Hypergamy Unleashed — Impacts, Part 1


The impact of hypergamy on women and children have been covered in this blog.  But what of the other impacts, those on society in general?  In short — the prognosis is poor.  This is the first of a two part series that will consider various aspects of the impact of hypergamy.  The reader is encouraged to suggest others not covered, as the impact is truly far and wide.

Economic Impact

Clearly men are not living up to their economic potential.  In their 20’s, they are not developing the skills needed for thriving in a modern economy.  If they do develop some job skills, often it is just enough to support themselves.  Career success in a man is not really rewarded anymore with respect to attracting a higher quality woman.  So why put in the needed effort for such success?  Furthermore, when married, a brow-beaten husband is less likely put in any extra effort compared to one that has his wife’s respect.   This goes doubly for a divorced fathers.  Much of this is the result of women playing the field, before and after marriage, always angling (or at least pining) to trade up.  People do what is rewarded, and it is clear that industriousness in a man is not rewarded by women in modern times.  So society loses.

Men’s Respect For Women

As a child I was taught to respect all adults, and also to be chivalrous to women. And for most part, the women of my youth were deserving of this.  My respect for modern women is almost nil.  They are ungracious, lackluster mothers, and not particularly impressive in the workplace.  It is perfectly obvious that their primary (but not necessarily only) task should be being good mothers, yet they seem to prefer to do almost everything else (carousel, career) instead.  Much of this preference is driven by their hypergamy fueled late teens and twenties.  For men, the carousel is the real killer.  Men may accept a former carousel rider as a wife, and profess things like love and such, but deep down her ride will always be eating at him.  Perhaps the effect it will come out bit by bit, or maybe all at once, but it really comes down to a lack of respect based on her past (she probably does not respect him either, because she “settled”).  This toxic brew can never be good for a resulting family.

P.S.  NAWALT applies as always

Advertisements
Tagged with: ,
Posted in FarmBoy, Hypergamy
91 comments on “Hypergamy Unleashed — Impacts, Part 1
  1. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    I have put forth the concept that hypergamy is a form of greed. It occurs to me that modern women have gotten so greedy that men have lost incentive.
    Am I off on this?

    Like

  2. Farm Boy says:

    It would be a greed. But it is a very short term greed, both for the individual and women as a whole. Women appear to have little Future Time Orientation (FTO)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Farm Boy says:

    I might add that women would as a sum total of “contentment” over their lives do better by not being so greedy.

    Like

  4. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    For myself, I have found that if I want more honey, I will have to deal with more bees. It puts things in perspective.
    The second helping of honey can never be as good as the first.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Tarnished says:

    “People do what is rewarded, and it is clear that industriousness in a man is not rewarded by women in modern times.”
    -Am I the only one who still believes work is its own reward? That taking pride in one’s job, especially if it’s something one truly enjoys and is good at, is reason enough to strive for excellence?

    “It is perfectly obvious that their primary (but not necessarily only) task should be being good mothers, yet they seem to prefer to do almost everything else (carousel, career) instead.”
    -If a woman is set on being a mother, she should certainly be a good one to the absolute best of her ability. However, motherhood is not for every female just as fatherhood is not for every male.There is no shame in having a career so long as one recognizes that it’s impossible to ‘have it all’ and not attempt to both be a fantastic parent and climb far up the corporate ladder at the same time. The exception to this rule would be if one’s spouse is a stay-at-home mom or dad.

    “Men may accept a former carousel rider as a wife, and profess things like love and such, but deep down her ride will always be eating at him.”
    -Would this still be true if his number far eclipses her own? One of my friends had 15 partners in college whereas his wife of 22 years (and still going) had 6. While he’s okay with some of the Red Pill, he’s very much like my FwB in that he’s very accepting of both men and women having numerous sexual partners before marriage, and thinks it’s idiotic to judge anyone based on their N unless it’s ridiculously high or they didn’t do it safely. Perhaps it’s more of a point of contention when the woman has had significantly more than the man? It’s just something I’ve noticed about my own social circle, that this is something they care very little about.

    Like

  6. Farm Boy says:

    Am I the only one who still believes work is its own reward?

    No. I am somewhat successful, and have a “career” that I like. But I might have been more driven if I had a family to support. And of course, one motivation for obtaining my education was to attract a fine wife.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Tarnished says:

    Hmm. Do women actually care about the educational level of their mates? Or is it more along the lines of “more education tends to = more money”?

    There is a statistical trend of women choosing men with higher educational status than themselves, but I’d always assumed it was for the latter reason.

    Like

  8. Cill says:

    I read that males who lived outside of the clan needed less than 50% of their strength and energy to survive by themselves. My own experience bears this out. I only need to work an average of an hour a day to provide for myself. By “provide for myself” I mean being everything in order to survive: plumber, electrician, mechanic, builder and carpenter, fisher and diver, hunter and gardener, blacksmith and farmer, shearer and butcher. The only exception has been veterinary services, which are rarely required.

    The early human females saw the value of monogamy because men have spare strength and energy available for protection of, and provision for, a mate and offspring. Unfortunately for men, the typical woman is inherently equipped for serial rather than lifelong monogamy. Less than 5 years into a relationship, nature will drive her to prefer sex with another man.
    Even during a relationship, she will cheat if she thinks she can do it without him knowing:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/once-more-feeling/201306/female-sexual-desire-evolutionary-biology-perspective/

    Like

  9. Cill says:

    For men, monogamy with a 5 year turnover has sub-zero value. Lose your property and children with a different woman every 5 years? I don’t think so.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Yoda says:

    Education leads to a job.
    A job leads to money.
    Money leads to women.
    Women leads to a family.

    A family leads to divorce rape.

    Like

  11. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Cill,
    I don’t think serial monogamy would have been all that successful in the old days. First, she would have to leave empty handed and, second, prospects would be worse every five years cycle. Lifetime monogamy would have a woman’s ally providing a lifelong home.
    Only in today’s relative anonimity can a woman succeed with serial monogamy.

    Like

  12. Tarnished says:

    But if we’re talking evo-psych, then doesn’t this make sense? Evolution doesn’t give a damn about property…most mammals, primates included, are at least semi-nomadic and social. Think of the saying “it takes a village to raise a child”. It’s similar to how gorillas are, with small infants staying close to their mother and other females but then learning social skills from the younger males of the group. And much like humans our primate kin use touch, grooming, and sex as bonding mechanisms yet only have 3-4 children in a lifetime, reach puberty in their teens, and can live up to 50 years .

    If there’s no worries about property other than a large territory and children from toddler age and up are raised by the group as a whole…then it would seem to make sense for new mates to be taken every 5 years or so. That way the risk of inbreeding is alleviated, young males have chances to mate too, and females have both protection and time to truly care for the offspring when it matters most.

    Like

  13. Tarnished says:

    Concepts of property, laws, monogamy, and absolute ownership of one’s children doesn’t fully connect with typical primate behavior. Humans are the strangest of all the great apes…We pretend so diligently to be apart from nature, yet it is constantly there to remind us we’re not.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tarn,
    The staement, “It takes a village to raise a child.”, is usually attributed to Hillary Clinton. It denies the importance of the father.

    Like

  15. Cill says:

    Life expectancy was short too. She dumps mate #1, and a couple of mates later she’s pushing up verde on the veldt.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Yoda says:

    verde

    Popularize this word I did.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Tarnished says:

    Fuzzie,

    Really? Never knew that. I’d been told by various teachers and professors over my educational years that it was an African proverb of undetermined national origin. Allowing that Hillary can go suck a coconut for all I care, it’s still a good saying. When I hear it, I don’t think “fathers are useless”, but rather “children are precious and should be cared for/cherished/protected by their entire community”.

    I do apologize if it seemed like I was using the proverb in an unfriendly-towards-men way, though. That was far from the intent.

    Like

  18. Cill says:

    An excerpt (emphasis mine):
    “In most species where scientists have looked for it, females mate with more males than are required for fertilization – this is true from insects to birds to primates. In the past, probably due to bias on the part of researchers, females were seen as passive participants – forced into “cheating” by persistent males. Subsequent research has shown that females actively solicit copulation with males other than her partner and that this strategy is, in fact, adaptive – that is, it yields benefits in how many offspring she has and how well they survive.

    In addition, in some non-human animals, sex is not only about reproduction but serves a function either to maintain existing relationships in monogamously breeding species or as a social bonding strategy to reduce aggression.

    Overall, the evolutionary benefits of females having multiple sexual partners has been, and perhaps continues to be, underestimated…

    for species whose offspring take a great deal of time and energy to raise, male or female abandonment would result in reproductive failure. Thus, males and females in these species forego mating opportunities with others in order to maximize the survival of offspring they already have.

    Humans are a rather extreme example of this because human babies are extraordinarily energetically costly to raise when you consider both their relative helplessness at birth and prolonged childhood.

    The implications of this are twofold. In most monogamously breeding species that have been studied, animals adopt a mixed strategy of social monogamy without pure sexual monogamy. That is, both males and females engage in discreet copulations outside the socially monogamous relationship to defray the cost of missed mating opportunities. Secondly, because a male raising another male’s child means complete reproductive failure, the evolutionary cost of having a cheating wife is far greater than having a cheating husband.

    We expect, then, to have much stronger evolutionary pressures for males to prevent female infidelity than for females to prevent male infidelity

    … What seems to be different is that while men in long-term monogamous relationships report that they long for variety, their interest in sex (with their partner) remains roughly constant – they still want sex with their wives/partners. Women, however, appear to lose interest in sex in monogamous partnerships. In the past, this was interpreted as confirmation of women’s lower libido and the result of having already “gotten what they wanted” = marriage.

    In light of recent research, it seems that women have not lost interest in sex; they have just lost interest in sex with their long-term partners. They carry the evolutionary baggage of a time when seeking new partners would have given them a fitness advantage, especially as they approach the end of their reproductive lives.”

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Tarnished says:

    That is a wealth of information, Cill.
    And offers a very plausible explanation for female cheating and male infanticide tendencies alike.

    It lends credence to the hypothesis I have in regards to why the boyfriends of single mothers will often abuse or kill the child from her previous relationship. It’s in the news so much that I fear becoming numb to it…

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Tarnished says:

    Oh, and of course NAMALT. While mine wasn’t one of them, I’ve met numerous stepfathers who loved their stepchildren as if they were blood.

    Dear Gods…it’s 1am!
    Off to bed for me. ‘Night, all.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Cill says:

    Sleep tight Tarn.
    Sleep tight All.
    (except for we benighted folks Down Under)

    Like

  22. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Tarn,
    It could well be that I heard the stement from her first. While it seems innocent enough on its face, there are ramifacations. A lot of feminist thought is like that.

    Like

  23. Cill says:

    … And it ends on a positive note:

    “The point of all this is NOT to say that both men and women are frustrated with sexual monogamy and so let’s just forget about marriage and other long-term partnerships because sexual monogamy “isn’t natural”. It is a ridiculous and flawed argument to say that just because something is “natural”, that it is automatically “good”. Infanticide is natural! Our desire for fat and sugar and consequent weight gain is “natural”!

    As humans, we have an obvious and strong desire for long-term, steady partners and this is as much a part of our evolutionary history as the desire to engage in extra-partner sex. Understanding our evolutionary baggage and acknowledging that females evolved to be very sexual allows us to approach sexual dissatisfaction in a new way. We need to understand desire to be able to stimulate it.

    I hope that this new perspective will lead to more sexually satisfying long-term relationships for both men AND women.”

    Like

  24. Tarnished says:

    Truth.

    Cyanide is natural.
    Prescription eyewear is not. Yet nobody would be so foolish as to eat handfuls of apple seeds or condemn people who need glasses.
    There’s a balance between civilization and nature. We just need to find it, and upon finding it, acknowledge and use it.

    Okay, good night for real.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Anon says:

    I am not sure if there is a equilibrium between our nature and industrial civilization.I am beginning to think the amish are right.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Cill says:

    A question for the morrow, then:

    Could it be that in reverting to natural behavior (multiple sex partners rather than monogamy), women of the Feminist World are behaving in a way that is more appropriate to their primate ancestors than to modern humans? Could so many of them behave that way if the State were not their provider?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Anon says:

    @Cill
    “Could it be that in reverting to natural behavior (multiple sex partners rather than monogamy), women of the Feminist World are behaving in a way that is more appropriate to their primate ancestors than to modern humans?”
    It could be but i don’t know the mating patterns of primitive humans.

    “Could so many of them behave that way if the State were not their provider?”
    I dont think so. This behavior from women it is possible because they dont have to please lesser men to be able to get their resources because the state is there to steal for them. Also the fact than men have little to no rights in marriage and the existence of modern social networks like facebook expanding greatly the availability of men, amplify this type of behavior.

    Like

  28. Yoda says:

    Serial monogamy women do like.

    Like

  29. Tarnished says:

    “Could it be that in reverting to natural behavior (multiple sex partners rather than monogamy), women of the Feminist World are behaving in a way that is more appropriate to their primate ancestors than to modern humans?”
    -No, and not only because there’s no ancient human beings for us to communicate with/observe. In the examples with gorillas above, I show potential analogies between our species since we’re very close on the evolutionary “tree”. (Gods, I hate using this term since it makes it sound like homo sapiens are “on top” and evolution doesn’t work that way.)

    There are definitely similarities among the 5 great apes…humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans…but make no mistake that we are all separate species. For example, actions that look like male-on-female rape have been observed in orangutans but not in chimps (where the male is more likely to bribe an unwilling female into coitus with pieces of sugar cane or fruits) or bonobos (sensual and sexual grooming is typically used to soothe most aggressive behaviors anyway, so there’d be no point in forcing it). Humans seem to be a conglomerate of primates, which again makes us rather strange. I don’t think we can automatically tell what our ancestors did by observing our modern day primate cousins…unless you’re wanting to compare homo erectus and homo neanderthalensis to homo sapiens.

    You ask if these women are acting like primitive humans instead of modern ones. I’d say no, absolutely not. Why? Because in order for a growing group of individuals to survive as our ancestors did, compromise, hard work, and empathy were a must. I only took 3 anthropology courses in college, but our current view of early humanity is one of semi-nomadic hunter gatherers with strong family/community ties. The men would go hunting and attempt to bring down big game as well as provide protection and scout out new territories for when they moved. The women would raise the children, capture small game, gather tubers, and fruits/vegetables to supplement the men’s kill (or to simply have food available if they returned unsuccessful), and help to craft tools for both sexes. It was highly complementary, and likely part of the basis for current gender roles. Interestingly, various ancient sites have been found with “warrior women” graves, hinting at the fact that life was so harsh that if a woman showed aptitude for hunting or fighting, the gender roles could still be bent to insure better group survival. Here’s one example: http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/abstracts/sarmatians.html

    “Could so many of them behave that way if the State were not their provider?”
    -Absolutely not. And therein lies the crux of my argument. Women like the PPP aren’t acting like primitive human females…they are acting purely like modern ones, same as those “alphas” are acting purely like modern males. Our survival, at least in first world countries, is too assured for the majority of us. Evolution takes a long time to create meaningful changes, and our bodies really are built to be in a primate lifestyle despite the alterations to our diets and environment. The behavior we see is not a “regression” to primitive humanity. If only we could be so lucky! It’s what happens when you take a proud species like a wolf and water it down to a teacup poodle…it’s still technically a canine, but it would be utterly useless, not to mention very dead, in any environment other than the artificial one we have now. PPP’s and faux-alphas are a direct result of modern civilization, not a throwback to our origins.

    Like

  30. Tarnished says:

    We should give chimps social media and see what happens… 😈

    Like

  31. Lon Spector says:

    Tarnished,
    Please don’t forget to keep us posted about when you intent to resume blogging,
    and the brand new title of your blog.

    Like

  32. Yoda says:

    We should give chimps social media and see what happens

    Pretty sight it would not be.

    Like

  33. Yoda says:

    “It takes a village” about taxing everybody else to pay for thug-spawn it is.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Yoda says:

    For men, monogamy with a 5 year turnover has sub-zero value. Lose your property and children with a different woman every 5 years?

    Once too many times it would be.

    Like

  35. theasdgamer says:

    If you find a woman dancing with you a lot, especially if she asks you to dance, suspect that she has an agenda.

    Like

  36. theasdgamer says:

    @ FB

    Women appear to have little Future Time Orientation (FTO)

    Amygdalas of women, sure. Cortex, more variability.

    Like

  37. theasdgamer says:

    I found my posts tweeted by Heartiste and others. No wonder I hit 500 views in a day!

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Tarnished says:

    Yeah, having a post retweeted or blogged by something/someone who’s big is shocking until you see why your numbers are so big. That happened to one of mine…got over 900 views that day because of reddit linkage. Which post was retweeted?

    Like

  39. Tarnished says:

    No problem, Lon.
    It won’t be for a while.

    Like

  40. theasdgamer says:

    Simple autistic game to get women interested

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Yoda says:

    Women like the PPP aren’t acting like primitive human females…they are acting purely like modern ones

    Feral behavior they display.
    Enabled by modern wealth it is.
    Similar to modern overeating it would be.

    Like

  42. Padawan says:

    When Spawny Hits Ten Grand (by Padawan, Poet Laureate 2014 – ?)

    Some of us await with dread,
    So near are we right now,
    That nature will turn on it’s head
    When Spawny hits Ten Thou

    Anita will FB line up
    Her eye alight with lust
    Watson says “For my own tup,
    It’s Spawny Get or bust”

    Irksome he might be, although
    I’d wish no man such ill,
    Zoe Quinn is set to go
    And set her sights on Cill

    Harriet will mount the bear
    Big Red will lend a hand,
    Big Red will bang the manosphere
    When Spawny hits Ten Grand

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Yoda says:

    Good seed and provisions women do want.
    From same source required it is not.
    Source of much of world’s problems this is.

    Like

  44. Yoda says:

    Lena Dunham do what she will?

    Like

  45. Spawny Get says:

    One

    Comment #10,000!!!

    Liked by 4 people

  46. Spawny Get says:

    Thanks guyzngalz

    Like

  47. molly says:

    Ten for Unca S!
    ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐

    Liked by 1 person

  48. molly says:

    The Day of Judgement did not come, Padawan! lol

    Like

  49. Yoda says:

    Rainbow Furby good it would be.

    Like

  50. Yoda says:

    The Day of Judgement

    Judgement bad it is.
    Unless SJWs it they do.

    Like

  51. Spawny Get says:

    That’s one HELL of an avatar, Molly.

    Like

  52. Spawny Get says:

    I blame Spawny for that avatar…daft bastard.

    Like

  53. molly says:

    Aw shucks, flattery will get you everywhere 🙄

    Liked by 1 person

  54. molly says:

    C’mon admit it Spawny you want to give me a cuddle. Huh? Huh? 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  55. Spawny Get says:

    Okay, I lol’d

    Like

  56. molly says:

    An avuncular cuddle, mind!

    Like

  57. Spawny Get says:

    At my age I must respect the limits that my old ticker could take…

    Like

  58. molly says:

    heh heh I godim tongue tied 😉

    Like

  59. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Molly,
    YES! I want to cuddle your avatar! Rub its little ears until it squeals with glee!

    Spawny Get,
    Congratulations on getting to 10,000! Next stop, 12,614 or 2×6307.

    Padawan,
    I will accept no refrigerator sized boxes from the UK. Harriet Harman may be hiding inside.

    Yoda,
    At the rate that we keep getting hit with all these female teacher/male student scandals, there have to be more than a handful in every town.

    Like

  60. Spawny Get says:

    I’m still in deep shock that I had anything to do with that…that…avatar.

    12614 seems a little obscure, but at least it’s not too far away, Fuzzie.

    Like

  61. Cill says:

    Bloody hell mate, words fail me.
    Something a bit more Molly-like would’ve been good.
    For starters, she’s got high cheek bones and slightly tilted eyes. The avatar’s eyes look like what’s left of granny’s jam jars after target practice…

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Spawny Get says:

    There’s an undeniable touch of Dame Edna about it, Cill. Does Molly look like Barry Humphries at all? I look like Bazza as the Aussie cultural envoy, can’t think of the name.

    Like

  63. Cill says:

    Barrington Bradman Bing McKenzie. The comic strip was written by… you guessed it, a Kiwi.

    Like

  64. molly says:

    “I will accept no refrigerator sized boxes from the UK. Harriet Harman may be hiding inside”
    Good imagery Fuzzie! lol
    Interesting poem by Padawan 😉

    P.S. Have you gotten your emoticons back? (Else flush your browser cache)

    Like

  65. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Molly,
    Still no emoticons. Drat and double drat!
    That your avatar doesn’t look at all like you is just fine with me.

    Like

  66. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Of that group of five that were falsely accused, some are suing. COTWA chimes in.
    http://www.cotwa.info/2015/02/five-male-university-students-accused.html

    I hope that you read it all. Hypocrisy exposed.

    Like

  67. molly says:

    Padawan is wasted on this blog 😉

    Like

  68. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Molly,
    Padawan is appreciated here. He’s just getting warmed up for the big legues.

    Like

  69. molly says:

    Fuzzie in NZ “wasted” also means Three Sheets in the Wind. 😀

    Like

  70. Farm Boy says:

    New post is up

    Like

  71. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Molly,
    “Wasted” has that definition here too. I never suspected that it could be applied our Padawan. That would make him vulnerable to the depridations of the PPPs.
    Is he safe?

    Like

  72. molly says:

    Padawan’s safe. He makes like he’s plastered to slip in the mastered

    Like

  73. molly says:

    I mean he rules. It’s beautiful afternoon here and I’m off to the beach. Sleep well, sweet bear 🐻

    Like

  74. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    I will sweet furby. It’s cold and there’s white stuff all over the place outside.

    Like

  75. Cill says:

    I put my rainbow over you 🙂

    Like

  76. Spawny Get says:

    “Padawan is wasted on this blog

    That was the impression that I got, Molly

    Like

  77. Spawny Get says:

    Cill, the character I was thinking of is Sir Les Patterson
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Les_Patterson

    Sir Leslie Colin “Les” Patterson is a fictional character portrayed by the Australian comedian Barry Humphries. Obese, lecherous and offensive, this farting, belching, nose-picking figure of Rabelaisian excess is an antipodean Falstaff. He is Dame Edna Everage’s exact opposite: she is female, refined, Protestant and from Melbourne; he is male, uncouth, Catholic and from Sydney.

    Patterson’s humour abounds in such a wide range of racist and sexual stereotypes that it would offend almost anyone who takes it at face value.

    He boasts of his prowess with his “Girl Friday” and his trips to Bangkok “rub and tug shops”.
    He jokes that “the best place to hide something from a Pom is under a bar of soap”.

    Like

  78. molly says:

    As Poet Laureate Padawan should kneel to be knighted alongside Phil Duke of Edinburgh, by Tony Abbott of Oz Aus.
    “I dub thee Sir Phil”
    etc
    “Arise Sir Padawan”

    To be fair tho, I think Paddo might be just a l-i-t-t-l-e bit wasted in the other sense of the word as well. 😉

    Like

  79. Yoda says:

    Granting of honors belongs to the Jedi it does.

    Like

  80. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Yoda,
    Granting of honors only yo Jedi belongs?
    Hmmmm….

    Like

  81. molly says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2941963/Police-swoop-45-men-child-sex-grooming-Milestone-operation-sees-suspects-charged-rape-sexual-assault-trafficking.html

    “ABUSE INQUIRY WILL TAKE THREE YEARS: NEW ZEALAND HIGH COURT JUDGE WILL NOT REPORT BACK UNTIL 2018”
    The report under this head is very confusing, could be read as if it’s about Iraq. To clarify: it is about the entire subject of historical child sex abuse incl. Rotherham, Halifax etc.

    I’ve emphasized the parts that astound me:

    “The inquiry will investigate whether public bodies, including governments, political parties, charities, the Church, the BBC, public and private schools and the Armed Forces, failed to protect children.”

    See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31126005

    Like

  82. molly says:

    Sorry, re my comment at 6:01 pm: I meant to lodge it at “Red Pill Movie Review — Black Sea”, not here. 😦

    Like

  83. Spawny Get says:

    copy it there and I’ll delete these two comments (and mine)
    Unca Spawny is benevolent

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: