Erick Erickson wrote a must-read piece to the young men of the conservative movement. It’s good stuff and especially important considering men are to be future leaders at home, at church, etc.
Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores.
First, are these young people being taught anything by their parents? I was at another service-oriented gathering of young women where the girls were in tight bandeau-skirts (you know, the kind of tube-top skirts that hookers wear on street corners?). They were sitting with their mothers. What is going on here?
Second, have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?
Neither path is a way to self-love and respect, mind you. Both tracks will inhibit future success.
Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum. So:
1. No cleavage. That’s right. Cover that up. I say “no” in absolutist terms because women will show a tiny bit and that’s okay, but really, in a business environment where ideas are the priority, a dude thinking about your ta-tas is counter-productive.
2. Skirts no more than three finger-widths above the knee. Why do I even have to write this? Well, because someone is allowing these girls out of the house with mini-skirts that reveal too much.
3. Save the stilettos for Saturday night on a date with your boyfriend.
4. Bend at the knee. No, I don’t want to see your butt.
Young women, you degrade your own value by dressing and then acting the ho.
I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)
You know what a guy thinks when you slut-it-up? He thinks: If she’ll do that with me, she’ll do that with anyone.
This is not politically correct advice, mind you. Young ladies at college are encouraged to embrace their sexuality and flaunt it on the one hand (empowerment!) or to be tough, gruff and make-up free (man’s world!) to be taken seriously.
A successful woman can be tough and beautiful, modest and stylish, smart and sexy while still being chaste and having expectations of men.
The conservative movement means conservative values–promoting behavior that will lead to a sound society. Family is at the basis of this. Sexuality, and the self-management of it, is at the core of family.
A man who will use self-restraint, respect a woman, honor her enough to not pressure for sex–is a man who will more likely be faithful in marriage, work and life.
Likewise, a woman who sees herself as more than a sex-object and realizes she doesn’t need to be a man in order to be worthy, who carries herself with confidence and modesty, will attract men who want to get married and make babies.
It is disheartening that these ideas even need to be written about, but clearly they do. If, at the number one conservative conference of the year, young men and women are looking and acting like the cast of Jersey Shore, it’s time to reset the compass.
It’s past time.
P.S. Parents, your children reflect your standards, or lack thereof. For. Shame.
UPDATED: Worth a read. A father gives his account of young women and says, in his article, The Death of Pretty:
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.
But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.
Please read the whole thing.
Well, at least Wonkette is consistent. They are for sluttiness! Yay! Let’s promote STDs, drunken debauchery, casual sex, and by extension, the inevitable unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result. Isn’t being progressive positively regressive? Like it’s some big cultural evolution and progress to have humans rut like animals.
Dan Riehl welcomes Tube Tops.
There is, in fact, a sort of intellectual jujitsu that a few conservative males practice, wherein they decline to respect women in the egalitarian John Stuart Mill sense (because, doncha know, that’s feminist, and it’s bad), and yet they decline to do it in an Old-World, gentlemenly sense (because that would be old-fahioned, and we’re all very modern around here). These two approaches can overlap, but in a certain type of male they might both be eschewed . . . and that is a recipe for caddishness.
I’ve seen it, and it isn’t attractive.
But, you know: these matters of etiquette aren’t easy, no matter where one stands on the social-conservative spectrum. And conventions . . . well, they can be dicey arenas when it comes to the etiquette of flirting. (Rebecca Watson just called to point out that a guy once tried to coffee-rape her in an elevator, which, you know . . . made me sigh heavily.)
The bottom line is, treat people decently. If you’re wrestling with heavy-duty personal demons such as uncontrolled anger—or a tendancy to proposition new acquaintances‐don’t drink as heavily, even if there is a hosted bar.
She brings up a good point on acting respectful. And that’s really what I’m talking about here–dressing, acting respectfully, appropriately (man, I hate that word).
It’s a matter of even knowing what is respectful attire, action, etc. This all makes me seem terribly old-fashioned. And it probably makes me seem hard on women.
If a woman is looking for a man, don’t act like a little girl, don’t dress provocatively and then be appalled when you’re propositioned, and have a couple standards for behavior–your own and his.
These sorts of things used to be taught. Now the rules and expectations are so blurred and confusing, there’s a certain amount of blithering hysteria involved in the Western mating ritual. Girls really have no concept of their own value and are shocked at being treated as a commodity.
Question: Were loose standards the standard for getting into the bloggers lounge? Inquiring minds outside the room want to know.
Wayne Elise: The Modern Dale Carnegie Explains How To Talk To Women, Tech & Dating, And Sex V. SensualityThursday, September 24th, 2009
Wayne Elise makes his living helping men find women. I suggested to him that we should have a lonely hearts male blogger meet-up, video tape it and see how good he really is. I personally wonder if the male bloggers protest too much and actually have healthy personal lives or if they’re in dire need of his services. Wouldn’t it be fun to find out?
Anyway, we also talked about the culture and how it’s affecting dating. He noted that women are getting much more aggressive, that sex is talked about more but there seems to be less of it, and that mystery is gone, too.
At the end I discuss Obama v. Palin. Hope you’ll listen!
It’s statements like these that get my co-blogger John Hawkins in trouble:
It’s not choices that are causing problems for women, it’s expectations.
Women are no longer merely expect to act like women. Now, feminism, liberalism, and Hollywood says they’ve got to be able to do everything women used to do AND everything that men still do, and then some.
The old feminine ideal was the woman who got married to a good man, stayed home, took care of their house, took care of the kids, and took pride in making the whole family function.
Now, look at the messages women get from popular culture: Dress like a fashion model, cat around like the women from Sex in the City, get married, have a beatiful house, have 2.5 kids, have a career that’s every bit as successful and fulfilling as your husband’s, and still look like a professional actress, even when you’re 60 years old.
There are only so many hours in a day, days in a week, and weeks in a year and there just isn’t time for most women to do all that. Granted, there are a few who manage to pull it off — or at least seem to do it to the outside world.
But, the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill — women, in part because of their emotional natures, are just made to feel worse about not living up to the hype of what modern feminism says a woman should be.
Where I agree: Yes, women have more expectations now and that can make life difficult. That is, women both internally and societally are expected to do the whole female progenitor life-cycle thing within the male-defined work-cycle. A woman who doesn’t “work” is often viewed with suspicion both by modern men and women who work outside the home.
As a working, professional woman, I can tell you that the expectations grate. I’ve had women judge me for working (a female patient said to me once, as I was taking the practice for my husband who had sprained his ankle), “You’re not leaving your children at home, are you?” I’ve had women judge me when I took time to take care of my babies and then, home school my children one year. Men, too.
So the nearly impossible standards applied culturally–Oprah, Martha Stewart, Rachel Ray–can make a woman feel “less than” no matter what she decides to do.
Where I disagree: This statement rather breezily dismisses the untapped potential of women: ” the reality is that most people have skills, abilities, desires, and wants that they never fulfill”.
Really? Without the biological imperative, men have a freer time of fulfilling their skills, abilities, and desires. What are they denied? Gestating, birthing and nursing a baby is what they’re denied. That’s a huge trade-off, one, as a woman, I would never give away. Still, the reality is this: since I value myself and my children, and how I’m wired and made, I decided to focus on my children for a few years. That, by necessity, slowed my career roll during what would be considered peak professionally creative years. Ten years later, I’m jumping in with both feet while still balancing my child raising concerns–working around a school schedule and cutting hours to be with my pre-school age child. Childhood is fleeting, and I want to be there for it.
Still, I do not have the dichotomy that only a stay-at-home mother can be a good mother. That’s just patently false. Both fathers and mothers can parent a child, even a baby. There are wonderful care-givers who raise children even better than parents. For generations, children have had nannies, grand-parents and other care-givers and most survive just fine. I am not, however, a fan of huge day care centers, but there are even good versions of those.
This all being said, a woman with talents and gifts does NOT have to subsume them to motherhood in order to be a good woman, or a good Christian woman. That is just nonsense. It should be an affront to all men and women that a woman’s talents, gifts and desires can be dismissed as an acceptable trade for a housewife life.
Many women find a way to incorporate their gifts into their family life. Having stayed at home, I can testify to the challenge of managing a house and kids. It is no lie when people say it’s the most difficult job and so many elements of it are beyond a person’s control. That is, a child may cry inconsolably, the house is perpetually being “undone”, dirty laundry self-generates, and all of these things are out of a person’s control. And in today’s society, a woman is alone at home. She can be socially disconnected. The internet has been a huge gift to stay-at-home parents. It’s a connection.
Social isolation and lack of control contribute to unhappiness. Read up on psychologist Seligman’s work in this regard. That’s a stay-at-home parent’s whole lot in life. There is a good reason women at home might be unhappy and the unhappiness increases the more kids a woman has. More kids equals less control. Also, she may be frustrated at her unused talents.
Before the post-war generation, women often worked with men–in the fields, in the tavern, in the store, etc. A woman was not June Cleaver. The industrial age changed a woman’s role. Tasks became divided. A man changed the oil and mowed the lawn. A woman cooked and cleaned. Exclusively.
In this new generation, women are working and rearing kids and doing many things. They may be unhappier than men, but that in no indicates that a woman should be only in the kitchen. Now, if that role fulfills her (and I know that for many women, this is the case) she will contribute mightily to the household.
More women these days are like me. Moving in and out of the workforce around children and going back to work when the kids reach school age. Is it more challenging? Maybe. Not maybe. Absolutely, it is. But would women trade this? I can only speak for myself, but the answer is a resounding “no”.
I have the pleasure of writing, doctoring and being an online activist while also being a mother. I love it all. And many women embrace the freedom to choose these roles.
It should also be noted that with loosening societal strictures, men, too, are becoming more involved in the household tasks and child rearing. That’s all to the good. This too, is not a new phenomenon. In the pre-industrial world, kids knew what dad did because at a certain age, kids helped dad do the work. Kids bond with fathers just as surely as they bond with mothers. It has a different quality, of course, but it’s just as real and necessary.
This is a lot of words to say that I think it’s wrong to dismiss the loss to the individual woman and to society when a woman doesn’t use her gifts and talents just as I think it is a loss to the individual man and to society when a man doesn’t involve himself with his child’s life.
That men would discourage women from using their gifts is patently wrong. That women would discourage men from child-involvement is patently wrong.
If there is one gift the feminist movement gave to society, it’s this: women have the freedom to pursue developing their talents. This societal shift forced men to become more involved (or, it put more burdens on women who don’t hold a man’s feet to the fire). Both men and women have benefited.
Question: Name 10 books every young man should read before his 18th birthday.
Posted by President_Friedman
Here’s the deal. There are so many books that could be read. I decided to include children’s books and kinda “grow up” through them. The Bible should be read to a child, there are great childrens’ versions, from the beginning. The stories all tell a moral and form the groundwork for any other stories both from a moral sense and a literary sense. There are archetypes in the stories that recur again and again. The Bible is a life-long must. [Note: I prefer to read the Bible in the Old King James. First, it makes other older English writings easier to understand. Second, the vocabulary is rich and lyrical.]
As a child ages, more complexity enters the stories. Not every story has a happy ending. Also, note that some of the books are non-fiction. Frankl’s book is a must-read. A young man tends to be petulant and put-upon. Viktor Frankl survived the Holocaust and found the keys to survival and mental health. It is a perspective-inducing book.
You’ll note that there aren’t just ten. Too few, for me. And I could have easily made the list 25.
A reader asked if I’d pick the same books for girls. The strange answer? Yes. But I’m not a typical girl. When younger, I also read all the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew series. My sister loved Little Women and the Laura Ingells books. Anne of Green Gables is good for female protagonist. Also Jane Austen. Period. Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Excellent.
Aesops Fables are a given. My kids LOVED these.
The recommendation to just get kids reading is wise. I make my kids read a section of something and write a report on it nearly every day during the summer. They love reading.
The Federalist Papers I considered including, but I also was thinking of compelling reading that taught while telling a story. I put The Prince in the strange category of important reads but would mean more to someone with more life experience.
Brave New World should be read opposite 1984 and compared and contrasted, in my opinion.
Martin, I too, read the encyclopedia when I was bored and bought an old set for that purpose with my kids. (Ditto medical encyclopedia, but I’m a nerd.)
Okay, as far as the Odyssey goes….it’s good, but heavy. Instead, I have had my kids read the Percy Jackson and The Olympians. Excellent series by Rick Riordan that will teach your kids about the gods in such a fun way they won’t know they’re learning. Can’t recommend these books enough. (Ages 8-14, but I love ’em too.)
And Watership Down? Are you kidding me? That book was assigned when I was in 9th grade and I think I almost gave up reading. That book, along with Catcher In The Rye, inspired me full of hate both for stupid rabbits in their byzantine warrens and slacker, aimless college students.
Also, my favorite writer when I was a kid was Hemingway. I read them all. Oh! And anything by Chaim Potok, especially The Chosen.
As far as self-help goes, “Don’t Sweat The Small Stuff”, is a great read. Also, if a person wants to manage his or her life, Stephen Covey’s 10 Habits is classic. This book is a good one for a kid to develop a framework for managing his life. First rule is most important: Begin with the end in mind. Words to live by.
15. Winnie the Pooh A.A. Milne
Exposition of common personalities. Friendship.
14. Charlotte’s Web E.B. White
Cycle of life and death. Memories transcend death.
13. The Tale of Peter Rabbit Beatrix Potter
Listen to your mother. Obedience. Adventure.
12. Where the Wild Things Are Maurice Sendak
You always have a home and someone who loves you. Power of family.
11. The Velveteen Rabbit Margery Williams
The power of love to transform. Overcoming hardship. Finding purpose.
10. Frog & Toad Are Friends Arnold Lobel
Friendship makes life better. Adventures. Treasuring friendship.
9. The Lion, Witch & The Wardrobe [Series] C.S. Lewis
The power of choice. Doing the right thing against all odds.
8. Man’s Search for Meaning Viktor Frankl
Surviving even the worst oppression. Psychology of men.
7. 1984 George Orwell
Best description of totalitarianism.
6. Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand
How a free society can be turned of their own will into slaves of the state.
5. Lord of the Rings J.R.R. Tolkien
Faith. Leadership. Loss. Ambiguity of evil. Adventure.
4. Maslow on Management Abraham Maslow
Best book on the psychology of leadership and management, bar none.
3. Dune Frank Hebert
The power of servant leadership verses dictatorial force.
2. Sun Tzu’s Art of War
Again, understanding the psychology of leadership and tactics to employ.
1. The Bible God
Obviously, every educated person should read the Bible. It is a primer on human nature, natural law, morality, consequences, and connecting a person’s physical existence to the Creator. In essence, while many books can teach people what to do, the Bible gives a foundation for why something must be done. Truly, “the foundation of all knowledge is the Word of God.” Amen.
Maybe there should just be a regular post highlighting the Leftist sexist, racist, whatever is not p.c.-ist of the day here. Goodness knows the list would be filled. Today, it’s David Letterman.
David Letterman made news for spewing sexist tripe about Sarah Palin, but more than that, making jokes about Palin’s 14 year old daughter–because, you know, it’s okay to talk about statutory rape if she’s a conservative women. They’re not people!
John at Powerline says:
Malia Obama will turn fourteen during her father’s term in office. What do you think the chances are that Letterman (or anyone else) will make obscene jokes about her on network television?
Tommy Christopher says a few interesting things and I’m quoting him extensively here. He says:
Now, I need you all to stay with me here while I make a small distinction. There are some who would try to hang Letterman’s attack on “the Left.” I’ll get to “the Left” in a minute, but Letterman is no more a liberal, in the political “team sports” sense of the word, than Guy Cimbalo is. They are not conservatives, but they are also basically apolitical. Their words are owned by a popular culture that is hostile to conservatism, but also to liberal ideals (of feminism as well as others). They are a third column.
Bill Maher is a guy who straddles the line between the Left and pop culture. As a liberal, I don’t claim ownership for what he says, but there is a clear argument to be made in favor of this. When he makes “retard” jokes about Sarah Palin, which I’ve heard him do frequently, he deserves nothing but scorn from all sides.
I include them with the Left, Tommy, and for one simple reason: how they vote. They vote Democrat. Every. Single. Time. They are on the Left. Like the major media organizations, they like to pretend at “being above” or “transcending” party affiliation. Bull crap. They are Democrats. They vote Democrat. They’re the Left. And as their worship of President Obama (and in the comedians cases avoid poking fun of him altogether) demonstrates, their politics most definitely influences how they report.
On to the Left, Tommy says:
This is where the Left comes in. While they might not own what these entertainers say, they do have a duty to dis-own, a duty born of their desire to condemn Mel “Sugar-tits” Gibson et al, a duty that I’ve found them shirking for the most part. Instead, the tendency is to engage in “Yeahbut.” You know, “Yeah, but x conservative said y horrible thing…” (a curious exercise that essentially lets people you view as scumbags set your boundaries for you), to excuse it, or to ignore it altogether. It is here that the Left takes ownership.
When Keith Olbermann launched a sexist attack on Carrie Prejean, unless I missed it, there was silence from the Left, or agreement. On the Playboy article, with the exception of HuffPo, the Left’s reaction was to excuse Playboy and smear me. Even the National Organization for Women had to be prodded into a statement, but one which they didn’t feel compelled to put anywhere on their website.
The entire world is hostile toward women, but you don’t get to lay claim to being the good guys if you don’t believe in protecting all women, especially when it’s this obvious.
Feminism is not about equality for women, it is about promoting abortion and creating a special class for Leftist women. Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.
Remember, rape is used to shame and silence. There was little to no outrage for Playboy’s cyber-rape, and there won’t be about David Letterman by the left either because these people want Sarah Palin shamed and quiet. They want the conservative women on that list shamed and quieted.
Brace yourselves, readers, because it’s not over yet. This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”
No it ain’t over. It never was over. The Left uses their “isms” as a hammer to silence their opposition and employs the methods they deem offensive because their used to silence the “right” people. Hypocrites.
By the way, please note that it’s MEN who are outraged. And well they should be. Double standards are really about silencing them, too.
I didn’t want to do it, but in the spirit of lists and since everyone loves them, here’s the hottest guys on the right. There is no particular order. Really it’s all about what’s your type. Women are not as driven by looks as men. We all know this. They look at the whole person. These guys are not only hot, they’re smart. That makes them more desirable.
Here they are, listed in no particular order. They’re all good!
William has the whole surfer-dude thing going. Tan, blond, blue-eyed, and not just a pretty face–he writes. Better yet, he is banned in China so you know he’s a good American. It just works. He is my co-blogger at Right Wing News so this is a bit awkward, but I call ’em like I see ’em. Find him at the Pirate’s Cove.
Stephen is as 007 in real life as he looks in his pictures. Tailored suit. Resonant voice. Witty reparté. Dashing good looks. He’s hot from a different era. He’s with Pajamas Media and known, aptly, as the Vodkapundit.
Spend two minutes with David and you’re buying what he’s selling…because you want to. Dangerous, this one. David runs a consulting company in DC.
Ace of Spades HQ
If you hear Ace tell it, he’s a hideous troll. I’ve met him. He most certainly is not. He’s got that old time newspaper man thing going. He’s smart and he’s as funny in person as he is in his writing. Hot. Ace is a bloggers blogger. Find him here.
I haven’t met Jonathan, but I have seen him. Word is he’s a nice as he is good looking. (More than one DC insider mentioned him. He gets very good references.) Jonathan runs the show at Townhall and also writes there.
Every girl goes through her bad boy phase, and Brooks who is former rocker, still musician, serial entrepreneur and ardent libertarian fills the bill. He’s big is huge on Twitter. He’s a tech and new media guru. Website here. Twitter here.
Jeff is one of the few men in the world who looks good with a moustache and a beard. He eviscerates leftist logic with humor and now, he could kill them too, because he’s some sort of martial arts master. Glad he’s on our side. Find him at ProteinWisdom.com
Guy has an angelic face, but don’t be deceived. He is a radio host for WIND in Chicago and guest hosts for Hugh Hewett. He’s smart and I think there’s badness underneath that take-him-home-to-mama face.
If you’re a conservative woman night owl, you know this man intimately. He’s a commentator on Red Eye the Fox news show that airs at 3 AM Eastern. If you’re not a night owl, set your DVR, he’s worth it. Or get to know him on Twitter like I did.
Patrick Gleason and Kelly Cobb
I call them the ATR Twins. These guys work for Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform think tank. As an organization, ATR has the nicest, smartest, yes chivalrous, men around. Patrick and Kelly are sartorially perfect bookends and almost (almost) too much fun.
Sid knows more about new media than anyone you’ll meet. He’s an Iraq vet, a former city councilman, and great designer. Find him at CitiesofVision.com.
Comedians are like rock stars, they get the chicks. There’s a reason for that. If a guy can make a girl laugh….. Find Stephen nightly on RFCradio.com from 11 – 12 Eastern and wherever he’s doing stand up. Most recently, New York.
He looks so Irish. Reminds me of my first crush in sixth grade. A cute saxophone player with red hair. Ah, John Dalton, where are you now? But I digress. Jon Henke also sports red hair and is another fresh faced DC guy. You can find him at TheNextRight.
What is it about Chicago and radio? They’re just good. Chicago radio guy, self-syndicated and just a wonderful person. A veteran, he’s breaking new ground in the new media radio world. Listen to him here.
Robert Stacy McCain
There really aren’t words. So I won’t try… You can find Robert and his naked realism here.
The fact is, there are lots of hot conservative-libertarian-moderate (hey James!) men. I simply ran out of room.
I’m amusing myself with headlines today. On the one hand, old, white Republican males are happy. On the other hand, young, white, blue-collar (read Republican?) males are being hammered by this recession/depression.
So, if the life arc of a white male is pondered, it looks like this: There’s the angry, young man phase. There’s the in-and-out of employment misery phase. And then there’s the happy, old guy phase. Right up until the die-before-woman phase.
Meanwhile, a woman’s
misery happiness remains relatively constant.
Would you say that fits?
Us Michiganders or is it Michiganians are good at lots o’ things. Procreation has got to be at the top of the list. I mean, look at this guy:
Authorities in Michigan say a man fathered 14 children with 13 women and owes more than $530,000 in unpaid child support.
A Michigan newspaper reports 42-year-old Thomas Frazier was jailed Thursday.
Court records say he hasn’t made a support payment in six years.
The newspaper says the unemployed man could be held for 90 days if he doesn’t pay $27,900.
Frazier says he thinks he fathered only three of the children and it’s unrealistic for authorities to expect him to pay child support that was $3,000 a month at one point.
What a fine, upstanding fella.
I’m going to swim upstream a bit on this one, though. What if women couldn’t get child support if she was unmarried? What if a woman knew that she was on her own if she got pregnant–no government support, no spousal support, no government subsidized abortions?
What if she either had to raise the child, her choice, on her own or give the child up for adoption? Do you think she would be more selective about her bed companions?
While this guy is despicable, irresponsible and a slut, he’s been enabled by at least 13 women, probably significantly more, who couldn’t be bothered to use birth control (not that that’s always 100%) or demand that he use it.
There is no way for him to make right by all these kids. He’s like the Octo-Mom. As the parent to one kid he wouldn’t be great, he’ll likely be exponentially worse with more.
The current situation where a guy can be on the hook because he’s on a birth certificate creates these insane situations. And let me be clear: I think he’s an irresponsible jerk.
Still, if women’s lib has gotten women anything, it’s ownership of their reproductive organs. A woman can make sure she doesn’t get pregnant and she pays the price if she’s irresponsible. These women needed to have more sense than have unprotected random sex with this creep. It’s not like irresponsible, slutty men make fantastic providers.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
How To Get Your Boyfriend To Dump You
Now, this, ladies, is some good advice.