 1,267 girls took part in the VIP program, while a comparison group of 1,567 did not.
The trial period represented three years’ worth of robot interventions, from 2003 and 2006, involving 57 schools in Australia. The authors report that 8 percent of the girls who cared for infant dolls had at least one baby by age 20, whereas only 4 percent of the control group did; similarly, 9 percent of the VIP group had at least one abortion, compared with 6 percent of the non-doll group during that time.

You can read the whole thing. As someone who has extensive experience in the field of child care — with six children now ranging in age from 13 to 27 — I have long criticized these robot-baby programs, not because they might encourage pregnancy, but rather because babies are not robots. Children are not objects, but flesh-and-blood human beings.

Caring for our own flesh-and-blood offspring is both a matter of natural instinct and an entirely rational activity, once we understand the benefits of having babies, which no robotic doll can teach. You may not believe, as I do, that children are quite literally a blessing from God, yet the direct personal benefits of parenthood should be obvious to any young person who has the foresight to ask, “What will happen to me when I get old?” Do we want to be lonely, unloved and forgotten, or to be cherished, respected and cared for? This consideration alone should suffice as an incentive to have children, but beyond the purely selfish motives, having babies (and raising them with good values) also provides a benefit to society.

If you think there are “too many” people in the world, you are thinking of people too generally. Are there too many intelligent people in the world? Are there too many well-educated people, too many highly skilled people, too may hard-working people in the world? Are there too many kind people or too many honest people in the world? Most people who are literate enough to read this article probably think of themselves as above-average people, and rightly so. If you are a person of superior quality, doesn’t it make sense that you would have high-quality children? After all, a person as superior as yourself would be a very shrewd judge when it comes to selecting a spouse, so that your child would benefit from the superior qualities of both parents. And since you would instill excellent values in your children, teaching them to live according to the highest moral and ethical principles, the entire world will benefit from your decision to have a baby. Or six babies, as the case may be.

 

Contributing six superior quality offspring toward making the world a better place is not, however, my only philanthropic endeavor. I’m also busy explaining scientific truth to the blog-reading masses. For example, I’ve explained that feminism causes herpes, and now I’ve got some more scientific truth for you: Robots don’t have babies.

In fact, robots don’t have sex. Oh, sure, some people seem suspiciously enthusiastic about the idea of “sex robots,” but ask yourself, “Who is having ‘sex’ in that scenario?” (Hint: Not the robot.)

Really, it’s just robot-assisted onanism. Does anybody really need that kind of assistance? I rather doubt it. However, this technology does give feminists new opportunities to engage in paranoid outbursts: SEX ROBOTS WILL TURN MEN INTO MISOGYNIST MONSTERS! Of course, feminists already think all men are misogynist monsters, so this is not really anything new, not even in terms of blatant hypocrisy (because every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.)

The best kind of sex is the old-fashioned kind.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
— Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

Feminists hate God even more than they hate men, and feminists hate babies almost as much as they hate God. Basically, feminists hate life, so it’s probably better to have sex with a robot than to have sex with a feminist. At least a robot won’t give you herpes or accuse you of rape.

 

Remember: “PIV is always rape, OK?”




 

Category: Abortion, Contraceptive Culture, Marriage, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »