I found an interesting set of articles from a young woman who graduated from Pennsylvania State University. In one, she explains how a man she “hooked up” with treated her poorly. I think I’ve been able to figure out what her approach to relationships is. In this post, I’ll explain her approach, and then discuss how social conservatives should solve problems like abortion and single motherhood.

NOTE: Please do not contact or harass this woman, just leave her alone.

So, here’s the first, most important article:

As someone who considers themselves a feminist, and I always thought that being sexual and unashamed was liberating and empowering. And for that reason, I never stopped myself from doing what I wanted to do.

In the article, she explains what it feels like to be used for sex and then ghosted by a man. She says that he never got to know her, and that makes her feel bad. What did he know about her? She says that she appeared to him as “just some blonde blacked out drunk”. In the article, she describes lying awake next to him after sex, then getting up to walk home at 5:30 in the morning. And this is not the only toxic man in her life.

She says:

This applies to more than a few people from my past… I started to realize this lifestyle wasn’t working after I hooked up with a guy who thought New England was a state. And yeah, I still hooked up with him after finding out this knowledge about him… And I don’t know if that says more about him that he didn’t know or more about me since I was willing to overlook that fact just to feel desired for a night.

Because I do turn to other people for validation. When I think about it objectively, 90% of the reason I hook-up with anyone is to feel good about myself.

She calls the search for validation an “addiction”:

I am addicted to validation I got from getting with people. I needed that rush of dopamine. I needed to know I am wanted. I got addicted to hooking up. Cause it was the only thing that made me feel good about myself for a while. When I was feeling down, I turned to boys… that didn’t care about anything except what I look like. And I have been blessed/cursed with a pretty fast metabolism and a naturally larger than average chest. So I always have known I could default to my looks for validation. It’s the easiest thing to get recognition for. And I got addicted to being told I was hot, or pretty, or whatever.

In other articles, she explains what kinds of men she’s looking for.

She’s a strong Democrat.

There are two kinds of Republicans: the ignorant and the evil. Either they are uninformed and dumb or aware of the world and other cultures other than their own and just too corrupt or bigoted to care. It’s just that being a Republican seems to now stand for religious nuts, rich, rednecks, and racists. This current election cycle has only increased my deep seeded hatred for the right-wingers even more.

And I can’t help myself, but whenever I find out someone who I have been talking to or have been friends with is a Republican, I let out an audible “ugh, really?” I can not hide my disgust.

In another article, she explains that she’s an atheist:

If singing songs, praying or going to confession makes you feel better, by all means, do what you have to do to feel better. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone, do what you want to do. As an atheist, it doesn’t offend me. I just choose not to do it.

For example, at thanksgiving dinner this year my family wanted to say grace before eating, but they know where I stand when it comes to religion.

She came out of a Christian family.

In another post, she explains why she cheated on her boyfriend:

I wish I could say I don’t know why I did it, but that would be a blatant lie. I found myself in someone else’s bed because… I didn’t have feelings for you anymore. If you were enough for me, then you would have been. But you weren’t. I stopped craving your company. I felt guilty, sure, but not enough to stop me from doing it multiple times. I didn’t care about you or how you felt. And as my feelings started to fade, yours only seemed to get stronger. I know that stings, but it’s true.

So when I would go out in that extra-lowcut dress you loved when I wore it around you and a cute guy would ask me to dance or to go hangout on the porch, I wouldn’t mention you. I guess I got tired of turning people down when I didn’t feel like there was any “good” reason to. I missed my freedom. I missed the exciting feelings that come with flirting with someone new. The whole giddy honeymoon phase, getting butterflies whenever someone texts you, stalking them on Facebook and pretending you know nothing about them, finding yourself daydreaming about the next time you hang out in class. But I think I skipped a step before getting with someone new– breaking it off with you first.

She seems to be guided primarily by her feelings. If the feelings are gone, they’re gone. She doesn’t try to pick a good guy and invest in the relationship so that she builds something. I don’t think this is going to work for her to avoid bad men.

So, what kind of man is she looking for? She writes about how interested she is in “hot” guys in many of her articles. Guys with height, looks, tattoos, piercings, displayed wealth validate her more than guys who want to protect, provide, and lead her in moral and spiritual areas. I don’t think that the men she is choosing will treat her well – they just have too many options to focus on building something good with one woman.

She’s looking for a man who agrees with her on abortion and same-sex marriage. So, men like that don’t want to protect unborn children, and take responsibility for their choices. And a man who supports same-sex marriage is siding with selfish adults. Every same-sex relationship deprives a child of their bio-mom or bio-dad. That’s not a good man to build a stable marriage with.

Regarding religion, she’s uncomfortable with men who have definite exclusive views. Religion, for her, is not about truth at all. You shouldn’t make any exclusive claims that make people feel bad. Instead, just have your private religion that makes you feel better. She’s looking for men who will not lead her in moral and spiritual areas. That’s not a good man to date, either.

How is it working out for her?

Her worldview – feminism, atheism, socialism – doesn’t have the resources necessary for her to approach relationships in a way that will work for her, in the long run. She is not a Christian, pro-marriage, or conservative. The men she chooses are not Christians, pro-marriage, or conservative. This isn’t going to lead to a relationship that is faithful, exclusive and permanent. If that’s what she wants, then she is choosing the wrong people to get there. And even if she doesn’t want commitment now, she will some day. It’s better for her to focus on finding a good man now and building him up. Men make better husbands and fathers the sooner women get in there and support them at those goals.

I always urge young women to get a STEM degree and work in the private sector until they marry and have their first child. To make them think logically, take responsibility for engineering results, and to feel validated by their achievements. I wanted to see what her college major was – because I suspected that she did not do STEM. While searching, I stumbled upon her dating profile (posted on 9Gag by her), two Instagram pages full of selfies, a Tumblr blog of sexy photos, and an Only Fans page. Her LinkedIn page showed no current or previous work experience. To me, these things are clear signs that she is head straight for evil men who will hurt her.

Saving women from toxic masculinity

I think what we have to do is focus on her disappointment with the results of her own choices, and challenge her to change her worldview and relationship choices. She needs to stop rewarding the hot bad boys with free sex. There are good men out there who want to protect, provide and lead on moral and spiritual issues. She needs to be taught to focus on those good men.

So, I see a lot of people posting stories about how much they regret taking puberty blockers, hormone replacement drugs, and especially having sex change surgeries. But the story I’ll talk about below really takes the cake. It has to do with a doctor in Florida, who calls herself “Teetus Deletus” on social media. She likes to make videos of herself dancing and joking about “yeeting the teets” of her patients.

Here’s the story from The Post Millennial:

A former patient of the Yeet the Teets surgeon has told the harrowing story of life-threatening complications that led to having over half a foot of dead rotting tissue removed following a “gender-affirming” bilateral mastectomy.

A trans-identified female has told the harrowing story of life-threatening complications that led to having over half a foot of dead rotting tissue removed following a bilateral mastectomy performed by Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher, the celebrity surgeon who advertises her “gender-affirming” services on social media to impressionable adolescents and who has apparently opted out of malpractice insurance as a crafty way to ensure no one can sue her.

The part I want to focus on is the denial of responsibility. It is so prevalent today that people on the secular left do what feels good to them, and then refuse any responsibility for the destruction they cause. They refuse to even acknowledge it, much less take responsibility to fix it. It’s the same attitude you see in reckless hook-up sex, abortion as birth control, frivolous divorce, single motherhood by choice, and raising kids in same-sex homes so that they don’t have a mother AND a father. Selfishness.

Let’s make a list of what this sex change surgeon is like.

No taking precautions to address things that could go wrong:

Mastectomies usually involve the insertion of drains to remove the blood, pus, and excess fluids that can build up in the week following the invasive procedure, and due to the seriousness of the surgery, most surgeons will require trans-identified females to be of a healthy weight to reduce the risk of complications. Neither of these precautions appear to be important to the Yeet the Teets celebrity gender-affirming surgeon.

Joking about the complications:

For Rylan, the nightmare started on day 4 post-op, when a hematoma appeared and the wound started leaking blood, which Gallagher dismissed as “just bruising.” It was suggested that the patient’s weight was to blame, and true to form, the medical team even had a cutesy name for it: a “blowhole,” and they joked that it was Rylan’s “period.”

Refusal to fix the problems:

After flying home in agony and bleeding through clothes on the plane, Rylan spent days bed-ridden before ending up in the ER after a blood clot the size of a golf ball fell out of the wound.

“I was splitting open and, within days, those two holes would both become gaping abscesses,” said Rylan, who describes being “exhausted and in unspeakable pain.”

Photographs were sent of the incision and the clot, and Gallagher again replied that it was normal and there was “no need for the ER.”

Refusal to take the escalation seriously:

After another night of agonizing pain, Rylan woke to a frightening sight.

“I saw that the hole in my incision had collapsed into a hollow, black cavity. Brown and dark yellow tissue were spilling slightly out of it. It had a putrid smell,” recalls Rylan, who sent a photograph of this terrifying change to Gallagher, knowing deep down that she couldn’t be trusted. Gallagher’s response was: “It’s looking good – not infected,” and she advised putting “some antibiotic cream on the open area.”

Someone else has to clean up her mess:

Thankfully, Rylan was able to get an appointment with another “top surgeon” who saw the signs of infection immediately, put the patient on a course of antibiotics, and scheduled an emergency surgery to fix the mess that Gallagher, who calls herself Dr. Teetus Deletus on social media, had created.

In the surgery 3 days later, over half a foot of Rylan’s left side had to be removed as it had been killed by a bacteria “that has a high mortality rate.”

“When I saw the photo of what they removed, it dawned on me what would’ve happened if I’d listened to Dr. Gallagher,” said Rylan.

No apology for the harm she caused:

Gallagher hasn’t checked in once with the patient she almost killed, and Rylan doesn’t think she ever will.

“In the wise words of the surgeon who saved my life, ‘she doesn’t give a sh*t about you,'” wrote Rylan.

And she can’t be sued, because she doesn’t have insurance:

But seeking advice from a medical malpractice lawyer revealed some shocking information. Gallagher has apparently opted out of malpractice insurance, making suing her almost impossible. Most lawyers will be reluctant to take on a case against an uninsured defendant as there would likely be no means for them to collect their fee. Rylan was told that Gallagher likely uses this loophole deliberately.

Can you imagine purchasing a product or a service where you couldn’t get any accountability for catastrophic failure? People need to be careful dealing with the secular left. They don’t like expectations, responsibilities or obligations. They just want to dance around and feel happy. You can’t count on reckless, irresponsible people like that. Beware of people who affirm you when you go down a self-destructive path. As soon as things blow up, they disappear. They make problems. They don’t solve problems.

Canada is ahead of the United States on policy by about 10 years. Whatever you see the Canadians doing – infanticide, euthanasia, mass importation of unskilled immigrants who don’t speak English – Canada will do it 10 years before the US does. So, we should all be concerned when Canada introduces legislation to ban almost all shotguns and hunting rifles.

Here’s the latest from National Post – the less progressive of Canada’s two national newspapers:

Quietly tabled by Liberal MP Paul Chiang last month while the bill is debated at committee, two new amendments to Bill C-21 would widen the definition of “prohibited weapon” to include “a firearm that is a rifle or shotgun, that is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner and that is designed to accept a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity greater than five cartridges of the type for which the firearm was originally designed,” as well as add new firearms to its regulation schedules that, if approved, would outlaw many popular hunting and sport rifles.

Got that? It’s not banning magazines of size greater than 5 rounds. It’s banning guns that COULD accept a magazine with more than 5 rounds. That means all revolvers, all semi-automatics, and basically all rifles.

And it’s worse than that.

In an earlier article from CBC, Canada’s state-run, government-funded, far-left propaganda outlet:

The list also names guns that fall afoul of two rules nominally intended to ban powerful military weapons such as .50-calibre sniper rifles and mortars. One rule bans long guns that can generate more than 10,000 joules of energy, and the other bans guns with a muzzle wider than 20 millimetres. Critics say those rules would ban everything from antique blunderbusses to the Nine O’clock Gun in Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

Lastly, the amendment prohibits, by name, a large number of semi-automatic firearms that do not have detachable magazines and don’t meet the definition of an “assault-style firearm,” or infringe the other two rules, but which the government wants to ban anyway. They include a number of long guns in wide use by Canadian hunters.

What about .22 rifles, used for hunting very small animals?

[…][O]ne version of the [Mossberg 702 .22 Plinkster long rifle]… is individually listed for prohibition in the amendments.

There isn’t anyone in the Liberal Party of Canada who has read anything about the evidence on how firearm ownership reduces rates of violent crime. They not only haven’t read anything about it, they couldn’t even formulate the idea that firearms owned by law-abiding citizens would deter criminals from committing crimes. It literally makes no sense to them.

The peer-reviewed research

Whenever I get into discussions about gun control, I always mention two academic books by John R. Lott and Joyce Lee Malcolm.

• The Lott book was published by the University of Chicago Press (now in its 3rd edition)
• The Malcolm book was published by Harvard University Press

The book by economist John Lott, linked above, compares the crime rates of all U.S. states that have enacted concealed carry laws, and concludes that violent crime rates dropped after law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry legally-owned firearms. That’s the mirror image of Dr. Malcolm’s Harvard study, which shows that the 1997 UK gun ban caused violent crime rates to MORE THAN DOUBLE in the four years following the ban. But both studies affirm the same conclusion – more legal firearm ownership means less crime.

One of the common mistakes I see anti-gun advocates making is to use the metric of all “gun-related deaths”. First of all, this completely ignores the effects of hand gun ownership on violent crime, as we’ve seen. Take away the guns from law-abiding people and violent crime skyrockets. But using the “gun-related deaths” number is especially wrong, because it includes suicides committed with guns. This is the majority (about two thirds) of gun related deaths, even in a country like America that has a massive inner-city gun violence problem caused by the epidemic of single motherhood by choice. If you take out the gun-related SUICIDES, then the actual number of gun homicides has decreased as gun ownership has grown.

For a couple of useful graphs related to this point, check out this post over at the American Enterprise Institute.

So, back to Canada’s Liberal Party. Their answer to law-abiding people who are about to have their homes broken into by burglars, rapists and murderers is “who cares?” They have nothing for you to defend yourself. And if you do defend yourself, you would probably be arrested, treated like a criminal, and punished, for making the real criminal feel bad.