This Week In Share Your World

Alrighty, it’s time for this week in Share Your World.

Does it make me weird that I hear a game show host speaking when I read the first sentence in my head?

This week I’m going to answer the questions and after each one, share a picture that my wonderful Lady took of Dexter.

Whatever. Let’s get into it.

What do you value most in a friendship?

I’d say integrity. I don’t want to find out that they’re talking about me behind my back or that they’re using me in some way.

Do you prefer eating the frosting of the cake or the cupcake first?  Do you prefer a specific flavor?

I usually rip half the cake part off and eat the icing covered half. I usually throw the bottom of muffins away also.

Have you ever been in a submarine?  If you haven’t, would you want to?

I have! I was inside the HMCS Ojibwa. It was super cool to see how those people used to live when on active duty. The history is fascinating.

If 100 people your age were chosen at random, how many do you think you’d find leading a more satisfying life than yours?

Not sure. It would be hard to measure such a thing. But for arguments sake, I’ll go with 35%. I happen to like my life at the moment, but I’m no expert on such things.

Optional Bonus question:  What are you grateful for from last week, and what are you looking forward to in the week coming up? 

Last week I went to the Christmas Village event and had a good time. I shared many laughs with my client.

I’m looking forward to finishing off my Xmas shopping for the year this week.

Do Sexual Preferences Make You Racist, Homophobic, Sexist etc?

I’ve been meaning to talk about this topic for a while. A few months ago Tyler Oakley tweeted this:


Just the other day, Riley J. Dennis, made a video (it will be embedded at the bottom of this post if you want to watch it in its entirety) that said if you wouldn’t date a trans person that you’re discriminatory. She also said that you can control who you’re attracted to.

Anyhow, I thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion. I’m going to give you my take, and feel free to give me yours in the comment section.

I think both Riley and Tyler are wrong. Here’s why.

I think everyone does this. Everyone has sexual preferences. I’ve met people who only like to date tall guys, people who look at a person’s teeth first to make sure they’re intact, people who like overweight people and people who only like athletic types. They actively weed out possibilities with those preferences in mind, and I see nothing wrong with that.

As for Tyler, if I say men just aren’t my type, does that make me sexist?

No one has the right to tell me who I should have sex with.

Riley opens her video asking whether I’d date certain people. So before moving forward, I’ll answer those questions really quick.

Would you date someone who was:

  1. Trans – No
  2. Fat -Yes
  3. Black – Yes
  4. Disabled – Yes

Telling me that I have to be open to dating someone with a penis or else I’m some sort of ‘phobic’ is blatantly ridiculous to me. I’m not going to dislike someone based on whether they have a penis or not, how they choose to dress or whether they feel like a male or female, but when it comes down to having sex, I don’t want penis. Telling me that I must be willing to want penis makes me think you feel entitled to have sex with anyone, despite how they may feel.

People are complex. We like and dislike all sorts of things and thankfully there are all sorts of people out there who like the opposite of what I prefer in a partner. There are people who prefer Asian people and some who prefer white people. There are some who prefer large people and some who prefer small. Some who prefer blue eyes and some who prefer brown.

Also, science suggests that we are attracted to certain things (in general) for specific evolutionary reasons.

For example, facial symmetry can play a part:

However recent research suggests that there are universal agreements about beauty which hold true across all cultures and even throughout the animal kingdom.

Probably the most important is facial symmetry. Having a face which is equal on both sides is a biological advert which tells prospective partners that good genes will be found in this body.

And body size matters as well:

Women are unconsciously looking for a man who has a waist-to-hip ratio of 9:10 and are attracted to a partner with a big jaw, a broad chin, an imposing brow. The angle between their eyes and mouth, cheekbone prominence, and facial length all play a role as well as does facial hair. Most women prefer heavy stubble to either a beard of clean shaven. However men with full beards are viewed as better fathers.

The perfect man should also have body fat of around 12 per cent which is an important indicator of how well the immune system works.

Bottom line to me is that people don’t get to tell me or any other person who they should sleep with. Sex is a very complex thing and no one should be able to shame another simply because they have sexual preferences.

I think my favorite part of the Riley video was when she said that if you are attracted to penis or vagina, you’re basically objectifying them based on their genitals. She called this ‘genitalifying’.

I kid you not.

Anyhow, what are your thoughts? Are sexual preferences racist, discriminatory etc?

As always, thanks for reading.

Attempting To Censor Screening Of The Red Pill…Again

The Red Pill screening in Ottawa was cancelled due to complaints:

The controversial men’s rights documentary The Red Pill will be screened at Ottawa City Hall on Sunday after the Mayfair Theatre cancelled its scheduled showing over complaints.

Theatre co-owner and programmer Lee Demarbre said long-time patrons and a sponsor threatened to stop doing business with the Ottawa venue if the film screening went ahead.

If you’re unfamiliar with the documentary, here’s a bit about it:

American filmmaker Cassie Jaye said she was researching rape culture for her next documentary subject when she came across the men’s right movement. She initially thought members of the group would fall into the categories of “rape apologists” or “victim blamers” but said she soon began questioning her own beliefs.

She found that the movement includes advocacy for fathers rights, male victims of domestic violence and male victims of sexual abuse, as well as discussions about male suicide rates, boys falling behind in school and men as more “disposable” than women.

“I’ve noticed that most of us are very quick to laugh and scoff at men’s issues but if the genders were reversed that would be hateful, hate speech, sexist, misogynist. So that was what was really challenging me during filming — my sexism, I guess, toward men’s issues,” she told CBC News, adding that her own struggle became part of the documentary.

My favorite part of the article was this bit:

Lalonde, one of several who complained to the Mayfair Theatre, called the documentary “misogynistic” though she said has only seen clips, not the entire film. She said a controversial film does not have an inherent right to be screened.

She feels comfortable enough to label it as hateful towards all women, but she has only seen clips of it.

Bloody hell.

They tried to do the same thing in Australia, and now they’re doing it in Canada.

Let the movie be shown. If it’s truly misogynistic then you have no cause to worry because most people aren’t misogynistic and they’ll see right through it and realize it’s a pile of crap.

It makes me very curious to see why you want to shut it down so badly though. That usually means it has the potential to upset your narrative.

Anyhow, the screening has been moved to Ottawa City Hall, which is amazing. Let’s get these sorts of movies out there and start a discussion.

Baby Dogs

Here are a few pictures we took throughout the week. I hope you enjoy them and have a great weekend.

Little Duke making the great escape with Dexter’s antler, which is nearly as big as he is.

Another angle of the antler. It’s hilarious watching him carry it around.

Dexter sitting on me. I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention to his Highness.

He’s my cutey.

There you have it. I have some interesting (at least I think they’re interesting) topics in mind for next week.


Death of a Dictator

A few days ago I blogged about the demise of Fidel Castro and how my Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, praised him in a speech. Here’s a well balanced and interesting post I found that I think you might enjoy.

Sharp and Pointed

Fidel Castro

by Chaz Bufe, publisher See Sharp Press

It’s time to speak ill of the dead.  It’s been time for nearly a century. Since 1919, the left in both the U.S. and Europe has had a dictator-worship problem. First it was Lenin; then it was (yes) Stalin; then Mao; most recently the dictator of choice has been Fidel Castro.

To illustrate the depth and nature of this problem, let me recount an incident from Cuba in the 1960s. In the 1970s, a maoist friend told me about his experiences there as part of a Venceremos Brigade a decade earlier. (Venceremos Brigades were bands of American leftists who traveled to Cuba to work in the cane fields in support of “the revolution.”) At one point, Fidel himself showed up where they were working in the fields. My friend told me that the reaction of his fellow brigadistas was like that of 14-year-olds at a Beatles concert.

Anarcho-Syndicalist ReviewSince…

View original post 942 more words

Should Books Containing The N-Word Be Banned?

The Virginia school system has banned To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn because they contain the N-Word.

Here’s what I’m talking about:

The decision to remove “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain and “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee came after a parent filed a complaint, WAVY reported. The parent cited excessive racial slurs as the reason for wanting the books banned, Superintendent Warren Holland told the news station.
The parent, whose son is biracial, said that her concerns are “not even just a black and white thing.”
“I keep hearing, ‘This is a classic, This is a classic,’ … I understand this is a literature classic. But at some point, I feel that children will not — or do not — truly get the classic part — the literature part, which I’m not disputing,” she said at a Nov. 15 school board meeting. “This is great literature. But there (are so many) racial slurs in there and offensive wording that you can’t get past that.”
The parent said her son, who was reading “Huckleberry Finn” for a high school assignment, couldn’t get past a certain page in that story on which the N-word appeared seven times. 
A racial slur appears 219 times in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and 48 times in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
“So what are we teaching our children? We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by (any) means,” the parent said, also noting psychological effects language has on children. “There is other literature they can use.”
There are the facts of the story.
Here’s an opinion video you might find interesting as well.

It is important to note that some Accomack residents were not in favor of the ban, saying such a policy presents a dangerous slippery slope when it comes to literature in education.

“I don’t want to see it happen because if you start with one racial word in a book and have to go on and on and on and pretty soon you’ll be burning books left and right,” R. Kellam told WAVY.

And another parent, Catherine Glaser, who has children who will go through the Virginia school system, said, “Everybody’s read it. … It didn’t change a difference in my views at all. I’d like my son to read those books. … My daughter’s mixed, and I don’t have a problem with it. I love those books.”

So where do you come out on this debate? Should the books be banned or do you think they should remain a part of the school curriculum?

Personally, I’m against censorship, and I agree with most of what the video commentator said above. I think this is a slippery slope and once you start banning books for one thing, that sets a precedent to keep doing it for other books people might consider offensive.

In my opinion, this is another case of insane PC’ism striking again.

If you agree, why? If not, feel free to make your case in the comment section.


Crazy Feminist Blog: What Would a Woman’s Society Look Like?

Sam Harris once said Islam was the motherlode of bad ideas, but I  have just found the craziest radical feminist blog ever. The blog post we’ll be looking at is titled, UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?

If you’re a feminist reading this blog, you’re probably going to think that this is just some loon in the wilderness, but I submit to you that if you’re following an ideology that literally teaches that all men are oppressors (the dreaded Patriarchy) and all women are oppressed, then it should come as no surprise to you when some people think it makes sense to treat men this way.

Treat men what way, GC?

Like this:

Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

Sounds like political, social, and economic equality to me.

All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!

All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal). So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be. Women’s life expectancy without men would rise to 130 years at least.

Why not just put them in camps?


Oh yeah, we wouldn’t want to go too far.

PIV would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children.

So unless you need them to reproduce, they’re free to die off as quickly as possible. Those boy children are troublesome. They’re not quite men so we can’t really imprison, torture and enslave them yet.

All in good time.

No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

Men can’t be trusted to do anything. They shouldn’t be allowed any freedom whatsoever, and they won’t be allowed any agency of their own.

But what about fathers? Will they at least be able to help raise their children? Can we let them out of the concentration camps…errr…enforced living spaces, long enough for even a weekly visit with their kids?

Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood — as we all know, it’s a myth.

Guess not. We all know men are evil, sub-human animals who don’t care for their children.

What other parting words of wisdom do you have for us?

And seriously, killing animals you’ve raised yourself in a farm or keeping animals enclosed is cruel. I’m for the liberation of all farm and domestic animals. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live with us or not, and they should be able to come and go freely.

How nice. So you can just allow men to die off at around age 40 and enslave them…but don’t hurt the animals!

Fuck off GC.

We all know men are below animals. They’re about as human as the chair your sitting on but a mite less useful.

That post has 17 likes and 117 comments as of this writing.