Sunday Funnies; Free Like Flynn

Well, we have something other than Chines Bat Flu (although that’s still here) to talk about.

 

Why is my favorite convenience store hiding the Tobacco?

And, of course

Relationships: Who Needs a Partner?

Well, Audre really brought it yesterday, didn’t she? Like her, I think we’ve all written arguably too much about Chinese Bat Soup Flu, and yet there is little else going on. Next week is, of course, Holy Week, one of those times when we are more overtly Christian around here than usual. I suspect we’ll be even more than usual here, as well, simply because we are starting to see the suppression of Christianity in our societies, and that is not acceptable. So we’ll see.

Audre’s article reminded me of an article, considerably more lighthearted, that Jess wrote about John Ford’s reworking of The Taming of the Shrew, which she titled, appropriately A Spanking Good Time, and it is her most popular article ever here, and one of the site’s. If you haven’t read it, you should.

What are we going to do with these girls and their rambunctious posts? I vote we continue to enjoy them.

In any case, the two posts also reminded me of a post recently by John Hawkins. In it, he refers to a correspondent, who has stumbled into a relationship with a woman who wants a submissive lifestyle…

I (M20) am dating a woman (F20) who likes to be mistreated.

Okay. So this is going to sound bad but bare with me here. I’ve been dating this girl for 8 months. Been official 3 months. We care for eachother deeply and really enjoy each others company. From the outset she told me she was a people pleaser and naturally really submissive.

She wanted us to go into a BDSM style Sub and Dom relationship and though I had never been in one I figured it sounded fun and so why not?

She enjoys it when I am commanding and stuff but also enjoys being made to do things she doesn’t want to do. She has a bit of a force fantasy that she enjoys and I currently have her send me a nude every night before bed barring she is on her period when she will just show her breasts.

She is desperate to keep me happy and I sometimes force her to help me masturbate by sexting me even when she’s no in the mood. However when I talk to her about this she says she genuinely is really happy being made to do things. I’ll tell her off for failing to send me a nude every night. I’ll ignore her requests not to do things, if I apologise she says it’s okay she wants me to do as I please.

She sees herself as being put in her place below me and really loves it. It’s now at the stage she told me (because of one of my own sexual fantasies) if I wanted to get her pregnant I could and she’d obey.

The thing is… I just don’t see this as particularly healthy. It’s fun and sexy but the relationship on the whole is largely physical. I find myself being more controlling than I would normally be or would really want to be because I’m now filling a role. It’s wrong to do things when your partner says no but afterwards she will thank me.

I also find myself expecting more of her and demanding she do things I shouldn’t really but it’s part of the role.

I am worried I’m changing as a person and not for the better because of this dynamic.

I also don’t feel challenged or pushed to grow with this girl because… Well she worships me as I am and lets me do as I want.

What do I do??

John says, and I certainly agree, that he’s right to be concerned. Back when dirt was young, I tended to attract these ladies as well, probably because I don’t really back down, gracefully or otherwise. The funny thing was, this was during what we now call ‘second-wave feminism’ and without exception, these women in my life were medium or high powered executive types, who took no nonsense from anyone at work, but at home wanted to be totally dominated. Explanations? I have my suspicions, but I’m just guessing.

What I’m not guessing about is that John’s correspondent is correct. It will damage him, it did me, in all the ways, that John talks about. You know the other thing, after some period of time, for me it was about a month, it got boring. It’s hard to carry the whole relationship, especially if your working, and this is worse than most. Like most guys, I like and respect women, and value their thinking, not least because it’s nearly always different than mine. Well, guys, I’ll tell you, as attractive as it sounds to have some hawt cookie who’ll do anything you want, the one thing they won’t do, can’t do really, is be your friend, and I do not think there can be a proper relationship without a friendship underlying it. Your mileage may differ, but I bet it won’t.

Read what John has to say, as well.

Here’s what bothers me – relax, no mention of ‘you know what’.

A note: First the picture has bo relation whatsoever with the article, except that Raquel is not annoyingly skinny! Neither was Marilyn. If this article goes sideways on Audre (and I agree with her) leave me out of it. I’m not that big a fool. I will comment here though, that it is just as true for guys if you want to look good dress for your body, not some guy that just graduated from SEAL school or is specializing in soy-based food. Now, be kind to each other, and more or less behave! Neo

One of the best things – or maybe the only good thing – to come out of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ is a growing acceptance of ourselves – how we look, what we wear, the way we present ourselves. Sigh … well, it started out good anyway.

Large women, who have always had trouble with self-image, are starting to find their beauty; that beauty that is unique to them. Every woman, in her own way, is beautiful. Each is one of a kind – unique. That is something to be celebrated and it’s taken women a long time to get here. But then they succumbed to very strident ‘sisters’ who said large women could be just like thin women and pushed to make large women wear the same kind of clothes thin women wear.

It certainly can be done. Clothing manufacturers have been shaken awake to the idea that most women are not size 0 and that large women have the same amount of dollar power as their skinny sisters. Wow. What a concept. That, too, has been a long time coming. It’s more than simply scaling up on the patterns, there are other considerations involved when designing for the fuller bust or the wider, deeper rear-end. It’s a whole new science for those manufacturers and they seem to be making a real effort to incorporate fit for the fuller figure to the most popular design trends.

And then … it went awry. It always does. Right now, the fashion is to wear clothing as close to the body as you can. It’s called ‘body con’ – body consciousness. It applauds showing every inch of the female frame while still being completely covered. If you’re size 0 (as most runway models are) or the more average size 8 or 10, a woman can look like a knockout! Every curve outlined, every bust or bottom highlighted. Those women can wear sleeveless tops, crop tops (those are tops that don’t come down to the waist) and ‘skinny jeans’ so tight you can take their pulse through the jeans just by looking.

But large women – I mean those that range from 22 – 30 – have started to wear the tights, too. I’m sorry. It’s not a good look. I understand the importance of loving who we are and how God made us. But what skinny-Minnie wears is not what the large woman should wear. I’m sorry. Big women should not wear tight clothes. It accentuates the lovely bustline on a thin woman and absolutely screams OMG! when a large woman wears a tight top. No one – no one – wants to see the exact outline of those huge, heavy pendulous growths! The most ardent breast man in the world looks askance at them! Not a good look. And for those who are daring and like to go braless, well if there’s a chill in the air or the air conditioner, what’s referred to as ‘headlights’ on a thin woman are KLEIG lights on a large woman and people – not just men – people stare at them not because they’re sexy but because of the size of them!

Ok – I have never figured out the reasoning but men like to look at ladies’ behinds. I can’t imagine why but then I have xx chromosomes. If your a thin woman and you have a tight butt, tight jeans and slacks look great. If you’re a larger woman and your butt jiggles and sways and bounces, ‘skinny jeans’ are not the thing for you. They show every bump and indent under a canvas that is too hard to miss. Love your behind if you must but please, spare the rest of us having to look at that. I’m not being unkind or uncharitable – I care how people perceive the larger woman and I know the cruel and unkind things that people say when they see a large woman showing her butt.

I’ve had my size 24 days and I’ve had my size 8 days and have lived in the world of skinny and have lived in the world of fat. Large women can dress so that they look drop dead gorgeous but it takes a little discretion on the part of the woman. Flowing blouses and tops that just sort of shape to the bust and flow away from the hip are so becoming! You can wear tight jeans if you wear a tunic top that just skims the butt and look smashing!

The Big and Beautiful Sisterhood just need to be a little real when they shop. A large woman’s arms may look just fine when her arms are at her sides but ladies, please, you know you’re gonna lift them arms!!!

 

Sunday Funnies; Winning

Kind of says it all.

Get your Democratic Socialism, right here

  n0

And, of course

 

Rachel weeping

Peter_Paul_Rubens_Massacre_of_the_Innocents

A repeat, but one we can never repeat enough. With part from my friend Chalcedon, and from Jessica, as well as from me. Neo 2019

I’m back, but it was a late night and I’ve nothing prepared, so mostly this will be one more of Jessica’s, but not a happy one. It is also a day after our churches celebrate the Slaughter of the Innocents. Some of those churches, it must be said, with their eyes tight closed to what they propose. But this is one thing most of us agree on, and so a bit from me, and also a bit from my friend Chalcedon at the Watchtower

Indeed, before the advent of Christianity, human life was generally held cheap. The death rate among new-borns was high, and there would have been few families at the time who did not have the experience of losing a baby, and even a mother, in child-birth. But the massacre of little children was something else – it was seen as barbarous, even in barbarous times. Quite what even barbarous times would make of the modern West’s habit of mass abortions, who can tell? To those without an ideological blindness to it, the practice is appalling, and it is no accident that the abortion industry does not want the details of what goes on inside its clinics more widely spread; few, surely, can read the detail without a feeling of nausea? But such is the state of our ‘civilization’ that now only the Catholic Church holds the line firmly here. The same faith which told the world that even the life of a slave was worth the same as that of an Emperor in the eyes of God, tells an unheeding world that the life of every child in the womb is valued in those same eyes. It holds to a high view of the worth of human life in a world where, increasingly, it is seen as having variable value. The unborn, the handicapped (yes, don’t use the word, but do defend aborting such babies whilst they are in the womb – never forget words are all that matter) and the elderly, especially the elderly who are unwell, all of these lives have a different value to those of the ordinary person of working age upon whom health services can spend a small fortune to keep alive and as fit as possible. All lives matter, but some matter far more than others.

Chalcedon is speaking of Britain, in the States, the Catholic church has some allies, parts of the Anglican and the Lutheran churches are allies, as are a fair number of evangelicals, why any Christian is not is well beyond my ken.

And here is Jessica:

Today is the day on which the Church remembers the massacre of the Innocents as recorded in Matthew 2:13-23.

Verse 15 refers to words of Hosea 11:1“When Israel was a child, I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.” 
Just as Israel was preserved from destruction in Egypt, so God’s Son, the hope of Israel, is preserved from destruction; but just as the first-born of Egypt died, so now, do the first born of Israel.

Verses 17 and 18 refer to Jeremiah 31:15

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and bitter weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted for her children,
Because they are no more.”

Rachel, the wife of Jacob and thus the mother of Israel, is depicted by the prophet mourning over her descendants who have been slaughtered by the Babylonians. But if we take the whole of Jeremiah 30-33 we can see that either side of these lamentations there is the looking forward to the new Covenant, the new era which the coming of the Messiah will inaugurate.

St. Matthew, steeped as he was in the Jewish Scriptures, sees the parallel for us – that out of this destruction there will come a new life; Jesus is the fulfilment of the words of the prophets. At the end of the chapter there is a reference to Isaiah 11:1, where Jesus, the ‘Stem of Jesse’, the ‘Branch’, and also to Isaiah 6:13 where, after God had cut down the tree of Israel, a little stump was left from which a branch would grow.

Suffering, like the poor, is with us always, and in so far as we alleviate the suffering of the poor, we do it for and to Christ, because he is in every one of us, and we are in his image. Death is something which comes to us all, even if our society conspires to hide the fact. I never knew my mother, who died soon after I was born, and that is a sorrow, but it is one which is in the natural order of things, which is what makes the massacre of the Innocents the more shocking, because it runs against the natural order in two ways: the child dying before the parent, and adults killing rather than caring for children. What can comfort a mother for the loss of her child? And yet in our time, many mothers choose not to have their child, and society, so anxious to shield us from the reality of our own mortality, turns a blind eye and uses smooth words to condone infanticide. We should not, we cannot and must not, judge women who come to that place; we cannot know what drove them there, and everyone is different. But we can lament the slaughter, for that is what it is. If they truly knew what it was they did, then many would not do it.

We have moved from a society which accepted (because it had no choice) that infant mortality would be high, through one which sought to end that situation, to one where we routinely abort millions of children in the name of a spurious ‘right to choose’. I say spurious because no one asks the child in the womb, who gets no choice at all. So, on this feast of the massacre of the Holy innocents, let us pray for all those afflicted by this modern curse of abortion – including the women concerned.

And this, more than any other factor, is why those who would like us to call them pro-choice are not, they are part of a very ancient cult: the cult of death. They think it proper to slaughter babies, even before they are born, which to my mind at least makes them even worse than Herod, himself. Humans have a tendency to murder each other for very little reason, it took Christianity almost 2000 years to mostly end this practice, if not the desire, now we seem to be slipping back. And yes, voluntary euthanasia is simply more of the same horrible sauce.

But there are encouraging signs, abortion in the US is lower than at any time since 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade. That is something to give thanks for, for it is indeed a good start. But outlawing the practice is not really enough, the problem is that there are people that think such barbarity is acceptable. We are, can be, must be better than this.

Presumably, I’m back, and so tomorrow should be a new post, Thanks for reading these whichI’ve carefully chosen for this week.

Two (Videos) if by Sea

So, an hour with Candace Owens and Douglas Murray from the Candace Owens Show in London. Interesting, Intelligent, and enjoyable. What’s not to like?

Hat tip to Kathy Gyngell at The Conservative Woman.

And Boris Johnson at the Conservative Conference. Always interesting and often fun.

%d bloggers like this: