Mother Of The Year

Okay, so we’re all-too familiar (and depressingly so) with the scenario of a woman having sex with her daughter’s boyfriend, yes?

How about having sex with BOTH your daughters’ boyfriends?

AND the boys were aged 14 and 15?  (We’ll leave aside the question, for the moment, as to why the daughters, presumably the same age or younger than the boys, were allowed to have  boyfriends in the first place.)

Of course, if one were to play “Guess The State”, this could only have happened in California.  (No, not in Florida, because in Florida the cuckolded hubby would have shot the bitch dead.)  But Mr. Cuckold did  file for divorce a few days after Wifey’s arrest.  (She’ll probably get the house and custody of the daughters because California.  And Hubby will have to pay for the daughters’ psychiatric treatment.)

And because this was California, Mommie Dearest isn’t going to jail for statutory rape.  (I know, swap the sexes for maximum outrage.)

I haven’t seen this much wrongness in one story since the Obama Administration.

And The Last One Falls

As any fule kno, I hate change, especially change which won’t necessarily improve anything.  I also hate it when “change” is replaced by a euphemism such as “overhaul” — because “overhaul” to me means improving something or, at worst, restoring it to its original form or function after neglect.  Imagine then my disgust at this development:

Overhaul of Augusta National ahead of the Masters is sign of the times as golf seeks to be the ultimate family sport

  • Historic occasion for women’s golf on Saturday with first amateur Augusta event
  • It was the turn of some of America’s best juniors to play the course on Sunday
  • The club where nothing changed for decades is undergoing huge transformation

…and all the dreadful details are included in the link above.  Several comments come to mind immediately.

Unless the something that has been going on for decades is genocide, institutionalized child molestation or South African-style apartheid, there’s no need to change anything.  What has gone on for decades at Augusta National GC is a policy of men-only membership (only recently relaxed [spit] ) and a culture which creates a male enclave — and only to the most fevered feminist could this equate to the three horrors above.  I know, wimmens are going to say, “It’s not that important;  why are you making such a fuss?” to which my response is: “If it’s not  that important, then why the fuck  are you trying to change it?”  I’ve written about men-only places before, and the benefits of such places where men can be unholy assholes without some woman or girly-man taking offense at their language / behavior.  It’s a safety-valve  for such activity, and I for one miss it terribly.  I see nothing wrong with gender-specific institutions, whether female-only universities or, like Augusta, male-only golf clubs.  (Don’t even get me started  on military schools.)

So:  why allow women to play at Augusta, when there are thousands upon thousands of other golf courses for them to play at?  Pure symbolism, is why.  (And I’ll bet these Amazon golferettes didn’t play off the back tees, either.)

Then there’s this crap about golf as the “ultimate family sport”?  What the fuck is that all about?  Let’s be honest:  golf has always been a male preserve, except for the many lesbians who participate in the women’s tour and for the wives of male club-members who need to take a full day out of the week for a “Ladies Day” to get together and fuck around  — don’t get me started on the double standard involved with that.  (The truth of the matter is that male golfers prefer  a Ladies Day because women play too slowly and pathetically, and it beats having to wait for twenty minutes per hole while Agnes, Pookie and Frances each take four or five shots to reach a green easily reachable in two by a pre-adolescent boy golfer.)  And how can golf be the “ultimate family sport” when it bores everyone but the golfers involved to tears?

And Augusta’s decided to go along with this bullshit?  Why?  The Masters is already one of the most popular sporting events on TV, it’s already regarded as the world championship of golf by all golfers, and if even one of the tournament’s big sponsors decided to quit because feminism, other equally-large sponsors would get into fistfights to be their replacement.  (The Masters allows for only a few sponsors and severely-limited advertising time, which is probably a prime reason why it’s so popular.)  In other words, Augusta and The Masters are dealing from a position of strength, here, and — let me be quite blunt about this — they have no need to change anything.

But they’re going to, and that’s the pity of it.  And if Augusta goes, what chance do any of the other men-only clubs have of continuing?

It’s enough to make a man have a double for his morning gin.

The World’s Luckiest Man

This is one-time supermodel (and still-gorgeous) Helena Christensen, from Denmark:

…and this is one-time model and current actress Diane Kruger, from Germany:

So the question of the day is:  Apart from modelling, what do these two examples of extreme pulchritude have in common?

Answer:  Both women have had children fathered by Norman Reedus.

Let that sink in for a moment… and for the math geeks among you, here’s the diagram:

Still in math mode:  Q.E.D.

Quite Right

All sorts of trouble has come out of this:

A Danish politician claimed she was told her baby daughter was ‘not welcome’ in the parliament’s main chamber.
Far-right speaker Pia Kjaersgaard allegedly ordered Conservative politician Mette Abildgaard to remove her five-month-old baby from the room.
The mother, who is in her 30s, said she had never brought her daughter to work before, but she had to so that day because her father could not take care of her.

And Mr. Speaker is absolutely right.  When did it become acceptable for mommies to bring their brats into everywhere?  (I don’t even like seeing young children in bars, and the thought of a baby in the Parliament building… good grief.)

And the mommy in question had the absolute gall to say this:

Mrs Abildgaard also added she is entitled to a year’s maternity leave with full salary from the Parliament.

And you didn’t take it… why?  Surely the whole point of maternity leave is so that by the time it ends, the parent is capable of leaving the child in the care of someone not its parent.

This is total bullshit.  Maternity is a wonderful thing — but it’s not everything, and proud parents need to get a grip on that fact and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around them and their offspring.

Is it too early for gin?

Schools For Whores

As I’ve stated elsewhere on these pages, I’m not against prostitution per se, as long as there’s no nasty stuff (enslavement, rape, trafficking etc.) involved.  It’s as viable an employment option as any other — and I say this mostly because quite frankly, I’ve just given up even worrying about the morality thereof.

So I’m pleased to see that universities and colleges are becoming trade schools for prostitutes.  I mean, seeing as academia now seems to be concerning itself more with certification than with education, why not allow students to get acquainted with what is after all the world’s oldest profession?

According to some study or other, the following are the fastest-growing “sugar baby*” schools in the United States:

  1. Georgia State University
  2. University of Central Florida
  3. University of Alabama
  4. Florida State University
  5. University of Florida
  6. Rutgers University
  7. California State University, Fullerton
  8. University of Nevada, Las Vegas
  9. University of North Texas (!!!)
  10. University of Missouri
  11. West Virginia University
  12. University of Cincinnati
  13. University of Southern California
  14. San Francisco State University
  15. University of California, Los Angeles
  16. Columbia University
  17. New York University
  18. University of North Carolina
  19. University of Texas, San Antonio
  20. Colorado State University

As a graduate of UNT, I am unable to understand how this school could be ranked where it is.  When I was on campus, there were some  beautiful girls there, to be sure, but most looked and smelled like badgers.  (By way of explanation, that’s because UNT is notable for having a large number of eco-loons, Greenies and socialists [some redundancy]  in its student body.)

And I can only explain the appearance of Rutgers, Columbia and NYU on the list because it’s so damn expensive to live in upstate New Jersey and New York that the girls have to ummmm supplement their income to make ends meet.  (What their male  students have to do, I don’t wanna know.)  Feel free to add your explanation in Comments, should your alma mater  appear on the above list.

I am not surprised, by the way, that the “elite” schools don’t appear anywhere;  I would imagine that women attending Harvard and Princeton, to name but two, are amply supported by Daddy’s money, and therefore have no need to rent out their bodies to pay the tuition fees.  The same is probably true even on a local scale, which would account for the non-listing of schools like Texas’s SMU and UT-Austin, where I’ve seen coeds wearing fur coats to classes in winter, said fur coats probably having come from their actual fathers rather than from sugar daddies — although nowadays, who could tell?

Sodom, meet Gomorrah.

 


*Young women who fuck older, wealthy men in return for being “looked after”.  Hence the title of this piece.