And so it begins… the pussification of Harry.
Prince Harry will not be taking part in the traditional royal Boxing Day shoot because he doesn’t want to upset his fiancee Meghan Markle. The 33-year-old was just 12 when he took part in his first festive shoot but has pulled out because Miss Markle is a keen animal rights campaigner. Miss Markle, 36, doesn’t like hunting and Prince Harry is said to have shocked gamekeepers at Sandringham after he informed them he won’t be there on December 26.
Couple of points need to be made, here.
I have it on good authority that Harry is an excellent shot, and as the article indicates, he’s been doing this for two decades — i.e. most of his life. Why should he care what this totty thinks about hunting? He’s a bloody royal, FFS, and she’s the one who gets the most out of their upcoming nuptials. Hell, he can get pretty much any woman he wants — and better-looking than her, for sure. (He certainly has in the past; here’s Cressida Bonas, for one.)
So why he has to accommodate this Markle woman’s silly nonsense is beyond me.
She’s a “part-time vegan” and an animal-rights activist, according to reports. Oh, isn’t that special. Well, he’s a member of a royal family, a decorated war veteran and a keen birdshooter, which I think is a lot more special than some two-a-penny divorced actress.
I never cared about this relationship one way or the other, because it’s none of my business and celebrity stuff bores me to tears. But I get truly irritated when a woman comes into a family with traditional values — and it’s hard to think of a family with more traditional values than Harry’s lot — and wants to make everyone change around her. Arrogant bint.
I always used to think that the penchant for royals to marry other royals (or at least nobility) was silly. But the more I see of it, the more I think it makes sense: the odds are always better if you marry into your own class. No good is going to come of this marriage; you heard it here first.
How’s this for a headline?
My question: what makes a man decide to change from a good-paying job like funeral director into a low-paying librarian’s job?
Here’s an interesting survey:
Career women in Britain and the US are paying £150 an hour for sex with male escorts and are happy to splash out thousands if they stay for the weekend
Men were thought to be the primary market for male escorts, but now women are the major employers of male escorts in the UK
Women who buy sex are usually in their 30s and 40s and professional
Some say they’re ‘too busy’ for relationships as they prefer to focus on work
But, unlike men, they want more than intercourse: like a drink or meal before sex
Of course, when we men do this kind of thing with female escorts (i.e. prostitutes), we’re “exploiting women”, “treating women like meat” etc. etc., ad nauseam.
Someone remind me: when will the Cherry 2000 sexbot become available?
Under “Feminist Harpy” in the dictionary, you’ll find this picture:
Why? Because of this insane demand:
Mother demands her son’s school take Sleeping Beauty off the curriculum because the princess doesn’t give consent to be kissed and woken up by prince
Sarah Hall, from Northumberland Park, North Shields, claimed the fairytale promotes an ‘inappropriate sexual’ message to young children.
She argued the story is irresponsible because it teaches children it is acceptable to kiss women while they are asleep.
The mother of two said: ‘I think it’s a specific issue in the Sleeping Beauty story about sexual behaviour and consent.
‘It’s about saying is this still relevant, is it appropriate?’
Ms Hall is worried about what message the tale, which features a Prince waking up a Princess by kissing her, sends to impressionable youngsters.
Neither Prince Charming nor Sleeping Beauty were available for comment — because they’re fucking fictional characters.
I very seldom look at anything regarding members of the Kardashian coven, but the other day this particular pic caught my eye:
…and my immediate thought was: good grief, she’s got a fat ass. If she and that Lopez woman are responsible for women today going for butt imp[lants, she has a lot to answer for.
Only later did I notice the horrendous dye job. I will grant that as a brunette, this woman has a reasonably-pretty face (if you’re into that look). But as a blonde, she somehow manages to make herself even more trashy than she normally appears.
No man should. Ugh.
Okay, I must admit this was a funny one:
The Pratt Tribune, a tri-weekly newspaper out of Pratt, Kansas, printed the headline, ‘Students get first hand job experience’, over the weekend
I don’t know why Americans are so afraid of hyphens, because the rule is really simple.
- If you’re making a compound adjective (i.e. using two adjectives, one to describe the second), hyphenate the two if they appear before the noun being enhanced, e.g. “a laughably-stupid editor” (that would be the idiot working for the Pratt Tribune). If you don’t hyphenate the two words, the first adjective* (laughably) is left dangling out there, and sometimes you won’t know whether it applies to the following adjective (stupid) or to the noun (man). Linking the two words with a hyphen makes it quite clear.
- If you’re using the compound adjective separately from the noun, i.e. after a verb — “The editor is laughably stupid” — then the hyphen is unnecessary because laughably can only be referring to stupid.
The headline above is what we used to call a howler because the word hand could equally apply to the noun job, but in fact it refers to the previous word first. The sentence should read, “Students get first-hand job experience” (or even “firsthand”, in this case) but even then, the editor should have spotted the likelihood of the howler caused by the proximate occurrence of hand before job, and written “Students get job experience at first hand” instead.
What’s even funnier is that the hapless editor probably has an English degree from a college or university. Draw your own conclusions, but he’s clearly not a well-read man. (See how that works?)
And finally: in the U.K., “prat”[sic] means “stupid person”, which seems appropriate in this case.
*I know, “laughably” is actually an adverb, which is what one normally uses to enhance an adjective, but let’s keep the instruction simple.