Dear Mr Graydon, Enough Trumpery~~~ Please!

Dear Mr. Graydon Carter, Editor of Vanity Fair.

I can only describe the piranha like feeding frenzy of the media over President Trump as foaming at the mouth. 
It is vengeance journalism. 
So many immature reasons to take a swipe at the person who proved them all wrong, inept and out of touch with the electorate! It is a sad commentary on the noble profession of journalism that the major part of media commentary is involved in this retributive infantile reaction.
Previously I read, with much amusement mixed with unease, a, what do we call it?, editorial preface?, from you, Mr. Carter, on the subject of Mr Trump. 
Persistent acumen dripped from every sentence.
Now in the summer 2017 Vanity Fair preface article I find you, Mr. Carter, have not lost one drop of acumen.
Hilarious yet sad, acid yet accurate, unsettling and compelling. 
I do not categorize your editorial as frothy at all.
Simply an erudite study of opinion, which we still have the right to have, I hope, in contemporary NorthAm's two
beloved and blessed nations.

Four Trump articles! 
Jame's Wolcott's article on GOP insiders loosing their traditional self given right to decide who the candidate will be clearly shows the origin of vengeance politics which is
the sister of vengeance journalism. 
Enraged at their defeat, Republicans are still saying it is my baseball so you can't play.
This then becomes the second article on President Trump.

Oh. I know what you are thinking. No I do not give P. Trump
great marks for his delivery. Or manner. However there are nuggets of truth of accurate complaint that can be mined 
from the combative nature of his speech.
Let me give you my particular objection, sans foam.
The PRC "raping us" comment.There is an actual legitimate  complaint under, hidden in, beside, or diagonally across the street from the way he puts it.
It would be more accurate to say that when Mr X. Deng opened NorthAm's businesses to the teeming cheap labour of the PRC our executives laid on their backs with their legs open.
Mr. Trump highlighted a hypocrisy in unfair trade practices
however his verbal delivery nearly abnegated its perceptual value. He constantly succeeds in this manner.
The third piece on President Trump of the "Let's Foam Again Like We Did Last Summer" 2017 edition of V.F. by Ms. Lily Anolik begins as a reasonably good read until page 69 where she states President Trump is guilty of ".....calling Mexican immigrants rapists..." Hmmmm. Let's think.
What Mr Trump said was "....they are not sending their best, they are sending rapists, criminal etc......"
[Where does he get this "sending"?
Sorry, I digress.]
Reality is distorted when you become infected with "Old Foamy" the rabid disease of the extreme liberal left media.
In spite of that mitigation Ms. Anolik's statement is an outright foamy lie. Ms. Anolik's statement might also be called vengeance foam.
For integrity in journalism I recommend not lying. It is the best course.
Now there is the article on Star Wars. 
I was glad to read an article that had nothing to do with Mr. Trump, although I was nervous that the author would put in something about Mr Trump being on the dark side of the force.

How do you do it, Mr. Carter? Do you throw a raccoon at them, wait 8 hours then let them off the leash?
I am referring of course, to the rabid imbecilic rantings of Mr. William D. Cohan regarding Mr. Stephen Miller.
In his attempt to paint the blackest most "DANGEROUS"
impression of Mr. Trump's advisor he depends on the input of a high school friend of Mr Miller.
And the litany of devilish traits would make Dante's hair stand on end.
Once, in a class... Mr Miller...get ready... lost his temper.
That certainly is a unique and terrifying thing to find out about a teen aged person.
Another time Mr Miller....put his hand on a pizza!
The American Psychiatric Council on Serial Murderers
list pizza handing as a precursor to pet abuse.
Further, there was a girl's race and Mr. Miller, in a Satanic way, no doubt, ran with them to show he could win.
Pathological misogyny!  As a teenager.
It was not so ludicrous when Mr. Cohan attempted to 
turn the support of wrongly accused Duke students,
who were after all found not guilty, into a condemnation 
of Mr. Miller's character. Worst still, in a foamy kind of way,
Mr. Cohan seemed to imply that Mr. Miller's acknowledgement of the superiority of American values,
the kind that has led to plenty, advancement, study, medical and scientific easing of humanity's suffering, 
and an aspirational democratic system of justice, while flawed, still, somehow, just somehow, is still the beacon of freedom to immigrants who are all yearning to come here,
into a negative character flaw.
However these preliminary objections to this sad vengeance journalism falls into nothingness compared to the verbal exhortation, twice no less!, that a high school classmate, a Mr. N. Silverman said Mr Miller is "DANGEROUS".
Article's capitals, not mine.
I never realized the views of former high school classmates
held such high esteem in the fact based world of journalism. Well, I suppose we all live to be corrected.
" ...know that he is a dangerous person, ... he has a dangerous mind and a dangerous way of thinking...
he won't rest, he won't stop..."
[Waydaminute! Is this Terminator One we are talking about?]
Oh. Are you trying to say he is dangerous?
Maybe if you repeat it 50 more times we will all think it is true.
Does Mr. Cohan aim his articles at mental 6 year olds?
So, as a favour to me, Mr Carter, could you consider an issue
without any Trump foam in it? That would be a refreshing change, at least, that is from what I can observe.

I Adopted Two Kitty Kats, Jok & Tok

2016 Clematis Display

 Wow  How beautiful.

Why Marriage is a Rotten Deal for Heterosexual Men.

Not long ago, in Vancouver's weekly arts and entertainment paper, The Georgia Straight, there was a letter to the Dan Savage advice column from a man in a sexless marriage.
The gentleman's wife refused to have sex with him any more, because she did not want to. 
As a gay man, I cannot help but wonder what the wife would say if the man said, "I do not want love anymore I only want the physical act of love."
I.e. sex. 
Well, I do not speak for women, as a member of the male species I wouldn't, 
I have more respect for women than that,
but I suspect she would not be too pleased
with that arrangement.
However the comparison is exactly equal.
I will explain momentarily.

Apparently Mr. Savage was inundated with so many letters of a similar kind, he felt obligated to declare a moratorium on them, which he rescinded in the very next column, as he received many more letters on the topic from outraged husbands.
I only use this instance as illustration of ~~
what a rotten deal marriage is for heterosexual men. 
I observe this on behalf of my gender brothers. 
How has this situation come about?
If you are capable of taking a profounder view than the oil slick depth of current media I shall lead you through why. 

Let's see. 
Imagine the surprise of American policy makers, when after pouring billions of dollars of taxpayers dollars into a country on the other side of the world and that nation's president backed a bill in parliament that would give the husband the legal right to [physical sexuality] rape the wife. Seriously. Google it. 
This extreme of male chauvenism is the mirror reflection of the female chauvenism of refusing sexual love after the marriage contract legally binds. Binds.
She, the female chauvenist sow, has sold her sexuality for financial support, now she rescinds sexuality but still expects the financial support.
The new hypocrisy being the equal pay issue, which only works if men are no longer held financially responsible for women. It is doubtful that a realistic Feminist's request, ~~ that men are no longer responsible for financially supporting
women ~~ will ever be on the platform of supposed feminist consensus.
This is in a subcontext of "LOVE" which is purportedly the all important primary factor of marriage of most of the female species, in general, but specific individuals do not always conform, as with in any group.
The most venal and abhorrent use of the female chauvenist sow is the use of birthing children for her own material support.
This happens daily but nearly not one whit of comment from contemporary mass media, much less comment from contemporary feminists.

The situation for the natural healthy robust heterosexual male has already become untenable.
He must continue marriage with a person that does not respect his nature. That is civil law in NorthAm today.

Further, it shows absolute ignorance and disrespect of the nature of the male species where sexuality is the prime motivating factor in natural healthy men, and emotionality is the primary motivating factor of women. In general, --- again.
The female chauvenist gets her primary needs met~~ support of her narcissistic self involved dream of permanent adoration, and these needs must continue to be met, long after her respect for his healthy nature is exhausted.
Untenable.

Moderation is always wiser than the extreme, when trying to make progressive change to difficult situations our citizens find themselves in. Both sexuality and emotionality must be enjoyed in moderation, not in the extreme.

So what is the solution to this problem, a problem of disrespect?
Point to your hand. PTYH.
It is your personal responsibility to respect your partner.

How you do that would be as different as the individual, because every marriage is unique, not identical to another, so what you choose is your own business. Did you really think I was going to tell you what to do? That is your responsibility, and the outcome or consequences to your marriage are there whether you recognize them or not.

Each couple must take responsibility for their own marriage, their own life choices, not blame others.
When a wife refuses to have sex the marriage is over for the man. Plain and simple. How you deal with that Male Fact is up to the individuals in the marriage and their own content of character. 
However if there is unequal power, underhanded manipulation, or disrespect you have yourself to blame for the end of the marriage. 

The Canadian Broadcasting Company, radio, reported that the number one reason for divorce was....
not infidelity, but "falling out of love".
Sexuality is the primary human motivation of the male of the human species, emotionality is the primary human motivation of the female of the human species. This observation is a tool to more profoundly understand the nature of each gender species. Use it. Daily.

Heterosexual men are being criminally undefended under the current laws regarding divorce. 
Lawyers might want to investigate the possiblity of suing the government for damages. Think about it, lawyers.

We accept falling out of love, but in an affront to the male of the species we do not legally recognize "falling out of sexual love", and if we are to respect the male species, and if women are to respect the male species they must join the support for a change of law that allows.....
an immediate no fault divorce if the wife refuses to respect the male's primary nature.

More than several NorthAm heads explode.
When you have quite calmed down, perhaps you will listen to my proposal.
While this legal safeguard for the male species respects men's wholesome natural identities, once enscribed in law it only has to be activated, if one of the other of the couple decides to use  it.
 "If one or the other, of a married couple refuses sexual love or emotional love, there can be a no fault divorce."
People fall out of love.
People fall out of sexual love.
It is not a crime. 
It is in the chemical nature of our bodies.

A woman has the right to say when and with whom she wants to have intimate physical relations.
That should be enscribed in law in all nations of the world, absolutely.
However one can only try to love someone for ever, [ and/or beyond as today's feminist narcissist chauvenist sows apparently require, ~ ] it cannot be legally enforced. Love cannot be legally bonded to last for ever.
As part of PTYH, taking your own personal responsibility for your own choices, which have led your marriage to the place it currently resides, means that the consequences of these actions are all your fault.
No use blaming them on the tiny minority Esgio species, the 1%, the same gender oriented citizens who are homosexual.
That kind of scapegoating? 
We really should have learned more from last century. You know to what I refer.

Where have Just Feminists gone? 
Where is the dialogue that while urging the respect of the mental, emotional and sexual nature of the female gender, incorporates the respect of the mental, emotional and sexual nature of the male gender.
It doesn't exist.
Instead there is a deprecation of the male gender's accomplishments as all oppression. Bollacks. Male priviledge--
bollacks, it is male accomplishment, and we are awaiting the the similar total accomplishment by women. They have not achieved it yet, but they will, given an education.

Men are criticized because they want sex "too" much, and don't "feel" enough emotions. In other words, because they are not women, who feel "too" much, and do not want sex enough ~~~ according to most of the heterosexual men I've known.
What kind of conceited myopia exists in so many women in contemporary life, that their idea is to have men who are identical to them? Force exporting your female emotional template to your husband is abuse. Bullying. And inappropriate behaviour.
This is Gender Species Imperialism.
It was no good when the male chauvenist pig wanted women to conform to their wants, higher sexual drive, lower emotional drive, why do feminists and women of today think it is acceptable that women do the identical same thing to men?

The female chauvenist sow force exports women's emotionality as an expectation of men's behaviour. 
So do mothers on their boy children 
which leads to an absolute plague of immaturity in grown men.

Men do not have to emotionally behave as women. They are men. If the women species does not respect men, why do they think they should be respected in return?
These are the reasons marriage for my heterosexual brothers is a terrible terrible deal.

Here is yet another. 
Many of the female species use marriage when it suits them. If there is a benefit all well and good, if there is a negative aspect, you are on you own hubby.
A non working wife becomes accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and the courts uphold that standard of living for the wife even after the couple divorces.
That is when our courts respect the "holy union" of marriage. 
However, when the husband provides a life style, through a pyramid scheme, gets charged and sent to jail, the 
"holy union" goes right out the door.
The wife should receive the exact same sentencing. 
She profited by having her life
style elevated through the husband's criminality. 
She profited from crime, enjoyed the profits of crime, in a life style that she was used to. Go directly to jail.
Equal pay for equal work for women must accompany equal legal penalties for women.

As a "holy union" she must go to jail as well.
So we see marriage used by some of the female species, [not all!, no one said all!]
as a never ending cash cow.
Protected by the courts with biased anti male legislation.

This is a friendly warning.
We are, if not now in, approaching a tipping point.
There is now a movement and web site entitled Men Going Their Own Way, this is in direct reaction to my contentions.
At what point do the lies and hypocricies  
of some women's female imperialism become so untenable that heterosexual men begin to boycott marriage? 
At what point will some of the male species suspect that hiring a cleaning service, a chef, or take away.... and a sex trade worker might be a better deal?
We are near. Or we are there.
These are the real threats to heterosexual marriage not the lies that Ugly Christians such as Mr. Mike Huckabee and Mr. Ted Cruz, and others in NorthAm use to gain votes from emotionally immature and mentally immature citizens .
The real threat to marriage is the pervasive nature of disrespect between the Male Gender Species and the Female Gender Species at least that is from what I can observe.
Wade Edward Seezer .