I love this man and his small penis. As a young woman, I was often mocked by my friends for my attraction to guys who weren’t well endowed, ones who bought big lifted trucks and worked out all the time. Ones the average (basic) bitch might refer to as “overcompensating.” Then, as I became a woman and started to educate myself in biology and how the media marginalizes small penis men by portraying a very narrow and specific view of penis standards (thick, tall, straight), I realized how many women have bought into that lie. For me there is nothing sexier than my man: small dick, big truck, and occasional steroid user. His shape won’t be featured on YouPorn (or maybe it will!), but it’s the one featured in my life. There’s nothing sexier to me than a man who knows his shortcoming. This sexy man I married doesn’t really fill every inch of his jeans, but he does fill every inch of my heart. Women, rethink what society has told you that you should desire. A real man is not a porn star! Boys, don’t think you have to fully fill a certain mold to be desired or loved. There is a woman out there who will love you for who you are, exactly as I love my man; a man who is okay with me backhandedly complimenting him on the internet.
Stephen Miller’s exchange with Jim Acosta on Wednesday was horrific, yet familiar.
Women know Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller is that asshole you meet on Tinder, who wants to send you a message so he can let you know your pictures from the Women’s March are really sexist against men. The kind of guy who says, “WELL ACTUALLY,” or, “let me play devil’s advocate here,” before blatantly insulting you and your intelligence. The one who says your name in a way you can almost see the your name in italics (and maybe all caps) coming out of his mouth — over and over. He’s the guy who walks up to you at a bar, hits on you in the most obnoxious manner possible, asks you questions, and proceeds to spin your basic beliefs into a web of bullshit. He’s the smug jerk who pretends to not understand phrases that are commonly used in the vernacular. Instead, he takes every comment you say completely literally, and suggests you are the dumb one for speaking like a human and not a robot. He’s the kind of racist asshole that he makes you out to be a racist monster — and all you said was, “Hey, I think that black lives matter.”
“Well, actually, Manda, it’s pretty racist that you even see race. Manda, why do you have to bring race into it? And that just shows me, Manda, that you are being racist against everyone who isn’t black, and you’re racist against black people, Manda, because you’re acting like they can’t take care of themselves and need a slogan. And, Manda, just to play devil’s advocate, but maybe cops kill black people more because more of them are criminals.” [insert self satisfied smirk]
Clearly, I’ve been tricked into a first date with a Stephen Miller or two. You live, you learn, you more obsessively Google first dates, swipe left more, and life goes on.
Except we can’t just swipe left or abandon our seat at the bar to get rid of him — because insufferable Stephen Miller is a top White House advisor. And life can’t go on for everyone — Miller might have pretended to not understand that Acosta was using hyperbole when he asked if the English requirement meant the US would only admit people from the UK or Australia, but don’t be fooled: that is Stephen Miller’s wet dream.
It’s truly remarkable how many interviews and statements given by or about members of this administration sound frighteningly similar to things sexual harassers or abusers say to women. If only we had had some kind of clue, indicating how horrible a Trump presidency would be….
On January 27th, Donald called me at lunchtime. He invited me to dinner that night, saying he was going to invite my boyfriend too, but decided to have just me this time, with my boyfriend coming next time. It was unclear from the conversation who else would be at the dinner, although I assumed my boss’s boss would only invite me to a dinner with others.
I was wrong. It turned out to be just the two of us. Donald greeted me with a large smile and showed me to my seat, as though this was normal behavior for a boss and his employee. Despite presumably having access to a lot of table settings, two high backed chairs were placed next to each other at an uncomfortably small oval table. Half a dozen white roses were placed in a vase, with a trio candelabra next to it. I couldn’t help but notice how close the petals were to the flame. Other than quickly walking in and out to serve us our food, waiters made themselves scarce.
Donald started by asking me if I wanted to keep my job, which I found strange because I have worked here for years and I also like being able to pay my rent. I assured him that yes, I intended to stay in my position. He said that a lot of people would like to have my job, and he would understand if I wanted to walk away.
My instincts told me that a one-on-one setting meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask to keep my job and create some sort of inappropriate relationship between the two of us. That concerned me greatly. My mind started to race: I wondered when the waiters would return to the room, and where Melania was, and my eyes briefly landed on the candelabra, as I instinctively began to check it for sharp edges.
I replied that I loved my job and intended to stay. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I said he could always count on me to tell him the truth.
A few moments later, Donald leaned forward. His voice husky and breathy, he whispered, “I need loyalty.” His eyes dropped from my face, down to my chest, and back up. “I expect….loyalty.”
Time stood still. Panic rose up in me. I could feel every atom in my body shaking; I was on high alert. I willed my cheeks to not turn red, and I mashed on my tongue with my teeth. But I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.
Near the end of the dinner, Donald returned to the subject of my job, saying he was very glad I wanted to stay, adding that he had heard great things about me from my direct boss, his good friend Jeff. He then said, “I need loyalty.” I replied, “You will always get honesty from me.” He paused and then said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” It is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further. The term – honest loyalty- had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.
As I mentioned, Donald was my boss’s boss. I returned from the dinner shaken, and not knowing what else I could do, decided to document my experience in a memo. I hoped that he would not ask any more favors of me, and that I could avoid being alone with him in the future.
It’s exhausting to stay outraged about everything that has happened in Trump’s first 100 days, but at least Attorney General Jeff Sessions keeps going out of his way to remind us how horrible he is.
Sessions has made it clear that fear mongering should replace facts when it comes to creating policy. Forget the antics of the rest of the administration; keeping up with Sessions’s decisions alone is almost a full time job. Here are some of the shitty things that shitty Jeff Sessions has done (and I won’t even talk about how I watched him dig around his nose and stare at his boogers when I was at his confirmation hearing):
When Sessions was sworn in, President Trump signed a handful of executive actions that were right in line with Sessions’s beliefs. One was the Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers. In this order, the President called for “multi-jurisdiction prosecution efforts” to deal with violence against police officers.
Never mind that violence against police is down. Never mind that there is no epidemic of unsolved crimes against cops. Facts clearly aren’t important to the Trump administration.
If facts mattered, the Violence Against Women Act wouldn’t have met so much resistance from Jeff Sessions back in 2013. Until 2015, tribal officers could not prosecute non-Natives who committed crimes on tribal land — resulting in Native American women being sexually assaulted more than four times the national average, primarily by men who were not Native American. This was a problem the 2013 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act specifically addressed by allowing some tribal courts to sometimes prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence.
Sessions voted against VAWA, claiming that this tribal court provision was a “big concern” for him. But now, when he wants to convince the country that police are the ones we need to protect from violence, forcing multi-jurisdiction prosecution efforts is fine. Cool.
Created by Obama in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were born after 6/15/81 and who came to America before they were 16. Applicants have to be enrolled in school and pass a background check. The idea behind DACA was to help young people who were working to become valuable members of society by streamlining the citizenship process, especially since so many of the people eligible were primarily raised in the US.
Back in January, Donald Trump said that DACA recipients “shouldn’t be very worried.” By February, Juan Manuel Montes became the first DACA recipient to be deported. Now it’s April, and I’m still not convinced Donald Trump knows what DACA is — but I’m damn sure Sessions knows and hates DACA.
“I believe everyone that enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported…we’re going to focus first, as the president has directed us, on the criminal element,” Sessions announced on ABC’s This Week (emphasis mine).
Their first focus might be the criminal element, but Sessions has a pretty messed up perception of constitutes criminal activity. Over 1.5 million undocumented people have told the federal government that they are here and applied for DACA. Now these same people have to place their trust in Sessions, who seems to have a burning desire to end the program.
Black Lives Matter
After high profile police killings, the DOJ will come into a city and investigate the police force. They will spend a year or two interviewing citizens and cops, doing ride alongs, holding meetings, and combing through documents to understand if there are problems within the structure of the department. After they create a report on their findings, they work with the city to make a consent decree — a legally binding contract that details how the city will address the issues the DOJ has found. Baltimore is, of course, one of the cities to be a recipient of such an investigation — and it has the unique position of having the process of creating and signing the consent decree spread between the Obama and Trump administrations.
Right before Baltimore held a public hearing on their consent decree, the DOJ asked for a delay in the implementation of the consent decree, and a review of all active decrees. The judge denied the Baltimore motion, and the public hearing went on as scheduled. Despite having the motion denied, the DOJ decided to again bring up the possibility of delaying the process.
“Reasonable minds may disagree if this decree is the perfect way forward,” stated John Gore, the DOJ’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General, describing the very document his department created and signed. Gore added that the current administration has “grave concerns” over the decree, and reiterated the need for the already-denied motion for a delay.
The city responded that, not only was a delay was not necessary, but community input was the most important part of reform, and that both parties went to great lengths to involve the community in the creation of the consent decree. To delay it would shake the confidence the community has in the reform — of course, since Attorney General Jeff Sessions believes consent decrees “undermine respect for our police officers,” I assume that protecting the community is no longer a function of the DOJ.
Under any other circumstances, watching the DOJ argue against justice would have been unusual. In a way, Sessions’s DOJ helped bring residents and the police together: of the 49 residents who spoke at this hearing, the vast majority sided with the stance of the Baltimore Police Department.
In July 2015, I attended a very crowded town hall meeting at Sojourner-Douglass College. The first half of the meeting was a panel discussion, and the second half was community members sharing their stories with representatives from the Department of Justice. Many tears were shed as citizens repeated how grateful they were that the DOJ was finally there, that someone was finally listening to their stories. At the time, had you told me that these representatives would become the sabotaging enemies of reform, I would have laughed at you.
The day after the Baltimore Uprising, people gathered around the riot police set up at Penn and North. There were prayers, debates, and crying — but there was also a feeling of cautious optimism.. People expressed hope that maybe now the government would do for Baltimore what it had done for Ferguson — a full investigation into the workings of the police department. Maybe now people would listen.
I would find it hard to believe that this sentiment is not expressed nationwide, every time a police shooting sparks large protests. So what happens when we take away the only government organization that listens?
When the next Freddie Gray or Philando Castile is killed, when the next city has had enough — will Sessions directly say, “sorry, but we no longer wish to help those who have been victimized by the police”? Did John Gore’s years working for Jones Day prepare him to be the one to tell people the official stance of the federal government is that their lives and struggles don’t matter?
Do you want a riot, Jeff Sessions? Because this is how you get a riot.
Because we are living in the bizarre hell that is 2017, discussing whether or not the tweets from the President of the United States are impeachable is a real topic of conversation. So, for my liberal snowflake comrades, I have done the dirty work of combing through Trump’s Twitter and pulling out some of his impeachable tweets. I thought this was going to be a lot easier to do, but it turns out it’s exhaustingly time consuming. I certainly thought I’d get through more than two Twitter rants — but I just don’t have enough Xanax. So here is part one of a series of impeachable actions Trump has done, starting with just a handful of his tweets. You’re welcome, and I accept boxes of wine should you wish to express your gratitude.
What is an impeachable offense?
The Constitution says that the President can be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But what does that really mean in the context of tweeting? Put very simply, “high crimes and misdemeanors” refers to any action taken by a public official that abuses their power in some capacity. This could include something like, I don’t know, using your name to make money while you’re in office (don’t worry, this is just part one. We’ll cover it all!). This also means that, while “normal” crimes could be impeachable offenses, actions that an average person would be able to do without a problem could be grounds for impeachment. When it was ordinary businessman Donald Trump tweeting crazy thoughts, that’s fine. No one cares. When it is POTUS Donald Trump tweeting crazy thoughts, it’s a problem because as President his tweets have more value. And yes, our founding fathers are spinning in their graves over this.
With that explained, let’s dive straight into hell.
The tweets (there are so many):
WTF was going on:
Thanks to an article published on the ever credible website Breitbart, Trump decided that Obama had his “wires tapped.”
Obamagate is easily the most egregious and most talked about example of Trump’s impeachable Twitter crimes. I believe this is the most cut and dry of the Twitter offenses. First, Trump is accusing Obama of illegally wiretapping him while Obama was still in office — something that, if true, would have been impeachable behavior. Second, this isn’t your crazy uncle rampaging on Twitter (because, come on, if Trump is your uncle, there is no way you’re reading this). As Noah Feldman pointed out on Slate’s Trumpcast: Trump has the power to punish people, and threatening to prosecute people without evidence “is certainly an abuse of power.” Keeping this in mind, you can understand how it’s easy to view the Obamagate tweets as threats to the former president (remember that, because it’s going to be a pretty critical point — both for the rest of the article, and presumably for the remainder of Trump’s presidency).
There’s something very unsettling about the current President publicly accusing a prior president of an action that is both illegal and impeachable. Do you know what kind of rulers jail their political opponents? The kind of rulers that don’t really care for democracy.
When was the last time you heard Donald Trump say “lock her up”? A direct call to imprison his opponent while he’s the sitting President would be horrifying. I think that someone in the White House must understand this, and that’s why the issue has been dropped. But just because Trump isn’t directly saying “lock him up,” the fact that he is the POTUS means he could indeed lock him up. I do not expect anyone currently working around Trump to understand nuance, nor do I expect Trump to get it if it’s explained to him.
But wait! Haven’t we learned that there was indeed a FISA warrant in Trump Tower? Isn’t Trump right? Yes and no, in that order. Trump’s tweet accuses Obama himself of wire tapping him — and that would be highly illegal. While the FBI did indeed issue a FISA warrant for Trump adviser Carter Page, only a petulant child who hasn’t even passed eight grade civics would angrily equate this to “Obama wire tapped Trump.” It’s incredibly difficult to obtain a FISA, and it is not taken lightly — meaning that a FISA wouldn’t be signed off on just so Obama could spy on Donald Trump. On the plus side for the rest of us, Trump’s tweet declassified the FISA warrant, and allowed reporters to send FOIA requests on the investigation into the Trump campaign. Good move!
WTF was going on:
These tweets were in response to a judge putting a hold on Trump’s Muslim ban EO.
Just like Obamagate, this is an example of Trump using his position to threaten another public official. This is a direct threat to a member of the judiciary system in America — and to judicial process. Personally, I find this to be worse than Obamagate. This is POTUS bullying and trying to intimidate a federal judge for disagreeing with him; this is a direct threat to democracy.
Trump wasn’t the only one threatening the “so-called judge” — security had to be beefed up for some of the judges who were involved in the EO disasters. Remember when Trump incited violence at his campaign rallies? Just this month, a judge determined that the protesters who were attacked can proceed with a lawsuit against Trump and his campaign. To impeach someone for actions taken before they became POTUS would be unheard of — but this parallels the not so veiled threats toward judges who don’t allow Trump to do whatever he wants. We should all be closely following what happens in this lawsuit, because it seems like Trump will continue to insult whoever he wants, with no regard for the impact of his power as POTUS to both legally and socially harm someone else.
Next week: More tweets? Russia? Who knows what I’ll choose!
It’s starting to get warm outside, which means it’s the time of the year where women feel like they should police each other’s fashion choices. 2017 is kicking off with the words of one Kayla Ratajczak, who managed the get The Odyssey to publish her drivel: “To Girls Wearing ‘Cheeky’ Swimsuit Bottoms, Please Stop.”
I’m going to give Kayla the benefit of the doubt and assume (hope?) that she didn’t pick the article title — condescendingly referring to the women you’re sexualizing as “girls” seems in particularly poor taste. But she did write the article, so even though the title basically covers the entire post…let’s dive right in.
As spring is starting to finally show its face after a long harsh winter, many women are becoming excited about all of the new spring fashion lines that are being released full of bright colors and fun pieces.
Can I just say — and I’m sorry, maybe this is because I’m a salty writer without a publisher — this already sounds a piece that was commissioned for $1 per 1,000 words on Freelancer.com? Or possibly something a robot wrote.
However, upon the release of the new swimsuit line, I believe many women, including myself, are less than thrilled.
The new swimsuit line???? Whose new swimsuit line?? IS THERE ONLY ONE SWIMSUIT PRODUCING COMPANY FOR ALL WOMEN THIS YEAR?! So much for making America great again.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, check it out. Just type “Bathing Suit Trends for 2017” into your Google search bar and “Cheeky” bikini bottoms will more than likely be at the top of your list.
“I am writing an article about something, but you’ll have to Google it to figure out what I’m talking about.” I also really love the directions on how to Google. I guess most people who will agree with this article are about 90, so maybe they will need the instructions.
Coming from a female who cares about her body and self-image, this not only makes me angry but disappointed in the lack of value that women still have today.
Oh. I’m sorry I was mean earlier. I liked it better when you were telling me to Google things instead of sharing your shitty opinions. Well, it sure is unfortunate that there is only THE SINGULAR SWIMSUIT LINE. Coming from a female (why the choice of “female” over “woman”?) who cares about her body and SELF-image, what other people wear doesn’t fucking impact my life at all.
First off, why should it be socially acceptable to wear basically a thong around in public in the summer months?
Kayla, how about we double down on this: ISN’T A SWIMSUIT JUST BASICALLY PANTIES AND A BRA?! WHY HAVE WOMEN EVER BEEN ALLOWED TO WEAR THIS TRASH?! AREN’T A BRA AND PANTIES BASICALLY BEING NAKED?! ISN’T BEING NAKED BASICALLY SLUTTY SEX?! Let’s get rid of pools and beaches completely!
Have bathing suit companies forgotten that often times, women are around young children and family members when sporting a bathing suit?
I fucking hate when there is one trend and I am FORCED TO WEAR IT. Like, I hate jeans. I think people who say jeans are comfortable are liars. Yet Big Fashion constantly forces me to wear jeans! Oh. Wait. Also, I personally wear different dresses around my family than I do when I’m going to the club. It doesn’t mean that all dresses need to be appropriate for dinner with my dad. And stop thinking “young children” care about your ass.
More importantly, what does it teach the younger generation who see women wearing these types of bathing suits? It surely doesn’t teach them about having self-respect or dignity in themselves.
I mean, not if you’re around to poison their minds with your backwards shaming views. But yeah, it does teach the younger generation that dressing how you want is okay and nothing to be ashamed of.
Now, I understand people are going to disagree with me saying things such as “Women should be free to wear whatever they want, men exercise that right, why shouldn’t we?” or “If you’re confident in it, rock it.” Which if you’re one of these people, I understand where you are coming from, BUT do you often see men roaming around in a speedo to attract attention?
This is a really good point. As a woman, literally everything I do is to attract attention. I can’t help it. It’s in my DNA.
Therefore, why do women feel the need to succumb to showing more and more skin each year to attract attention?
You just answered this question: because everything we do is for attention, duh.
Also, I’m all for the self-confidence, you should feel amazing and proud of what you wear; however, a line needs to be drawn firmly in the sand in regards to what is appropriate and what is not and “cheeky” bathing suit bottoms are not appropriate.
THANK FUCKING GOD WE HAVE YOU HERE TO MAKE THESE RULES FOR ALL OF US. What IS appropriate?! I need to know, Kayla. You never tell us. How can I dress myself without your guidance?!
I mean think of yourself as a parent,
would you want to see your daughter flaunting “her stuff” in a bathing suit that barely covers anything while boys flock to her every side? I think not.
How many sides does my daughter have?! I don’t think it’s the swimsuit that’s causing the flocking here. Can I sell her cubed torso to science?
Although I know many women this summer will not be listening to my advice, however, for those of you who do, thank you for showing respect to your bodies as well as yourselves.
But you didn’t really give any advice. I DON’T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SWIMSUIT I CAN WEAR. PLEASE HELP.
Our world needs more women like you to prove that we are characters of substance and value, not just itemized beauty to gawk at.
Our world needs more women who aren’t judgmental pieces of shit to prove that we (all women?!) are characters of substance and value, not just items for you to direct your bizarre anger from your internalized misogyny.
As for me, you’ll find me this summer laying on a beach with a bathing suit that fully covers my behind.
Bitch, thanks to this post you’ll find me this summer laying on a beach, face down, with an actual Victoria’s Secret lace thong on.
Like many others, this past weekend I went to the Women’s March on Washington. During the two months of Facebook discussion leading up to the march, I watched as white feminists were introduced to intersectional feminism for the first time. I wasn’t sure how white feminism and intersectionality were going to mesh, but I think that the now viral “White Women Voted for Trump” sign carried around by Angela Peoples was perfect.
In an interview with The Root, Peoples described the response to her sign: “Most [people] were saying ‘Not this white woman,’ or ‘No one I know!'” And it was at that point anger and frustration bubbled up inside me, to the point that I had to take a break from reading for a minute.
“Not this white woman” and “no one I know” are such bullshit things to say. People were bussed in from all over the country to come this event! I live in the blue af DC metro area, and I know dozens of white women that voted for Trump. If no one you know voted for Trump, either people are afraid to be honest with you, or you live in a ridiculously homogenous bubble.
There’s no one weird sect of my white friends that chose Trump; they range from people I went to a small private elementary school with to former University of Maryland classmates. Almost my entire fucking family voted for him! I’m also one of the most vocally pro-BLM white people that I personally know, and I have been flooding my newsfeed with “hands up, don’t shoot” since Ferguson’s unrest, and a countdown to Trump’s reign starting from “Mexicans are rapists.” I’ve written for Cop Block, I write for liberal immigration lawyers, I have ripped apart both criticism of Baltimore’s uprising and praise of O’Malley on local and national platforms. I have lost work contracts and friends over my militantly pro-black, pro-woman opinions. And even with all of this, people still casually tell me they voted for Trump. Not only would it never cross my mind to give a negative response to a sign someone on my side is holding, but come on. If people tell me they voted for Trump, then I know they told other people. “Yup we sure did, and I know a fuck ton of them that I’m trying to work on,” is the most truthful response.
After Freddie Gray died, I gave up a travel heavy contract I had to write a book about the social, racial, and economic history of Baltimore and how these things culminated in the death of Freddie Gray. Because here is the thing: plenty of people who look like me would rather listen to me tell the history of the black experience in Baltimore instead of listening to, you know, black people. I am a white woman, and consequently I still benefit from white privilege.
So white women! Don’t step on people’s toes or put words in their mouth or act like you understand another’s struggle as though you’ve lived, but DO acknowledge that we benefit from the color of our skin. Take time to learn, and then act as a facilitator to help bridge communication between your fellow white feminists and the vast array of other types of feminists that exist. Don’t get distracted or bitter about signs pointing out that white women don’t show up to protest when black women are shot by the police, or by signs that show the actual statistics of who vote for Trump. Those things are accurate, and you don’t get to be salty with someone for delivering an accurate message.
I am here to share facts and data to help people begin to grasp the challenges faced by those who are less privileged than they are. I am NOT here to defend my fellow whites to communities already marginalized by white people. So what if someone thinks I might be a Trump voter because I’m white? Boo. Hoo. Hey, I’m gonna guess it fucking sucks more to have cops think you’re an armed threat just because you’re black.
Are you a single lady? Have you dated a string of asshole men? I have some good news for you: Mack Major is here to give you some solid life advice! Stop being a fucking slut so God can send you a good man, you stupid whore.
When you get the chance today: go home, empty out your favorite drawer (you know the one I’m referring to)
The one full of cash? The one full of favorite underwear? The one I keep my designer denim in?? Please, Mack! Help! I don’t know which drawer.
And throw every last one of your sex toys away.
Wait. What?? I’ve been keeping all the wrong things in dresser drawers. Dammit!
In fact, don’t just trash them: take a hammer and utterly destroy it. Lest you be tempted to retrieve them from the garbage can.
Let’s just take a moment to think about this logically. I can’t say I’ve ever hit a dildo with a hammer, but it seems like you’d really have to swing at it pretty hard. Like look, Mack. Where are we supposed to do this? If I’m swinging my dildo destruction hammer around my kitchen all willy nilly and I bash in my floorboards, can I sue Mack for his lack of direction? What if I don’t have good aim with a hammer? Isn’t a hammer kind of phallic? Am I allowed to hold hammers that don’t belong to my husband?
If you’re storing movies on your computer, take your computer somewhere safe and clean off your hard drive.
I will consider donating all the money I have to any church if I can have someone explain to me where I can find a “safe space” for porn removal. Also, Mack. Bro. RedTube. YouPorn. Does Mack even know about the internet???
If you have books in your collection that stir up lust and drive you to pleasure yourself, dump those books too.
Let me start with this one: “Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, ‘I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.’ May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine,the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine.”
Oh wait. That’s the Bible. Shit.
Anything that causes you to sin is not coming from you alone. You’ve more than likely opened a door in your life to what the old timers would call a spiritual husband. People who come from a voodoo or an old southern hoodoo background know about spirit husbands.
Surely Mack is making a joke here. I’m guessing he’s trying to show how ridiculous it is to not take personal responsibility for your sins, so he’s brining in voodoo to drive that point home. Right??
These are actual spiritual entities that become attached to a woman through ungodly sexual and spiritual activities.
Motherfucker say what???? Is Mack just trolling us??
Spirit husbands won’t share you with any other man. They will however share you with other women (hence the proliferation of lipstick lesbians and bisexuality among females today). But they will drive all decent men from your life, forcing you to remain alone until you die.
The first time I read this, I had to go check and make sure this was a Christian blog. I just checked again — don’t worry, it’s definitely some type of Jesus centric garbage. I guess it’s okay to believe in spirits and voodoo when you’re trying to terrorize young women out of their sexuality. Ladies! Repent or you will be a lipstick lesbian who dies alone — the worst of all our fears. Without men, we cannot be complete!
Many times a spirit husband becomes attached through fooling around with the occult. And yes that includes horoscopes too.
I have no idea who Mack buys his drugs from, but if his dealer is reading this and lives in the DC metroplex…holla at your girl. I want to live life on this level. I don’t even know what the fuck he’s talking about at this point.
Perhaps [your spirit husband] climbed on top of you while you slept at night, causing extreme terror as he squeezed the breath out of you. Somebody reading this knows exactly what I’m referring to.
YES I DO KNOW.
The only way you can get rid of a spirit husband is…to submit your life to a higher more powerful masculine force: I’m talking about Jesus Christ. Jesus’ name carries major weight in the spiritual realm.
What the fuck is this? The spiritual mafia? “Oh shit son you love Jesus? That guy does not fuck around. Okay I’m out sorry bye.”
Obviously, many rational people would think Mack is a crazy person. But this is the internet, where even the craziest of assholes can find camaraderie online. You know what they say: read the comments on an article only if you hate yourself and/or have a bottle of wine. Guess what, bitches — I have a full bottle of Sauvignon Blanc, and possibly a vagina ghost from Satan, so here we go: a quick translation of some of the comments on Mack’s hard hitting think piece.
Thank you for exposing this & tackling an issue that not many are brave enough to do!
“Thank you for creating this bullshit bizarre theory, and tackling women’s issues in a way that demeans us and encourages us to be submissive. Your idea that we submit to a higher masculine force is really spot on! Not many are insane enough to publicly share your opinion!”
This is an awesome read, however, Would you agree that their are other demonic factors that can cause this? Could it be generational strong holds & othet sorts, there are many women who don’t play with sex toys yet still aren’t married.
“I’m so desperate to be with someone that I can’t understand it’s off putting that I attribute my singledom to demons. Also where do I buy these drawers full of sex toys?”
“Either I do not understand what ‘miscarriage’ means, or I do not understand how things are inherited from generation to generation. Also, spraying Sprite up my uterus is a good form of birth control, right?”
“I masturbate on public transportation while attempting to make eye contact with women holding paperback copies of 50 Shades of Gray. I’m glad to see you agree those sluts deserve it.”
Bad news, bitches: we’ve all been doing drinking wrong. As in we’ve been doing it, and we shouldn’t be. At this point, I assume everyone has seen the CDC’s handy little infographic that alerts women to the dangers of drinking — but just in case, here it is:
Say what you will about this, I find the suggestion that drinking too much can cause women to become violent particularly helpful. Drunk women are always just being so aggressive and violent! Like, way more than men! It’s about time someone pointed that out!
Honestly, I’m a little baffled by the notion that alcohol causes pregnancy and fertility problems. Is the number one fertility problem caused by alcohol immaculate conception, or is the CDC suggesting that women are to blame if they are raped while drunk? Most likely it’s that drunk women are prone to be violent aggressors who will rape men. I’m so glad the CDC is here to put a stop to that.
And isn’t it enough that I am already totally shafted in the workplace and life in general by not being a man? Now I have to learn that men can drink without risk of being violent, getting STDS, unintentionally knocking someone up, or getting heart disease or cancer? I mean what the fuck. Why did the CDC wait so long to alert us to the fact that women obviously metabolize alcohol in a much more dangerous way than men?
I really need a man to explain this to me. Like, I don’t ever want to be pregnant. So should I drink more so I have fertility problems? Or should I drink less so I don’t accidentally get pregnant? Do I still have access to abortion clinics, or is “unintended pregnancy” now an incurable disease?
Maybe it’s time we really reconsidered how we behave when we’re out. Do you know how many men have bought me a drink in a bar? A fucking ton of them. Do you know how many of them have asked to touch the Implanon stick in my arm before allowing me to drink their beverage? None! When will society change? When will men step up to the plate and take responsibility, and make sure that women of child bearing age are not drinking if they can’t prove they are on birth control? Will our next GOP President please create a law requiring proof of birth control in bars?
For whatever reason, the CDC took this image down. I don’t really know why, I think it’s great. Hopefully they are just working hard so they can re-release it with better suggestions. Honestly, let’s just go ahead and determine that women of childbearing age are that way because they are supposed to have children — so ban drinking for anyone 21-35 until they’ve had at least 2 kids. No more Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, no more violent drunks!