Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Feminists vs the Cheaters

This series of posts is going to examine the hyper-politically incorrect reality of sex between American men and women. Don’t read it if that bothers you, or if you only are interested in energy and the markets. I am going to pull no punches nor sugar coat anything. Rational co-examination of the facts and opinions are welcome. Any ad hominem attacks will be deleted.


Arnold had a "love" child, as did presidential candidate John Edwards.  Governor Spitzer of New York probably (hopefully) wore a condom with his lover.

Notice the rage within the feminist community at Edwards and Schwarzenegger that seems to be lacking when directed at other politicians who had affairs?

Know why that is?

Because these men and their lovers did not abort their un-born children.

That’s it. Nothing more to it than that (well, other than that elitist feminists feel that the mothers of these children are beneath them). See, the feminists will look the other way if a pro-abortion pol has an affair... Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton et al.... but don't let that baby be born!

Think I am out of my mind? Only because you have not pondered this issue. Follow my reasoning. When people have sex, pregnancy often results. There have been unlimited numbers of famous and powerful politicians having affairs with nubile young women.

And these are the only 2 pregnancies? Out of thousands of affairs?

Bullshit. There were LOTS of pregnancies. Rather than face up to the responsibilities of the result of their affairs, the other guys were complicit in the murder of their own children.

And what is our response? The U.S. is going to indict John Edwards (and for all I know he violated federal campaign laws).

No one has come to Governor Schwarzenegger’s rescue. Governor Spitizer had Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz come to his aid, with Dershowitz telling American’s to “grow up”. Liberals give other liberals cover, especially if they "do the right thing" and abort the baby!

Allow me to tell you my vision of the truth: If men and women are in close proximity for any length of time they will have sex. The feminists will tell you that this is about powerful men and their subordinates… someone should remind them that correlation does not imply causation. There is no “blame”, dear feminists.  Nature, G-d, the Universe… however you prefer to define this has a simple set of rules. These are the rules:

If men and women are brought together, they will have sex. It does not matter who is in charge.

If men and women have sex, it will absolutely, positively result in pregnancies.

The vast majority of pregnancies of the rich and powerful and famous have been terminated. Why? Because of the fear these men have of their wives and divorce, and the female electorate. A fear so powerful, these men are willing to be complicit in the murder of their own unborn child.

One of the unintended consequences of technology is that babies that would have been born because paternity identification was not perfectly certain are now being aborted. How screwy is that?

On the subject of “destroying a family”… how is a man having sex outside of a marriage worse than a woman filing for divorce because of “irreconcilable differences” when there are children involved? Is a lover more damaging to a family than a divorce lawyer? Is a lover more of a betrayal than a divorce lawyer?  I am not terribly religious... but it seems to me that sex is a venal sin while abortion is somewhat more serious...

Sometimes I think I am the only normal person left.

More on this soon...


Anonymous said...


I understand controversy sells but come on..

Greg T. Jeffers said...

That is close to ad hominem...

Please tel me what is wrong with my math:

10's of thousands of affairs politicians have had affairs.

The number of "Love" children is in the single digits.

Did I miss something?

Stay tuned. I have much to say.

Anonymous said...

No I am just reflecting on your choice of topics.

Its like your trying to stir the pot.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


Look at the number of articles from the Feminist Left KILLING Arnold.

His sins are insubstantial compared to the others.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


This is one of my favorite hobbies...

stripping the bark off the media propaganda.

Anonymous said...

What I can't understand is why Ah-nawld stooped so low in the looks department. I mean the height of his career he probably could've had any female he wanted, and he went with the homely maid? Unless of course that was his cover all along -- nobody'd suspect him of sleeping with her. Other than that, so what, he's not the first dude to hit-it with his maid. And you are very right about men and women being in proximity to each other, and the probably best advice I can give people who want to stay monogamous is don't put yourself into a situation where you'd even be tempted. You know...the "best-good-friend-like-my brother/sister" person that hangs around all the time at your family bbq's. Some people are really into having a bunch of friends of the opposite sex that are really just potential plan B mates.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

I reject the elitist B.S. that the maid was unattractive. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not the issue.

People are what we are... forgiveness is the issue...

Anonymous said...

They are crucifying the poor bastard. Let's pick the news coverage apart a bit.

A Latino woman that lives in Arnold's house gives birth to a blond haired boy the looks just like him, and Maria hasn't noticed in 14 years.
Bull S#!t!

The mother of this child has been supported for the last 14 years. How is she a victim?
Bull S#!t!

The whole male intimidation thing is more Bull S#!t! Women throw themselves at these hotshots. She may be a predator. Who knows? All I know is that it takes two, and they share equal responsibility for the consequences.

Maria is the victim of a lie, or not. We have no idea what their arrangement was.

In general, I look upon those who screw around on their spouses with a suspicious eye. I don't think they are any more likely to be honest with me.

And finally, I agree with you assessment 100%. The real sin here is that there is walking talking proof of Arnold's infidelity. Not the infidelity itself. Sad.


Coal Guy

PioneerPreppy said...

The real problem here is that conservatives and especially anti-abortion conservatives (or Libertarians) stand on a ground that it is morally wrong to murder a child. Therefore they are lumped into the pro-marriage, pro-Christian overall camp. So when an anti-abortion conservative or any male who is republican cheats these liberals attack thinking if they show a Christian violates one moral rule than their stance on another is worthless.

Really it is no different than a liberal attacking someone who has reach soc. sec. age as a hypocrite for taking the money they were promised but yet voting against Obama care.

A fallacy sure, but one they can use to attack all morals in the public view IMO.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


I think that's a very good point.

People often think me associated with a certain religious group because of my stiff opposition to abortion.

And yes they do use this "inconsistency", as they see it, to fault the original reasoning.

PioneerPreppy said...

Perhaps an anti-abortion Christian should embrace fundamentalist Mormon or one of the other off-shoot sects that hold to the more than one wife philosophy. I know there is at least one out there, although I do not know the name of it. I actually had a female friend in college who was of that sect and believed that she had to remain a virgin before marriage but the men were allowed some leeway. Although they followed the law they made it quite plain that from a religious point men were allowed multiple wives.

I wish I could remember what they called themselves. We had some nice discussions about it between classes.

tweell said...

From the age of Schwarzenegger's bastard (the correct term), Arnold would have been making movies and using steroids to buff himself, as he has admitted. An issue with heavy steroid use that isn't usually brought up is being a horndog, but ask any (honest) bodybuilder and they'll tell you about it.
My opinion is that Maria Shriver knew about this and more, and it was her decision to leak it at this time. Being a MSM VIP, she's able to muster the media against her soon-to-be ex-husband and score some extra points.
I'm rather surprised at Edwards' situation, the MSM did their best to ignore his affair. In his case, though, his dying wife was doing everything she could to get back at him, looks like Saint Elizabeth succeeded.
I'd like to point out that Jesse Jackson managed to weather his affair and love child, even being a supposed Man of God and all. In his case, though, his wife stood by him.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

I have respect for Mrs. Jackson.

Anonymous said...

Punishing John Edward's penis is much more important than punishing any banker or fraudster.
The media lovingly going over the details of Arnie's pussy patrol is much more important than discussing our wasteful imperial wars.
Bitching about feminazis and other libruls serves the same purpose.
Keep the sheep distracted so they don't see the butcher coming.
Rational Liberal

Donal said...

From the outside, there often seems to be a strange moral dichotomy in the US. It's reminiscent of the 1950's; no-one wants to talk about sex in public but everyone knows there's lots of it going on. Its like if you don't talk about it, it doesn't need to be dealt with.

An example is homosexuality in the armed forces - who was trying to kid whom?

Yes, politicians make babies, both in and out of marriage. Yes, for every predatory man getting sex on the side, there's a willing woman wanting to fuck with him. Yes, powerful men attract women (and those women generally aren't 'victims'.

Your politicians and media suck up to the 'special interest' groups'; feminists and religious right, all the way through to corporate marketing and advertising companies, to skew the public morality and demonise those that would debate it. Not healthy!

But i would differ with your proposition; i know you hold strong views on abortion, Greg, and I respect them. But i think the most important thing is the success of a child, not the biological fact of their existence. If a biological father doesn't acknowledge his child and support it through their formative years (and I don't mean just money), then that child will be damaged and it's potential diminished.

Its successful children we need. At the moment all this posturing and faked-up public morality isn't achieving it.

Greg T. Jeffers said...


"Success" is in the eye of the beholder.

I am not capable nor worthy to determine who should live or die based upon what I THINK their value to the world is.

Donal said...

Greg; that's not what I'm saying. No one is judging 'right to exist' or even success (whatever that is). But we do know what failure looks like.

What I'm saying is that its not enough to just produce a baby. If someone is going to take the risk, they should take the responsibility; be a father to your child, support it, give it values and time and attention, make it feel cared for and important.

Prisons and mental institutions are full of adults who were (or felt) abandoned and abused as children.

At the moment, moralising media and posturing politicians are driving normal human behaviour underground and its their illegitamate children who suffer from being abandoned, ignored or denied. It is exactly the opposite effect of the moralists stated aims.

Anonymous said...

Greg- I respect your views on this subject and am not attacking you personally. However it is my opinion that-

Many of the same folks that are crying all the crocodile tears about murdered babies are the same folks that support any and all wars that this country gets into.

Many are the same people that vigorously supported the launching of a nuke first strike on the USSR that would have caused the death of 100s of millions of innocents.

Many are the same people who want to see most of earths population burning alive in an atomic fireball to herald the supposed return of Jesus.

Many are the same folks who generally support the death penalty and hatred of most non-JudeoChristian religions- especially Muslims.

They are often the same folks that vigorously oppose family planning (which reduces unwanted pregnancies before they get to the abortion stage). And they harshly oppose any kind of public programs to support kids after they are born.

Many currently support the idea of nuking the entire Muslim world. I have heard it many many times with my own ears.

Just my opinion

Greg T. Jeffers said...


Not relavent. And likely not accurate.

There are PLENTY of folks like me that reject violence in every pretext! There are no shortage of hypocrites...

What does that have to do with Sex, Children, Abortion, Families, and Divorce?

Stay tuned...

Greg T. Jeffers said...


Let's look at this dynastically, shall we?

What about all of the descendants of the proposed aborted? Perhaps the mankind's solutions will be made by one of them? Why is only the aborted's generation considered?

Anonymous said...

people have always had affairs. That isn't really the issue with Arnold. He just hid the whole thing from his family. I have the feeling Maria would have stayed with him had he only told her the truth. How would you feel if your wife told you she had a child with another man while you were married and kept it from you? (obviously that can't happen, but is not the affair itself. Its the lies and cover ups. )

Anonymous said...

Suppose Maria Shriver suddenly admitted that the children she raised with Arnold were not really biologically his and were from an affair she had with another man and covered up for over a decade. Don't you think the press would vilify her and call her a slut or whore? Its not the affair or the child, its the pattern of deception. If your spouse told you that your kids were not really your DNA wouldn't you feel betrayed, horrified, humiliated?

Greg T. Jeffers said...


I never disputed the points you raise. These points are entirely reasonable.

Greg T. Jeffers said...

BTW... there are several extensive studies on the propensity and probability of cuckholdry... it is estimated that 1 in 25 babies are born to women where the father is not the hubby/significant other.

Get googling!

I hinted at this issue... I mentioned that in the past we did not have the technology to know for sure whose was whose. Some how, I think that was preferable to the system we now have, though not perfect.