State of the Union

The love of my life has cancer. Axel was diagnosed as “Stage Four Plus” in June. Other than a bit of inflammation about the face and neck, and bouts of agony, he is still his handsome and mischievous self. He is still working in his chosen specialty of carpentry and has scores of satisfied clients, not to mention hopeful women desirous of his time and attention.

Whether his life is to be saved or not has not yet been determined. However, we have new hope in a new practitioner who provides a host of alternative treatments. The mainstream treatment for his particular cancer is as brutal as its poor success rate which means that we have nothing to lose going rogue.

The nature of any life I may have without Axel has also not yet been determined. Hopefully, these new treatments will mean that I won’t need to address that possibility. Meanwhile actually dedicating time and energy to that possibility seems to me to be counterproductive materially as well as emotionally. Moreover, I don’t see how I can be in the least bit objective or act in my own best interest under these conditions.

Although we have an open relationship, Axel’s illness adds a considerable complication. I find that I am simply unable to imagine extending my emotional life to any enterprise that would not directly extend Axel’s life, and that includes devoted attention to a career for example.

On the other hand, there are a few things I am prepared to do which would hopefully involve a minimum of networking or interacting with parties whose own objectives might be in conflict with my own, and here they are:

  • If you’d like for me to help you edit, proofread, and publish your manuscript, that can be arranged if I am suitably inspired by your gift of prose or ideas I find stimulating. Should such a task have the possibility of leading to greater things, so much the better.
  • I have flirted with the notion of being some sort of hostess—where a worldly old blonde fits the bill—perhaps in a cigar lounge or boutique hotel. Although, I’m a lousy role model for youngsters, I clean up well and know how to listen, engage, and clam up, and I possess an international viewpoint having lived and traveled extensively abroad.
  • I could perhaps be a moderator for an online forum that requires someone with my lack of censure of controversial ideas.
  • I am a lifelong nutritional researcher available for personal consultation, in person, in Greater Los Angeles. While it may sound contradictory for the life partner of a nutritional researcher to fall ill from cancer, the consensus by knowledgeable parties is that the cancer arose from Axel’s role as a first responder at Katrina in 2005, six years before I met him. Specifically, it was soon after Katrina that manifestations of a strange and unknown illness appeared, to include skin phenomena. Axel’s cancer is a squamous cell carcinoma a.k.a skin cancer.
  • The nature of our negotiated power-exchange relationship may also be of interest in that it is neither feminist nor gynocentric. I am available for personal discussions to that effect. The reason why I don’t write about it has to do with my desire to avoid endangering Axel from a civil or legal perspective or my own freedom as an agent of my own lifestyle. Feminism has after all become a part of the power structure and therefore I don’t want to tempt it to interfere in my own life. Therefore, any exchange of ideas would have to be kept confidential.

Feminism has had a disproportionate effect on the BDSM culture itself, which might seem contradictory, but only on the surface. Rather it would seem that women call the tune—sexually, ethically, financially, and in terms of generally-accepted protocols. This has resulted in a sense of entitlement that extends through nearly all women in the scene that they are not required to take responsibility for any of their own actions whereas men are heavily policed. As a result, men of an independent frame of mind to include MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way), are leaving the scene in droves. Such a case has served to amplify Axel’s appeal while leaving me very few options in terms of romantic diversions within the scene, even before Axel’s diagnosis. It would seem that I am already with the best, and therefore, if he was occupied with another partner, it was my chance to be alone rather than to do the same.

As usual, men with less of a need for the company of women tend to be inundated with it and the reverse applies.

As for the old school BDSM culture that Axel and I have in common, most people just don’t “get it” and flounder absurdly in fantasy notions of it. If we are a couple of “old folks” in our fifties then so much more the misunderstanding for those just getting started in alternative culture exploration of today, or getting discouraged and burned out from it. Even the local “clubs” and “support groups” tend to be something other than what we have such that we offend each other’s sensibilities. Feminism, it would appear, is the major obstacle or the notion that more women makes it better. In my view, vetting and personal responsibility are absolute requirements for any effective power exchange beyond the “stand and model” variety of SM. If that limits the women who are attracted to it that’s a consequence of a gynocentric culture which relieves women of accountability.

As for me, having escaped capture and isolation by a psychopath who, among other more colorful tortures, would constantly accuse me of unfaithfulness based on nothing, it was a welcome relief to be in a relationship where the same accusation would never again be flung at me. My husband accusing me of unfaithfulness was the centerpiece of a pattern of social isolation, sleep deprivation, and gaslighting for which the coupe de grace was the appropriation of my life’s savings along with most of my possessions to include a host of animals (dogs, goats, cows, fowl, and a cat). I escaped with only those possessions I could carry and none of my wealth, to return to a life in the United States from which I had been effectively estranged to some degree for a total of 13 years, with an additional three years so far of gradual re-immersion as part of my recovery from the ordeal.

So, how do I sound now? A real catch, I’m sure. How ironic to be party of the healthiest open relationship on record but yet hardly ever take advantage of it.

Even if Axel is completely cured, that will mean that he’ll have time and energy for some of his satellite women and there I will be with fewer responsibilities toward him and therefore a need to do something with my life of some import…again. Of course a feminist or traditionalist might be ridiculing me and my choices right now but, I don’t apologize for putting love first, however impractical. It’s my nature.

I managed to put together a book based on my life with Axel which has sold a few copies. However my second book has suffered from an inability to reach completion. I find that I am simply unable to write much about the life I had with my husband, a surgeon and criminal con artist who was actually partially responsible for closing down a major hospital! The snitch who disclosed his incompetency was of course a middle-aged California blonde like I am and may be the basis of my husband’s revenge fantasy with me as the proxy.

When I met my soon-to-be-fiance, it was almost 10 years after the scandal and the internet and Google were not the things then that they are today. Even so, it seems so foolish in retrospect that I never bothered to even do a background check on him before accepting his marriage proposal. Instead I swallowed whole his story about a difficult divorce, nightmarish wife, and estranged children as being the whole answer to why a retired surgeon could be in such financial straits as to be forced to depend wholly on little old me.

Men with similar aspirations are advised that the well is dry.

Where Feminism fits into this mess has to do with my instant realization upon my escape from my husband that I had been deluded most of my life. I had thought that by having a high IQ, academic and professional success, and a knack for survival within an unusual and adventurous life, that I was intelligent or smart. I had no idea how naïve and vulnerable I was to the machinations of a criminal con artist. In addition, I had no idea that professional success would be so unfulfilling and yet would impede my efforts at marriage until this con artist came into my life at my then ripe age of 37. I thought that by merely being intelligent, attractive, dedicated, and sexually adventurous, I would be guaranteed romantic success as well as the first three traits had garnered me professional success. (I was a professional technical writer in computer software and hardware in Los Angeles and The Silicon Valley, at the top of my field.)

In fact the entire Progressive catalog of ideas turned out to be wholly flawed in my view, from vegetarianism to multiculturalism to global ecology to international charity, it was all a lie. However, I single out Feminism as the most flawed of all because it interferes with true and lasting intimacy. Instead it creates an artificial climate of hostility while ignoring or papering over biological and psychological differences between the sexes.

However, I don’t align myself with the version of Christianity which engendered the Progressive backlash either. I have my doubts that we can truly know the history of any ideology before the great age of propaganda of the Twentieth Century, but, to me, Christianity has too many flaws. I don’t have an aversion to most of the people or the practices particularly as I have seen it throughout the world, it is just not for me.

As for Judaism, I actually see a lot going for it if it didn’t essentially define a “shiksa” like me as a piece of trash. I don’t actually mind being treated like a piece of trash or object from time to time if the perks are right but would prefer to be treated like a piece of trash on my own merits.

Still I admire the sense of balance in Judaism even if I find Taoism and Hinduism to be the obvious antecedents and more toward my taste.

All that said, it is clear to me that religion is invaluable in maintaining the sort of community which offers a hedge against trauma of all sorts. If Axel and I were a part of such a community then perhaps I would be so involved in it as to not be in my current predicament. If I didn’t take out such an insurance policy then I have to be prepared for the consequences. All that is very well in hindsight. It so happens that the BDSM culture which I thought I knew was supposed to be that hedge in lieu of going the traditional family and religion route. It would seem to me that the BDSM community has fallen victim to the narcissism of all communities of today. Furthermore, I am not at all certain that religious communities are immune from that effect.

I am also eager for advice of all sorts. How proud can I afford to be?

So, consider this piece a long-winded, backhanded, résumé for whatever the future may bring. Such might include a meeting with a stranger to discuss mutual objectives, possibly to include the sharing of a drink and a cigar.

I’ll meet just about anywhere in Los Angeles, and am friendly toward out-of-town visitors, so, what are you waiting for? There’s a form you can use to contact me privately at the bottom of this page.

WHO downplays danger of secondhand smoke

The latest on the non-danger of tobacco smoke or misery to smokers, and the business of bars, cafes, etc., for no good reason.

Frank Davis

Another article by Klaus K translated from the original Danish.

¤ Outdoor air pollution more dangerous than indoor tobacco smoke

¤ Do smoking bans protect against a non-existent disease risk?


COLOURBOXB(Photo: Colourbox)

First they said that indoor secondhand smoke was dangerous – now they say that the outdoor air in cities is more dangerous. Is secondhand smoke no longer officially a serious health hazard?

Well, officially it is – but the experts appointed by the World Health Organization (WHO) have twice, within 15 months, downplayed the role of secondhand smoke in the development of lung cancer by comparing the risk of tobacco smoke to the risks of outdoor air and diesel exhaust.

It happened when two official IARC-statements were published that placed outdoor air pollution and diesel exhaust on the group-1 list of known causes. Also on the list issecondhand smoke, despite some researchers’ skepticism.

Secondhand smoke was…

View original post 978 more words

The Doctrinaire Institute For Women’s Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality

The comment I wrote was apparently too long for wordpress, so I am going to comment on my own blog.

My "Male Side" To Gender Issues. Member of the National Coalition For Men ( Since 1985.


Overthe past four decades, the media, which are supposed to objectively reflect all views, have overwhelmingly reflected ideological feminists’ views on gender issues and the male-female dynamic. (For a detailed look at the reasons, see Warren Farrell’s Why Men Earn More, a book so shocking that I suspect most pay-equity feminists refuse to read it.) The effect of this long-running lack of objectivity is, I think, to create in our collective mind an entrenched and immutable perception that no other view is possible and that gender issues and the male-female dynamic as portrayed by these feminists are not foolhardy concepts but widely accepted fact that is completely beyond dispute.

SteinemGloria Gloria Steinem seems to say, “You’re wrong. No more discussion.” Source:

Thus, the ordinary woman — even the woman who is staunchly not a feminist — can hardly be blamed for believing she is taken advantage of…

View original post 12,484 more words

A Brief History of Feminism and Why It Has Always Been Wrong

Ostensibly launched in order to advance the “rights” (but not responsibilities) of women, Feminism has endeavored to be all things to all women in terms of a universal, one-size-fits-all ideology. However in terms of the achievements by its self-proclaimed adherents, the hype doesn’t match the facts. To speak to a run-of-the-mill feminist is to learn that so long as “men do bad things,” Feminism is necessary. Apparently, the actions of women are beyond reproach while meanwhile the state is virtually infallible in its continued necessity to expand and swallow resources in order to enforce an “equality” of slavery that can never be achieved until all private property and ambition is abolished.

However, to hear history from Feminists, women have always been systematically oppressed by government and a secret cabal known as “The Patriarchy,” which together conspire to keep women from achievement in the social and political realms and from happiness itself. This narrative ignores all oppression of men, which is the norm for all but a tiny percentage. It also oddly ignores the role of religion while not owning its apparently anti-religious stance so as to ensure that all women—even religious ones—adopt the “Feminism” mantle.

How ironic that as a result of “Elevatorgate” Atheism itself seems to be suffering from an ideological rift between feminist atheists and non-feminist atheists. It would seem that Social Marxism and Gender Politics have not effectively provided a values system to fill the void of receding religions. It would be dreadfully ironic if the backlash toward three “waves” of Feminism turned out to be regressive “fundamentalist” religions.

Feminism in the United States has always been about owning the value of children while requiring more and more state services to ensure that only men are burdened with fiscal responsibility toward those children. Feminism may well have arisen originally as a reaction to a surplus of spinsters and widows (as a result of wars and other travails which reduced the population of men) with industrialist funds giving it traction for purposes of lowering the value of labor itself.

The apparent learned helplessness of early feminists was not, contrary to popular rhetoric, due to some sort of deficit of legal or social power. However, propaganda has told feminists that all pain and suffering of women is the result of a deliberate agenda on the part of “Patriarchy,” to stifle their own agency. Wealthy and privileged feminists have always exploited the real straits of women in poverty to somehow show that women comprise a single “oppressed” class. No one, however, bothers to fight for the rights of poor men because the bedrock of Western civilization depends on a steady stream of desperate men willing to exert their productivity for the vain hope of “success” or “love” or “happiness.” Under marriage and monogamy laws, such a man was pretty-well guaranteed a wife—or at least to be able to afford a prostitute. Those days are over of course.

The result of each “wave” of feminism has had women devolving into immature, helpless creatures, with no agency of their own while meanwhile demanding “opportunity” without merit. The modern western woman of today would be thought pathetic and helpless by the average woman of our not-so-distant past, who had far greater literacy, could write more fluently, perform more mathematics, make soap, sew her own clothes and that of her entire family, raise and butcher livestock, etc.

Personally, I think that all of the “equality” advocates are whistling Dixie. Biology counts for a whole lot. In societies which require a whole lot of children, women are recruited to be happy little baby makers provided that someone is taking care of them during their periods of vulnerability. In societies which don’t require quite so many children, opening up careers and educational opportunities to women tends to do the trick; however, the welfare state and the paternity suit cancel out that ambition for the poorest of them by providing a guaranteed meal ticket as the reward for irresponsible reproduction.

What kind of world will we have if men are discouraged from being masculine and strong? What if the only reinforcement of masculine characteristics comes from the “trad con” variety of narcissism in our narcissistic age? Meanwhile, more and more “men” are deciding to be a “woman” in one fashion or another because there is a perceived advantage to having no expectations put upon “women” except as sex objects, which, is not a bad gig if you can find a “sex object” collector. As masculinity is further demonized however, a lot of these new “women” are in for a rude awakening.

Meanwhile, America’s children are being raised by television and people who don’t actually care about them and love them. How is that a good thing for anyone but war mongers and slave mongers who want a steady stream of throwaway children and alienated adults to exploit? Will this tide turn before our global economy is completely in the sewer?

Back before feminism, spinsters had a few designated jobs available to them which are not so different from what most women choose as careers today. A woman who truly wanted to get out of the box also more than likely would find ways to do just exactly what she wanted to do even more than most men had such flexibility thanks to the chivalrous and protective nature of the majority of men. In fact, with all the feminism noise, I believe that women today are actually less self-reliant than women of the early Twentieth Century before there was even universal suffrage nor my personal bugaboo: universal compulsory education.

Try as I might, I am not convinced that there was ever any positive result of feminism. The list of things which feminists take credit for is nothing more than revisionist history. Feminism can’t take credit for access to birth control (an invention of men forged legally by men), equal opportunity (supply and demand), property rights (marriage was designed legally to protect women and ensure their sustenance even as their reproductive value drops), or even social attitudes which require a feedback loop of real-life experience rather than merely rhetoric. The Suffragette Movement can take credit for universal voting rights but that “right” is dubious at best when women don’t comprise a special-interest as a gender even if perhaps widows and spinsters do. There is no real unity of purpose or needs among the vast breadth of womanhood and therefore to pretend otherwise has only political and economic motivations. When it comes to women’s suffrage, the federal income tax was just that motivation. Women were being “empowered” to become taxpayers and thereby “deserved” a say.

If alcohol taxes funded the Civil War, Prohibition required another source of revenue. In other words, Bluenoses bartered away their opportunities for economic independence for the “right” to prohibit others to drink. This should have resulted in womens’ suffrage being repealed the moment that Prohibition was repealed.

Meanwhile, I fail to see the benefit of “equality” for anyone least of all children. This stance sets me apart from the men’s human rights activists and other antifeminist “equalists”. I do not see how lowering the consumer buying power and real wages of all persons while meanwhile lowering employment standards makes life better for anyone. I do not see how demonizing mostly male entrepreneurs and small business owners increases opportunities or quality of life for anyone. I do not see what is so bad about being “sexually harassed” by one’s husband who just happens to be “the boss” to the rest of the world but who depends on creatures within his domain to allow him to sleep unmolested; therefore, what sort of fool would abuse them? I do not find it demeaning to celebrate each other’s strengths as human beings and to be “useful” to ones who we love.

I have come to believe that none of our “benefits” of civilization amount to a hill of beans but rather are merely instruments of enslavement. I don’t even believe that food itself has improved. Quite the contrary. Not even textiles, wood, or oils match the quality of yesteryear.

In my view, the worst possible thing to happen to civilization was lowering infant and maternal mortality because wars which devastated the male population continued apace. This led to a demographic imbalance which, oddly, came up with a “solution” which is to oppress adult men! I can see how it happened though, which was through emotional appeals to men which implied that if there were only more women in the population, then everyone would have a higher likelihood of “getting lucky!” What a racket! It turns out “more women” added to any equation doesn’t make anything “better” including Mr. Timid’s “chances.” It was all a lie designed to create more Mr. Timids and more termagants for purposes of increasing powers of the state and large employers.

I am no civic engineer but it seems to me that universal suffrage has been a disaster and “the feminine principle” in action. Furthermore, I fail to see what is so great about working for a faceless corporation rather than say having one’s own farm, business, or livelihood of one’s choice. I see no “security” in corporate or government slavery.

I’m just fine being “oppressed” thanks and no thanks to feminism for any of my supposed “rights.” No thanks to “the sisterhood” for anything really. You tar me and all women by association.

Unintentional Gaslighting

I need a word that means, “unintentional gaslighting.”

I understand that men like to “fix” the inner turmoil of women but that doesn’t mean that the female thought-process, the conclusions derived from it, or beliefs, values, and feelings are “incorrect” or subject to “critical thinking” or “debate”.

There is such a thing as “female-intuition” without rational basis that has throughout history and myth served as the inspiration or muse for great masculine works. But is the thought-process itself “wrong”? I don’t think it is. Incomprehensible perhaps to a rational thinker but not “wrong”.

Rather, I have come to believe that too much language/talking/words from a woman looks like a problem that needs to be fixed. However, there must be a medium between pacifying/validating/soothing behavior and “you’re wrong!” or “STFU!”

I believe that older men have a better grasp of this than younger men; however, since the human experience seems to cycle, perhaps there are young men who are getting the hang of this tightrope and even young women who have learned to think “right”.

So, what is the non-inflammatory word that an intuitive thinker can use to assuage fears of a rational thinker? Or is the only defense to shut one’s mouth?

Dear Grace

Dear Grace,

I am writing to you from a blog that is flagged as “Mature Content,” but you’re 22 and perhaps believe that you know everything about the world. For example, perhaps you’ve learned of the concept of “six degrees of separation”. By a weird twist of fate it so happens there are fewer than six steps between us; therefore, perhaps you will read this, if not today then some other day.

I sympathize and empathize with you. You and I will always be “different” from most people. I’ve sought out other people who are “different” and that has had mixed results. It turns out that celebrity is not all ponies and rainbows although it may feel that way at the time.

Most people are right-handed, but some people are left-handed. For some reason, a lot of people who I have been close to and who have been close to me are left-handed. I’m ambidextrous.

I think it is important that those of us moving against the tide have to be careful with children. It is very dangerous to go against the tide but adults can handle it better than kids. Some people, of course, never grow up. Ideally, however, we each grow up and traverse through various human milestones while discovering that we are not alone, that we have value, and that we are all part of the human experience and part of the universe and God, however that concept may be defined for you.

Figuring out your place in the universe is going to be difficult. Sometimes it is hard to know who to trust and what is up and what is down. Finding out where you stand and where your place is, will be harder to do because, if everyone is standing in line, you may well be in the wrong line. However, if you confidently or purposefully go in a different direction, at least a few people may believe that you are a leader and will ask you where you’re going. Some people who shouldn’t be following you will follow you and then get angry about it because the outcome wasn’t what they expected for trusting you. It is going to be very difficult however for you to figure out who to trust because the people who you trusted the most betrayed you by removing the boundaries which protect your humanity and then artificially constructed new boundaries that are designed to protect them more than they will ever protect you.

It is unfortunate that being too passionate or angry can make it even more difficult to know who to trust because you’ll attract passionate and angry people who think that you’re a leader or an easy mark or something else that you don’t necessarily want to be. It might seem counter-intuitive but humility is never a mistake. Humility sends a message to whoever may hurt you. You can’t fake humility although many have tried. Humility is non-manipulative whereas false modesty is.

Patience, Compassion, and Watchfulness are also helpful. These traits will help you to love yourself. You have to love yourself before you can love and sometimes that first step is for someone to love you. However, until you know what love feels like, you might not recognize it. That will be a great challenge for you.

You might have to try out a whole lot of things that are too risky for most people but don’t be impatient about it. Open your heart and let the universe guide you. I believe that eventually everything works out for the best, even if it is impossible to see it from one’s unique perspective, you are a part of the whole.

While the world may feel like your oyster at your young age today eventually the Pied Piper will need to be paid. You might believe that the people who have watched over you and protected you all your young life will be there when the chips are down because after all they were always there for you before. You may be correct in this belief however in my experience illusionists can never be trusted to be authentic. Your life is like a fun house or house of mirrors which you navigate with a heart that is different from the hearts of other people.

I’d love to tell you that it gets easier, but it doesn’t.



The White Knight Switch

While I certainly love to joust with and embarrass vicious catfighting feminists, those who presume that I am an outlier in group selection bias because I am a misogynist have got me all wrong.

I am inspired by this story:

Men will always have a strong attraction to young women at their peak fertility and in the valley of their idiocy. Feminism however has told all young girls that they are more “intelligent” than their male peers, and White Knights are fools for believing it. However, some fools are less foolish than others when it comes to “the selfish gene,” and shouldn’t be too surprised when it comes and bites them in the ass.

I predict right here that a very high ranking politician is about to be exposed for his role in new Feminist-centric definitions of “rape” on college campuses and so will, perhaps, a certain Feminist MGHOW. If I can help, please, let me know.

The question is, which reporter will get the scoop? I predict that it will be a woman who slays this particular dragon but it won’t be me for I am sworn to secrecy.