Women verbally abuses man for refusing to have sex with her on the first date

Click for larger image of chat with crazy woman
Click for larger image of chat between a sensible man and a crazy woman

Dina sent me this horrifying article from the UK Daily Mail.

It says:

A man received a barrage of abuse over texts after refusing to sleep with a woman during a date.

The screenshots of the messages, which were posted to image sharing site Imgur last night, show the man’s female date initiate conversation before launching into an angry rant.

The unnamed woman even goes so far as to suggest that her date had no right to turn down the opportunity to sleep with her, asking him whether he was gay and telling him no only means no when a woman says it.

‘Can I ask you something?’ the woman says.

Once her unnamed date from the the night before agrees she continues. ‘Why didn’t we have sex last night?’

The rational man writes, ‘I’m not really sure. Just didn’t feel like it. That bad?’

It seems as though, according to the woman, it certainly is bad, as she goes on to send some foul-mouthed messages.

‘It kind of ****** me off because I took a good 2 [sic] hours out of my time to get all ready, shave my legs, and what not… I’m actually super ******* ****** I wasted 2 hours of my time getting ready for nothing.’

The confused woman goes on to add, ‘I literally kept giving you hints and was trying all night.’

However, the man stands his ground and replies: ‘I just didn’t want to. Sorry bout it lol. What’s the big deal, it’s just sex [sic].’

But the woman just can’t accept no for an answer and loses her cool completely at his response, as she writes: ‘The big deal is I wasted 2 [sic] hours…Okay **** that a whole night trying to have sex with you and you just ‘didn’t want to.’

‘Like what’s the issue? Are you actually gay and lying? Am I that ******* hideous? Not that ******* hard to whip your **** out???’

And she even argues with the man’s protestations of ‘no means no’ as she claims that the anti-rape catchphrase only has significance when she uses it. 

However, the man still manages to keep his composure and cooly answers the message, calling the woman ‘hypocritical’ and repeatedly telling her that he ‘didn’t need reasons’ to not want to have sex with her.

He also sarcastically remarked: ‘Rape is only rape for women, got it.’

Taking the comment seriously and without any explanation, the woman replies: ‘Basically.’

Read that part in bold carefully. She thinks that if she asks for sex, then the man has no right to tell her no. Compare that with the hysteria we are seeing from feminists over the “rape culture” on university campuses, where an unwanted kiss can now be prosecuted as sexual assault, and speech that offends a woman is “sexual harrassment”. Where is the chastity and the modesty that we should expect from women? Is anyone brave enough to tell this woman that her approach to relationships is destructive and harmful?

The real underlying problem is feminism

I am seeing a lot of people trying to blame men for the way that the culture has gone ever since feminists pushed the sexual revolution on us. I think we should be blaming feminism. Feminism is the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between men and women. As such, the feminist prescription for the culture is that women start to work like men, drink like men, and have sex without feel bad afterwards like men. That’s what they’ve been teaching women to do in the schools for some time, and guess what… young women believe this and they are acting on it. The normalization of fatherlessness through the generous single mother welfare programs pushed by Democrats just makes the problem worse.

Young women these days want to get attention from men, but they don’t want to be saddled with the responsibilities, expectations or obligations of a relationship with him. So, they are very proud about not listening to a man, not caring for him, not investing in him, not auditioning for the role of stay at home wife and mother in any way. They try to get attention from men who have no interest or aptitude for marriage by showing skin and jumping into bed on the first date. They have been taught that their selfishness, i.e. – career, travel, fun, etc., is more important than pursuing marriage. Marriage-minded men are avoided because they are “sexist” for expecting her to develop the skills necessary to actually perform as a wife and mother. The feminist approach of promiscuity-not-marriage basically ruins the woman’s ability to commit to a man for life in the way a non-promiscuous woman could.

Women have a narrow window from 18-35 where they can invest their youth and beauty into the life of marriage-minded man, in order to build relationship capital with him that will keep him committed to her as she ages and loses her looks. Obviously, the more she focuses on learning useful skills, both professional and domestic, the more she will be able to attract a good man – a man with a long-term plan who is prepared to commit to a woman through all the stages of her life. Her late teens and 20s is the time to demonstrate ability to be a wife and mother. But a feminist woman’s purpose for a man has nothing to do with marriage. She doesn’t look for men who want to get married, she avoids them. She just wants to get attention and to show off the handsome men she can attract to her friends.

Older women seem to be telling younger women to not marry too soon. Older women tell the younger women to have fun with their sexuality, to focus on fun and thrills and travel and having experiences. Don’t worry about marriage, have fun with hot guys. But the truth is that women cannot waste a moment of time finding a good man early and building her value with him by investing in him. From the time a man starts to work, he can benefit from a woman’s support. As this Washington Post article notes, a wife can have an enormously positive impact on her husband’s income, career and health, during these early years. When a woman decides not to make it a priority to find a man early and apply her youth, beauty and femininity to encourage and motivate him, she is losing out on being married to a strong man who will be there for her as she ages. Men do fall in love with women who invest in them – if they are good men. It’s her job to find a good man, and to make good decisions with her life in order to attract him.

Marriage to a man is not something that a woman can “put off” with impunity. The choice to party and travel and have fun in her youth comes at a price. What sort of person would put off investing into a retirement fund early so she can waste the money of thrill-seeking and adventures? Everyone knows that sooner you find something worth investing in and start investing in it, the more of a return you will get over the long term. You can’t just hope and pray for a retirement fund to materialize at age 35, after you spent all the years before having fun and traveling around. You have to build it up over a long period of time. Similarly, you can’t just find a perfect husband at age 35 when you are ready to stop all your selfish fun-seeking and travel. You have to build that man into a competent husband, by helping him with his health, career, saving, and so on. Men and women benefit from each other, and they do better as a unit. The sooner they start to function as a unit, the more they can help each other, the more wealth they can build, the more of an influence they can have.

When you present the need to rollback feminism to man-blaming pastors and parents, typically, they will tell you that we have to keep the feminism intact, and men simply have to marry women who are acting like the women in our news story (until they reach age 35). I have had Christian men tell me that although I was chaste and industrious in my youth, I must now lower my criteria and continue to pursue marriage to women who, like the woman in the story, have not prepared themselves in any way to be content with the roles of wife and mother. I’m sorry, pious parents and pastors, but I am not on board with your “make it work out for her so she’ll be happy” plan. Women like the ones in the news story are not prepared for a life-long commitment. Pursuing fun for the first 35 years of one’s life does not prepare a woman for marriage. Feminism is not compatible with self-sacrificial love for a husband. The time to fix the new generation of young women is now, though, so you all should get started with them. Get started rolling back their feminism instead of taking it as a given. Don’t talk to me about my obligation to marry, you need to focus on producing marriage-minded women who reject feminism. Then we’ll talk.

Cruz campaign outmaneuvers Trump again in Maine

Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons
Donald Trump and his friends, the Clintons

The Week reports on yet more bungling from the disorganized Trump campaign.

Excerpt:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) snagged at least 65 of the 94 delegates awarded Saturday, boosting his shot at winning the Republican National Convention’s hypothetical second ballot, should Donald Trump not secure the Republican Party’s nomination outright.

The senator picked up 19 of 20 delegates in Maine, 36 of 37 in Utah, nine in Minnesota, and one in South Carolina, Politico reports. Kentucky delegates did not reveal their leanings.

How did he do it? Was it witchcraft? That’s what that clown Trump says. It’s voodoo! And the media repeats everything he says, because they want the Republicans to nominate a clown.

So what really happened?

Cruz volunteer hands out signs at the Maine GOP Convention
Cruz volunteer hands out signs at the Maine GOP Convention

Bangor Daily News explains:

In a blow to Gov. Paul LePage, supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz took at least 19 of Maine’s 23 delegates to the party’s national convention on Saturday.

They outmaneuvered front-runner Donald Trump — who is endorsed by the governor — on the floor of Maine’s state convention with an eye toward a potential contested national convention in July between Trump, Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

“The grass-roots here is unbelievable,” said Senate Majority Leader Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, one of the leaders of Cruz’s Maine campaign. “I’ve honestly never seen anything like it in my tenure in politics.”

The Texas senator won 12 of 23 national convention delegates at Maine’s March caucuses, with Trump winning nine and Kasich two. But they’re only bound to their candidates on a first ballot at the convention in Cleveland. On subsequent ballots, they can vote for anyone.

Trump is in front, but he isn’t on track to have enough delegates to win the nomination outright before the convention. If he falls short, it would likely go to a second ballot for the first time since 1948, leaving an opening for Cruz and Kasich.

Cruz’s campaign used majority support at the Maine convention to install 19 supporters — some of whom would vote for other candidates, then switch to Cruz on a second ballot — as delegates.

It was a big loss for Trump and LePage, even though the governor was elected as a delegate from Maine on Saturday, overcoming an effort from Cruz supporters to reject his bid.

[…][Cruz’s] campaign circulated a slate of Cruz-approved delegate candidates earlier this week and during voting, Cruz activists paced the convention floor with posters showing it, with Trump and Kasich supporters aligning behind LePage’s unsuccessful ticket.

Witchcraft!

Things will be difficult for Cruz in the near term, as Donald Trump always does well in states that are more liberal, since he is a liberal. And the next few states are filled with liberals like Trump.

As the election race continues, though, more and more of Trump’s real liberal positions are coming back. Well, I mean he believed them all up until just before he decided to run, but he had to hide them to fool his gullible supporters. Last week, he came out in favor of rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life view – a position which the Republican Party does not hold. He also expressed his support for men using women’s bathrooms, if they feel that is appropriate. And he wants to raise taxes.

Cruz is even running an ad about Trump’s new position:

So how does the race look? This article on Soshable explains:

Here’s the reality. If Cruz can win Indiana and stay close or even beat Trump in California, it’s virtually impossible for Trump to get 1,237 delegates on the first ballot. If it goes to a second ballot, Cruz’s chances of getting to 1,237 are much higher than Trump’s. New York didn’t change that. Trump’s upcoming victories in the Northeast states on Tuesday won’t change that, either. Indiana will decide whether the race continues. After that, California will decide the outcome.

Cruz will win Indiana unless the media can make their false narrative stick. Polls show it to be close. In fact, they’re very similar to Iowa before Cruz came in and won. That was a caucus state, so we can’t really count on the same results, but the most demographically similar state to Indiana is Wisconsin which Cruz won handily.

California is a different story, but at this point in the race the polls are worthless. We have over a month until then. Early voting starts shortly after Indiana results are in, so a win becomes even more important for Cruz.

With all of this understood, there’s only one conclusion for Cruz supporters: keep fighting tooth and nail. Don’t listen to the mainstream media’s narrative. Don’t lose hope. Cruz has run an incredible campaign and his strength in delegates will result in the nomination as long as we can keep the pressure up, win in Indiana, and do well in California. All of the other states are pretty much set.

As Trump’s policies keep shifting to the left, Republicans are starting to realize that he’s a Democrat clothed in the singular conservative principle of building a wall (which Cruz has wanted to do since 2012). We need to persevere through the lies being told by the media and remain resolute in our convictions to make the last conservative in the race the next GOP nominee.

Well, Cruz himself is very busy running ads and doing interviews.

Here’s one of his latest ads:

Pretty slick. And here he is on the Mark Levin show:

It all comes down to Indiana and California now, and Cruz has been in there organizing for months already.

Government investigates women for letting her children play in fenced-in backyard

Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick is stunned she was investigated by CFS
Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick investigated by the government for unlicensed parenting

McKenzie tweeted this story from CTV News in Canada, and I had to blog it.

Excerpt:

A Winnipeg mother says she was investigated by Child and Family Services simply for letting her children play in her backyard.

Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mom, says a CFS worker showed up unexpectedly at her door in early April. The worker told her they were doing a “well-being check” after receiving a complaint about her children being left unsupervised.

Kendrick has three children ages two, five and 10, who love to play in the family’s backyard after school. The backyard is fully fenced in, with a wood fence covering three sides, and a portion of the front covered by a chain link fence and gate.

Kendrick told CTV Winnipeg she’s always either with her kids or looking in on them from her living room windows.

[…]Still, the worker with the CFS — the the provincial body that apprehends abused and neglected children — insisted she was obligated to investigate and ask a few more questions.

“We had to go through a whole interview asking so many questions — asking me about if we’ve ever dealt with CFS before, what my childhood was like, how I punish my children, whether we drink or do drugs… She had to look to see where my kids slept. She had to see if we had enough food in the house,” Kendrick said.

“The whole time I’m sitting there, pretty much in tears, because I couldn’t understand what was going on.”

Well, this is just one big misunderstanding, so there will be no permanent record in government files, right? Wrong:

Manitoba’s Child and Family Services says it will not erase the file of a Winnipeg mother who was investigated for letting her children play in her backyard.

The agency would not comment on the specifics of the case of Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mother of three. But regardless of the results of their investigation, the agency said it would not erase the file because all documentation and records need to be accessible in the event that another concern arises in the future.

This is the kind of thing that parents should know about when there are deciding where to live. I can guarantee you that the person who called the government is no conservative. Now imagine a nosy neighbor decided that your views on social issues, e.g. – the definition of marriage, shouldn’t be passed on to your children. Or suppose a nosy neighbor didn’t like the church that your children attended. Or the yard sign for a conservative candidate in your yard. There are government agencies out there to help them to make sure that your children believe the “right” views – the things that the secular left want them to believe.

What secular leftism teaches people on the left is that some opinions and values are so wrong that they are 100% justified in using the government to stamp them out. Something to think about when you are deciding where to live and how open to be with your neighbors about what you believe. By all means, make a big impact. But be aware of what the other side thinks about what you’re doing.