It is time to enforce equal responsibilities for women who only want equal rights.

Women are cunning.

They demand equality.

But they don't want the responsibility that goes with their contrived equal rights.

Women want equality in wages, but they don't want to work equal hours or to work like men do where men don't get to contrive excuses for raising a family and then get to miss time from the job.  Women want their biology to give them SPECIAL consideration to miss time but to be paid the same as a man who has not taken 9, 18, 20 months off taking care of children.

Of course women want to have family leave so they can force men into taking time off.    This is the way women get to screw men again but providing men an out to help raise a family.    Once again women want to leverage their special biology and then to force men into dealing with life like women.    Dare men demand women to tough it out and to live life in a biological male way.    All the whinings of having to tough it out and suck it up  would be so loud that it would drown out an airport's noises.

Women have also contrived the right of controlling their own body to provide them with special rights of having a mulligan when it comes to reproduction.   Women have the absolute right to cross their legs and to prevent the entry of a penis.    By any account they have this right without equivocation just like a man can refuse to stick his dick into that stank cunt.

But women want something special.   They want to have a second trip to the well by contriving a right to control the body after they controlled their body.   Women want to control their body after they made the decision to allow the peen to enter.    Women once again leverage their biology to overcome their pathetic emotional makeup by deciding they really didn't mean to have a peen enter them and then that the woman should get to decide to abort the obvious result of unprotected fucking; interestingly women don't allow men to have any say in the decision - men don't get to confirm their actions that resulted in fucking and to prevent the child from being killed in the womb.   No.   Women only want a special exception that after they avoided responsibility for allowing the peen to enter to then give them the ultimate control over the outcome.   Of course the man is denied that very same right.

Women also want to leverage their equality by whining when they suffer from sexual advances; of course women have no problem using their cleavage to get what they want and if they can leverage their pussies to get ahead, they will always use their biology as a weapon; but lest a man exploit the woman using her biology against her by making demands on her, then holy hell has been triggered and a man is destroyed.

But there is no equality in the actions of when women cry wolf and contrive harassment; you see, women can't be held accountable for false claims because women never make false claims.    Women are thus viewed as a weaker sex and not equal.   It is okay for a woman to cry wolf and to destroy a man's reputation but should the man want his pound of flesh from his false accuser, we are told to move on, there is nothing here.

Equality of rights bears an obvious requirement that women bear the responsibility of their pathetic actions.    I'd contend that a woman who contrives false allegations against a man should suffer excruciating and embarrassing payback not unlike a Scarlet Letter.   If a woman will go so far as to state falsehoods against a man and then ruin his life, she should have her ass literally dragged through the mud in public and then to be locked away for life never to be seen or heard from again.

Remember a woman can contrive the right of control over her body, but she can mutilate her son for life without the male ever having that same right of control over his body.   A woman simply has no standing to cause sexual mutilation of her son; and should she demand the boy be mutilated, she should be required to go on the surgery table next to him to be sterilized and then be have her female parts mutilated.    Equality of rights bears the responsibility of equality.     Do it bitch and you get it back.

Women also should have to perform the same job as a man without any adjustment in the physical requirements.    Women's  biology should never provide them an easier job.   Equality of rights demands equality of responsibilities.   If you can't do what a man can do, you have no business doing the job that a man would be doing.

Also let's cease the use of women's biology to excuse them from killing their children.    It is not equal rights for men to allow a woman to use post partem as an excuse to kill their children; men don't get to use "I'm fucking sick of hearing this bitch whine and moan about me working too much" to exert domestic violence against a woman and the children.   There is such a thing as a woman bitching too much and pissing off a man to a point where he can't take it anymore.   Why shouldn't a man be able to claim a biological excuse for planting that bitch in the ground?    Again, equality of rights demands equality of responsibility.   Women's biology doesn't make them special.    It makes them different.

And how is it laughable and almost okay for a bitch to decide to remove a man's penis because she's had enough with his cheating or not loving her enough?    Let's start enforcing mutilation on women if they dare seek to harm a man sexually; if a woman has ultimate control over her body, then if she dares harm a man's privates, she should be sterilized and have her breasts removed as a consequence.   You'd have a huge decrease in women going after a man's junk with a knife if she knew she'd be permanently made flat chested and infertile as a result.

Find this disgusting.

Bite me.   Women need to forgo their use of their biology to be treated differently when they want equality.

 

Update:   Wednesday, August 22nd, 10 a.m.

Now the bitch is a proved liar.   See her in bed with the teen and her admission through text messages that she bonked the boy.   Time to go all out on this cunt and to destroy her and her two-faced ilk.    Women are getting a pass and they need to be destroyed like men they "claim" did them wrong.

Read about the new information here.

-----

I want this bitch destroyed.

Meet Asia Argento.

She's a hypocrite.

She maintains she did not suck a 17 year old's cock and denies she had his peen up her nasty snatch.

But her suicidal boyfriend paid over $300k to keep this whole thing silent.

And did I mention that piece of shit boyfriend off'd himself?

It is time that women are either fully equal or they are waifs that are never considered equal. 

I want this bitch destroyed.   What she has done is no different than the $168 man, Kevin Spacey.   I want her ass so destroyed she'll throw herself off a building and become a fish pancake on the sidewalk below.

My contempt for this fucking bitch is because she had the audacity to slam Harvey Weinstein for his malfeasance and wandering hands and roll out tongue exploiting women - she is part of the cancer known as the "meetoo" movement which is simply man hatred on steroids masquerading as a social movement.

Now we find this two faced cunt has herself gone for underaged peen and she is trying to avoid responsibility for her child sexual predation.   She raped this boy and should either be sent to death in a chipper shredder or she should end her life in a miserable dozen or more floor drop to her death.

Disgusting bitch.   You need to end it now.

The Gay Marriage Problem is Created by Government, Not By the Church The application of laws to ensure equal protection for all is a paramount issue for our times.   As we enter this period of social enlightment, we cannot be quick to cure past perceived ills by committing to laws and actions that are just as insidious and limiting of rights for other citizens.     I seek no application of equality of our laws to non-citizens who are here of illegal means; rights of man has historically bestowed rights to man by virtue of birth, but those rights have never established a right to US citizenship or to cross our border in violation of our laws.   And so I shall limit my discussion here to only being concerned about US citizens and their protection of rights which are governed via the US Constitution.    Miscreants and American Experience thieves are of little concern to me and their deportation should be a given, not something negotiated by those whose hearts are claimed to be far more understanding and bleeding than others. Being a gay man having occupied a small personal space of this world for over fifty years, I've been touched by hate, hugged by love, and seen the world evolve in my life time in ways I thought I would never see - some ways are of goodness, but much has been made in recent years of punishing others to elevate others supposedly to create equality - and sometimes when terms get in the way, we seek to define equality through the bastardization of language to carve out equality for ourselves in a very selfish means while denying equality for others - if not by intent, but by result.   Pursuit of equality by narrowing a discussion is fraud - that is not equality - it is pandering. Being a libertarian, I feel the greatest liberty to all is the greatest good - that we enter this world with the same opportunity - we consume oxygen, we have free will, and we can move our body from one locality to another in search of the best in our lives.   And while we are born into different circumstance, we are nonetheless afforded the same aspirations.    And while it is so popular by the party in power now to insult the wealthy, there is no use in this if we are seeking true liberty.   To listen to the President's party, we have to assume the wealthy sneak into the homes of the poor at night and steal all the accumulated wealth and goods of the poor and that this is how the rich get richer.    It is quite laughable to think that there are those who believe the rich are merely the Grinch who slides down the chimney and bags up 22 inch rims, Obamaphones, and impregnates the unwed to set them down a path of failure. As someone who was not born into wealth, I know the feeling of looking at others and wondering what could be and what might be.   But I was also not born shackled and into a caste system like in many third world nations.   I am thankful that the gift I received upon drawing my first breath some fifty odd years ago gave me a chance to seek to live a life under this Constitution and not in Iran or China or North Korea or some African nation. As a gay man, I also have felt the angst wondering why my love of another man cannot be equated with the love of a man for a woman; but I am a man of reality and I have my eyes open and understand that institutions that Government interferes in, are not necessarily institutions that Government should be involved with.    There is almost always a bastardizing of life when Government gets involved.    The law of unintended consequences seems to always raise its head - birthed into this world with good intentions - but consuming oxygen and infecting the lives of many with violations of liberty and rights even under the guise of giving others rights.     How is it that we have a President who spent nearly 45 years supporting the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman be allowed to suddenly vacillate to a position that just happens to coincide with his leftist donating population which was threatening to deny him their funds during the election of 2012.   How is it that a mid-course change by our President in support of gay marriage be applauded and not questioned?     Is the fact that he changed his position to one of popular inertia excuse his profound ignorance he showed for most of his life.   He was neither struck by lightning and brought to a near death experience nor was he ever a product of an epiphany where he suddenly found it upon himself to seek absolution of his 45 years of bigotry for a greater cause of rights.    This President is one of the kind of people who are backed into a position out of greed - out of exploitation - whether it is pitting the wealthy against the unmotivated - or by pitting gay against those who view marriage as between one man and one woman.    This is a man who holds no dear core belief that exhibits well thought out positions and who has a history of lengthy, scholarly dispositions in written evidence.   We cannot see in this man an lifelong pursuit of supporting the righteous position; rather we find a life history of exploitation and division - often wrapped in a bacon of flowery language - not far removed from bull shit. My belief in the concepts of liberty and equality seek to not defile one group to raise another to its assumed placement in life.   I would no more ask Government to define what marriage is - as marriage is more of a religious institution in which Government has seen fit to meddle and to involve itself to provide benefits and freebies to some, tax provisions to others, and to exploit marriage to win votes.    Marriage is a holy union - and if you are such a person to seek a union that is of the church, then don't seek to tell the church how it will run its unions.   And since marriage has only been exploited by Government, there is no actual violation of any equality by marriage being of one man and one woman. Those who seek to have a non-religious union bastardized marriage by moving it from a religious institution to a secular one instead of crafting a name for secular unions.   And by redefining marriage into one where it is no longer a religious only institution, we have a true problem - not of liberty and of equality, but by Government sticking its focking nose into things it should never have been allowed to be. I'd argue that Government, in the pursuit of equality, should have established the concept of "Civil Union" for all adult unions it seeks to codify for legal purposes.    In this application, you would have separated Church from State, separated marriage from civil avenues, and allowed for an equal application under the law.     With marriage being of Church and Civil Unions being of State, we would have a situation where marriages would only be administered through Churches and if these unions were to be legally recognized, then that union would require them to pursue a civil union with all the trappings, protections, and responsibilities of the law.    We would have afforded a clear "civil" procedure that would have separated a "marriage" from a "civil unon" and would have instantly had a true and logical distinction that would have resolved all conflicts of gay and straight and removed the bigotry of one for the other and allowed for a way to recognize all unions of consenting adults under the law. Yet, my analysis here assumes the goodness of the hearts of the homosexual left - that they truly want to have marriage just so they can be like straights.    And having not just fallen off the turnip truck  yesterday, I know that for decades the gay community lambasted the concept of societal norms and eschewed marriage as if it had been a ripe vagina.   You see, youngsters, marriage was something that gays just didn't do - and the sudden push for gay marriage has to be viewed within this context - that the conquest for gay marriage has nothing to do with equality at all - it is a way of destroying a societal institution. But how can I say this? When gay marriage advocates narrowly define what they say constitutes marriage, that is bigotry no less as insulting as straights who think marriage is of one man and one woman.   If you are to be logically and intellectually consistent, you cannot advocate a position predicated on equality while imposing non-equality on other adults who don't share your characteristics.   So if you find that having marriage as between a man and a woman as violative of equal protection, how is defining marriage as being between only two people equate with equality for all?   How does your narrow view of unions only of two people being worthwhile and legitimate make you superior to advocates of one man and one woman marriage?    You simply accept the terms of two parties and then redefine the parts you find distasteful.   Your integrity of equality ends where your own political and narrow view allows - meanwhile others who are in relationships of love and their beliefs are just as precious to them in their bonds - and that their numbers exceed two.    How is it your numerical bigotry is any less insulting than those who seek marriages of disparate genders? This is why I argued that marriage is a religious institution only -not one of equality pursuits or violations.   It is a separate union recognition from the State - and it is the error of the State to seek to involve itself in a religious institution and tried to coopt the position and then to recognize it.    Having not established civil unions for legal recognition of all adult unions, the Government created the unintended consequence of whoring what marriage truly was and created the problem of gays seeking legal protection for their unions.   And  with the gays seeking only the expansion of recognition to their narrow two party unions, it is a wonder that we can exist at all in harmony. Government should immediately establish as the only adult unions of legal recognition as the civil unions - and that even those "married" in the Christian or other religious institutions are not recognized in civil life as having been pair bonded or protected.    Those married in the Church would need to acquire a civil union in the secular government to have all legal protections and responsibilities.    In this way we no longer have to essentially violate religious rights with bastardizing marriage - we set a clear and distinct civil procedure where all adult unions are handled exactly the same, and we don't limit recognized unions as only being of two adults.    Those who seek unions of more than two would be bound by the same constraints and duties as those of two parties.    And we'd have a logical, ethical, and Constitutional approach that removes Government from invading the religious "marriage" area and would have something distinct for legal purposes. The consistent application of civil unions would provide a clear and distinct recognition for application of all secular situations - survivorship, retirement, benefits, divorces, and all transactions within government.   One set standard, separate and distinct from the Church, and one that would be clear to all - not violative of those with religious convictions - and without the appearance of the leftist homosexual community exploiting marriage for political reasons. I am not unsympathetic to homosexuals and polygamists who seek to have their lifestyles recognized and made equal as the marriages we see with straights.    Yet, it seems queer that gays who have no use for the Church in any way and levy intolerance and bigotry toward non-secular institutions should seek to embrace an institution of theirs.      So if our pursuit of equality is truly a pursuit of equality, then we must adopt a consistent secular institution for administering recognition of adult bonds.    We must not seek to divide or conquer or to punish our adversaries or to act like children with jealousy and indignation.   We should advocate for a total overhaul of our civil union system that applies to all, is distinct from the Church, and is not called marriage.   Marriage should always remain a Churchcentric recognition and distinctly separate from the Secular Government.   And marriages should only be administered and regulated by the church of your faith and the duties and responsibilities should be set forth by the Church and dissolution of marriages should be handled by the Church.    Secular legal procedures for adult bonds should be handled distinctly and not called marriage.   This would end the debate.    And it would ensure equality for all.

There is a troubling new trend in America where one group gets to decide what constitutes "equality" and then seeks to punish others for not sharing that same viewpoint.   Many times the "aggrieved" and "nose out of joint" group seeks refugee in the courts to force their viewpoint of equality onto others, and by doing so, rape the rights of others to their freedom.   Whether this new "tolerance" is bastardizing the word "marriage" only to suit their narrow purpose while ignoring other just and equal rights for others, the new facism in America is playing fast and loose with other people's freedom and acting by decree elevating one groups notion of "equality" over others - and in doing so, they take the notion of Constitutional rights and burn them.    What once was a right, where you exercising your action did not violate someone else's specified rights, is now an obstacle to enforce a minority viewpoint onto the majority.   And as women claim that their right to the control of their bodies trumps the right of a fetus to life, we have a new mockery of rights.   And in the case below, I will present the case that has my libertarian core burning like those in hell.   I'll present the situation and my commentary beside it. Have a differing viewpoint?    Comment on this article.    There is one rule - state your argument, don't insult me.   If you can't make your argument on the merits of logic, you certainly won't get your comment approved.   Insults are meaningless.    But if you can actually argue your case with logic, I'll be more than happy to post the comment even if it disagrees with my position.   Don't use ad hominems in the comment even if you are arguing your case.   One word of caution - Dumbasses may be fun to kick around, but don't prove you are one.   Who knows, I might not stand in your way of proving you are a dumbass and I might just publish you.    Do you have the balls to be such a dumbass or can you show that you have more than two brain cells? Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples (NBC News) A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.  Arbitrary enforcers of their rights over others  using their sexual orientation as justification for preferential treatment. The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."  The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.  The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.  Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple away, according to the complaint.  Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge's order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith.  "He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," she said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."  The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge's order, and Martin said they're considering their next steps.  Mullins said he and Craig are "ecstatic."  "To a certain extent, though, I don't think that this is necessarily a surprise," he said. "We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had discriminated against us."  Mullins said he hopes the "decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado."  A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.  Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.  "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his written order. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."  ACLU attorney Amanda Goad said no one is asking Phillips to change his religious beliefs.  "But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple," she said.  Be Careful of the Precedents You Set When in Power I understand the special nature of this notion that many gay people have that they feel persecuted at every turn of their lives.   This notion isn't particular to the homosexual community.  Other groups carry a perpetual chip on their shoulder - blacks, illegal aliens, and women are particular groups who think that just because they feel persecuted, they are persecuted.    As a Libertarian, I have no use for victims or those who fabricate a cause to make their particular ethnic or minority group worthy of special protections.    I believe in total equality where a man and a woman are equal - a gay and a straight are equal - and there are no color or ethnic differences to my eyes.    I do believe in the rule of law - and that those who violate the laws should be held accountable - and that a government can and should restrict immigration and that those who arbitrarily and selfishly put themselves above that law should be dispensed with in the most unflattering and immediate deportation from this country. When it comes to gay rights, I truly understand, being gay myself, this feeling that you suspect or have actually had happen overt contempt by someone else toward you just because you are gay.   I have lived that and oddly enough one of the minorities which screams the loudest about race-based discrimination is the community that showed me physical and emotional contempt for me being gay.   But I hold no grudge or disdain - just sadness that their own bigotry exists. But I've also been insulted and persecuted in school for being too intelligent - once I was sat on a snow bank in Maine during 6th grade and had a rotten banana pushed in my face as my classmates "held court" and tried and convicted me of being "too smart".    I get the feeling - I understand.   I've lived it.   There is overt persecution.   That wasn't a hate crime, but it was assault. Yet, I have matured and grown up understanding that there are ignorant pigs amongst us - and that no matter how much I wish I was loved - I won't be.   People will loathe me for being queer, being smart, being white, or being a man.   Oh focking well.   Yet I do not wear this feeling of "victimization" as a grounds to punish others.   Instead, I seek to rise above - to show that there is no amount of human stupidity that can stand in my way of accomplishing anything. When I read this article to the left, I was dumbfounded.   How is it that someone can force another person to bake them a cake if that baker does not want that person as a customer?    If the baker does have religious convictions, those are rights he has - and no State can force him to do things against his religion.   The leftists among us are always fabricating this notion of a separate between church and state even if those words never once appear in the Constitution.    But when a protected group, homosexuals, are put in conflict with another group, Christians, the Christians rights seem to be less important and protected than homosexual rights.   I take exception to this "equality by decree" where a court can tell me, a web designer, that I must design a website for a "socialist" should I have that opportunity come my way.   How is that I cannot refuse to participate in my trade in a fashion I desire?    The last time I checked, the baker and myself, the web designer, aren't mentioned once in the Constitution, and that there is not one mention that I am REQUIRED to service every potential customer that comes in contact with me.   Simply put, no one has a right to my services, paid or otherwise, and has no right to be a customer of mine. In my case in and in the one I've provided to the left, it would seem silly to enforce either of us to be compelled to participate in commerce where neither of us are the least bit interested.   If I am compelled to create something for someone I would rather not participate, I will not give my best and I should not be forced to participate.   I would no more take on a Neo-nazi website than I would one for a Democrat political candidate.   I simply am not interested and will not bust my butt to create such a website.   That baker should not be compelled to bake a cake for a gay couple and there are plenty of places that will.   But you have no right of absolute right - that is just because you are gay does not give you rights that allow you to interfere in my exercise of rights - and whether my right I am invoking is religion or my freedom of association, your homosexuality is not a trump card you get to wield like a sword of righteousness. So the next time you think being gay means something special - to you it does - but others are free not to share your viewpoint and that does not make them wrong.   It just makes them American and exercising their freedoms.