Reminder and RFI

As you all will recall, I canceled my PayPal and Venmo accounts because reasons, but of course that means that I can’t get any electronic payments from supportive Readers through that medium anymore.

I know it’s a PITA to write checks, but until I set up an alternative, please send donations via that medium at the Sooper-Seekrit mailing address (6009 W. Parker Rd, Ste 149-141, Plano TX 75093) until I set up another electronic payment method.  In the interim, rather than sending monthly donations by check (as many of you do), please consider using Patreon instead in the meantime.

Which brings me to the RFI:  if not PayPal/Venmo, then who?

Suggestions please, in Comments.

Read more

Gratuitous Gun Pic: Winchester Model 64 (.32 Win Special)

Kimmy likes this one:

The Model 64 was produced from 1933 to late 1957, and from memory well over 65,000 were made, making this rifle not especially rare.  (It was re-issued in 1972 for about a year, chambered only in .30-30 WCF.)

What is rare about this rifle is finding one in excellent condition, because like most lever rifles of the era, they were used hard and often.  No safe queen, this one.

And as always, you can’t go wrong with the excellent .32 Winchester Special cartridge, which turns the .30-30 “deer” round into a more powerful “black bear” round.  Its only drawback, of course, is its scarcity (and therefore 4x the cost) compared to the .30-30 WCF.

That said, just as a dangerous game rifle chambered in .375 H&H is not going to be used that often (and its ammo cost is therefore irrelevant), the same can be said nowadays for a Win 64 in .32 Win Spec — it has become a specialist rifle rather than an everyday one.  So if you’re doing a black bear hunt in Pennsylvania or Maine, for instance, you could do a whole lot worse than carrying one of these into the woods.

And I love that breech-mounted peep sight:

Quote Of The Day

From Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom (welcome back, btw):

“What started with a mentally ill nudist with a hammer has been revealed as yet another attempt by the left to censor, shame, and criminalize speech — especially speech that is critical of their elite class.”

Yeah, as MAGA Republicans such as I are well-known for our support of loony street people with homicidal tendencies, this argument by the Socialists makes perfect sense.

Although you’d have to redefine “support” as “should be used for target practice” to get a true measure of my stance, and I suspect I’m not the only one.

Virtual Morality Questions

The era of electronic entertainment has given rise to all sorts of interesting moral questions, questions that bring shades of gray to hitherto black-and-white issues of right or wrong.  Here’s one:

I was going to file this silly thing under INSIGNIFICA when I decided it wasn’t that silly, after all.

We might think that this is a modern morality question, but of course it isn’t.  People have been sending “love letters” to each other pretty much as soon as we discovered writing, only now the communication is electronic over the Internet rather than on paper and by messenger / through the mail.  In days gone by, therefore, a husband discovering racy love letters from another man in his wife’s possession would justifiably, in my opinion, be suspicious of his wife’s fidelity — and certainly so if the other man was a mutual acquaintance, or someone living close by.

Of course, the further the distance between writers, the less likely would actual adultery take place — but, to address the above question, is virtual adultery any different from actual adultery?

Note that I’m not talking about flirty communication here;  there’s an enormous difference, in my opinion, between “I’d love to take a walk on the beach with you someday”  to “I want to suck your penis”, although some might argue that the difference is only in degree.

The arrival of the telephone added sound to the situation — and one has only to see how many “phone sex” lines there are to see the effect of that.  Still, I suppose that one might argue that such activity is purely impersonal — I’m reminded of a scene in some movie of a young woman having phone sex on one of these lines while doing her ironing and watching her baby play on the kitchen floor — and it’s all just fantasy, not adultery.

What has changed, of course, is that communication nowadays can include video, where love letters never did.  Now we are talking about a whole different ball game, aren’t we?  Or are we?

Does adultery have to require actual physical contact to be classified as adultery?

I have to say “yes” to the above — although that said, I understand that virtual adultery has all sorts of “moth and candle” implications, especially if it’s between people who know each other.  As one woman of my acquaintance once put it:  “Virtual sex has replaced foreplay when it comes to fooling around”, and she’s absolutely right — if, that is, the couple are not just strangers getting a cheap thrill out of the thing.

And there, I think, is the crux of it.  It’s not the virtual aspect of it;  it’s who you’re talking to.  Which is more dangerous to a marriage:  talking sex to a complete stranger in a chat room, on a phone sex line or on a video call, or talking sex with a neighbor, a guy from the office or a friend’s husband?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Still Inappropriate?

Last week we saw how a woman was sent home from work because her tits were hanging out of her dress.

So she covered up completely, only to run afoul of HR once more:

The worker was wearing a midi length, high neck, black bodycon dress when she was approached by HR for the second time in a week about her ‘distracting’ and ‘revealing’ clothes.

Yeah, the dress is tight-fitting, but it’s actually very modest.  I remember seeing women dressed like this not just as daily office wear, but for formal meetings.

There comes a time in everyone’s life when you simply have to tell HR to fuck off, and I think that time has come for our young lady.