Showing posts with label skanks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skanks. Show all posts

March 14, 2018

Taking off on the wrong foot . . .


An African-american man, Fredrick Joseph, was flying from Austin, Texas to Newark, New Jersey on United Airlines, March 13, 2018.

He posted a series of tweets about white privilege claiming that United Airlines offered the woman a $1000 voucher to put her feet down from the tray table, saying that a black person would not be treated the same way.  Online commenters chimed in, saying either that he was lying about the airline compensating the woman (that no company would ever pay for something like that), or that he was making a big deal out of nothing.

Regardless of whether or not United Airlines actually offered the woman $1000 (in order for her to behave like a decent human being) or that it demonstrates white privilege or not, this story highlights the sense of entitlement felt by women (thanks to feminism, and thanks to placing women on a pedestal by "traditional" males).

The disgusting female in question decided during the flight to remove her shoes and put her feet directly on the drop-down tray.


Besides the fact that this is extremely rude, uncouth, and obnoxious, I'm guessing one would probably be able to smell her feet (regardless of how clean they might be).

Mr. Joseph alleges that the woman initially had both her feet on the tray next to his.  When he protested, telling her that he was trying to eat but her feet were too close to his food, the woman responded that "the seats are small", and when he asked her to remove her feet from the tray, she called a stewardess and accused Mr. Joseph of "disrupting her flight".

Instead of asking the woman to comply, the stewardess allegedly told the woman that perhaps she could move her feet closer to the window or only put one of her feet up, to which the woman responded that she should be compensated for "accommodating" Mr. Joseph.

Even if the verbal exchange in Mr. Joseph's story cannot be confirmed, there is photographic evidence (pictured above) of this woman's rude behavior.

That's the idiocy of women.  Had it been a man acting this way (and compensated for it), it would have made it on the Huffington Post.

________________
@united
#FeminismIsCancer

Link and text from original article below:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-claims-united-airlines-offered-194538555.htm

Man Claims United Airlines Offered Woman $1,000 Voucher to Put Her Feet Down: 'The Audacity of White Privilege'

 James Tennent,Newsweek  |  March 14, 2018


A black man traveling on a United Airlines plane has claimed that a flight attendant agreed to give a white woman sitting next to him a $1,000 voucher for taking her feet off the tray table, while not offering him similar courtesy.

After his complaint went viral on Twitter, he called the company's response "tone deaf".
In a statement to Newsweek, United disputed the story, saying: "At no point was any customer offered compensation for this issue."

 “The audacity of white privilege,” Frederick Joseph, who started the ‘Black Panther Challenge’ fundraising initiative, wrote in a series of tweets on Tuesday March 13.

While on a flight from Austin, Texas, to Newark, New Jersey, Joseph said, a woman sitting next to him took off her shoes and placed her feet on the tray table. He shared a picture appearing to show a person’s foot on an airline table.

Joseph said that airline staff did not say anything despite walking past numerous times.
“I’m irate,” Frederick wrote, “because no black person would ever get away with this s--t.”

When it seemed like the staff would not take any action, Joseph said he decided to speak to the woman beside him. According to Joseph, he said “Ma’am, I’m trying to eat, and your feet are next to my food.”

“What do you want me to do?" the woman replied, according to Joseph. "The seats are small.”
 “I understand, which is why there is room for your feet and legs under the seat in front of you,” Joseph said he replied.

“This is why I fly first class, and I don’t come back here with everyone else,” the woman then allegedly said back. When Joseph then asked her if she would put her feet down, he said the woman called over a flight attendant and accused Joseph of “disrupting her flight” while she was “just trying to be comfortable.”

According to Joseph, the flight attendant suggested that the woman put her feet closer to the window or put one foot down, to which the woman replied: “If I put one foot down, I want to be accommodated for accommodating him.”

Speaking to Newsweek on the phone, Joseph said that the woman asked for a $1,000 voucher that had been offered by the airline prior to the flight for those willing to take a later plane. He said the attendant went to speak to someone else before returning and agreeing.

Shocked by this, Joseph said he asked the flight attendant “What voucher will I be receiving for my suffering?”

To which they allegedly replied “Sir, we can only make but so many accommodations, and she has agreed to move her feet for you.”

In an update on Wednesday, Joseph said he had recieved a call from United saying that the woman did not recieve any compensation. Joseph says that he told the respresentative: “I’m happy to hear that, but I still have an issue with the flight attendant pacifying her and essentially taking her side.”

Joseph says he told United that "the flight attendant created a negative situation for me and took her side" when the alleged offer took place. "I find it hard to believe that if this was a person of color someone wouldn’t have asked her to put her feet down," Joseph said he continued.

He then said that the respresentative identified themselves as "a Hispanic person" and said that they personally did not "believe it has anything to do with race or culture."

In his most recent tweet, Joseph said: "Basically, United had a woman w/ a Spanish sounding surname tell me there should be no issue because the woman ended up not getting money.
"Oh, and racial bias didn’t matter here, because again a woman with Spanish sounding name at United says it didn’t," adding, "Tone deaf."

In a statement to Newsweek, United Airlines said "At no point was any customer offered compensation for this issue, and we’ve talked with our customer to clarify this with him, and address his concerns. We want all of our customers to be treated with respect, and we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind."

Speaking to Newsweek, Joseph said that he did not feel he had been actively discriminated against but that "I do think there’s an underlying way in which white people are often pacified that people of color are just not."

"Even the woman on the phone for United saying 'we would have done the same thing for anybody', I just don’t believe that that’s true."

"United has said that there’s no voucher so she didn’t end up getting it," Joseph said, but he added, "even in the moment, if you’re not intending on giving her this, you’re still publicly pacifying it. Even if she never recieves a thing at all, it’s still a matter of... you have aligned yourself with what she’s saying and what she wants to do so you might as well just give her the money anyway because if it hadn’t gone viral I would have been home thinking this woman got this money."

Joseph's story created much conversation on Twitter, with a number of users commenting on the racial undertones they percieved and asking for United to comment or apologize. A number of users noted that it occured a day after United said they took "full responsibility" for a puppy which died when a flight attendant allegedly made the owner put the animal in the overhead compartment.

This article was first written by Newsweek

February 28, 2018

Racial Harmon-y


According to the Huffyton Boast (Huffington Post), a teenage woman made a false rape accusation, although fortunately no one was identified or arrested before she confessed to lying.

Breana Harmon (19) of Pottsboro, TX was reported missing when her car was found with the door open and some of her personal belongings scattered on the ground.  A few hours later she walked into a church wearing only her t-shirt, bra, and underwear, claiming she had been raped by 3 black males. Harmon is a white woman.

However, it turned out the lying skank had gotten into a fight with her fiancé, and was so upset she cut herself and her clothes.  She said she made up the rape story because she didn't want her family to be angry with her.

So this nasty woman actually thinks that her family being upset at her is somehow worse than accusing innocent people of rape. Wow. First World Problem.

Her scuzzy lawyer claims she was "remorseful" for what she did.  According to the 'news' article, falsifying  government documents in relation to kidnapping and sexual assault is a felony, but Harmon will see no jail time (instead, she will be given probation or community service).

Western women are the most privileged people in the world; they are so spoiled they think nothing of ruining other people's lives just to avoid getting in trouble.  You would have to be pampered and spoiled to think that mommy and daddy being angry with you is so bad that falsely accusing another person of a crime is somehow reasonable.

I was actually surprised that this article came out in the Huffyton Boast (I would think they would hide stories like this from the general public), until I realized that the accuser (criminal) was white and the accused (innocent victim) were black.  The Huffyton Boast is all about white on black crime (never the other way around, unless they can spin it somehow).

Had it been a black female that falsely accused white males of gang raping her (like the Duke Lacrosse scandal), or if it had been a white female accusing 3 white males of raping her, this story would have never made it on Huffyton Boast.  That is why they are Fake News.

Her fiancé should seriously reconsider being engaged to this nutjob. It might one day be him on the receiving end of her false accusations. Or one of his friends.



@HuffPost
#FakeNews
#FeminismIsCancer


________________________________________
Original Article and link below:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-jail-texas-teen-lied-202854635.html

No Jail For Texas Teen Who Lied About Being Raped By 3 Black Men

David Moye
HuffPost  •  February 27, 2018


A North Texas teenager who falsely claimed she was kidnapped and raped by three black men last March will likely serve no jail time.

On Thursday, 19-year-old Breana Harmon of Pottsboro pleaded guilty to four felony charges of tampering with physical evidence and government documents in relation to false reports of kidnapping and sexual assault.

“She’s very remorseful for what she did and what she said, and that’s why she decided to plead guilty,” Harmon’s attorney Bob Jarvis told the Sherman Herald Democrat. No suspects were ever identified or arrested in the case.

Harmon will be sentenced March 20. Her plea deal has two possible punishments: regular probation or deferred adjudication, which often involves fulfilling a requirement, such as treatment or community service. Neither involves jail time.

On March 8, 2017, Harmon was reported missing to the Denison Police Department after witnesses noticed the door to her vehicle was open with personal items, including a phone and keys, scattered on the ground.

A few hours later, Harmon walked into a church wearing only a shirt, bra and underwear. She said she had been kidnapped by three black males wearing ski masks, according to the Sherman Herald Democrat. Harmon claimed the men assaulted her and and that she was raped by two men while a third held her down.

Investigators noticed inconsistencies in Harmon’s story within in a few days. Medical workers didn’t find evidence she had been raped, and the holes in a pair of blue jeans discovered at the alleged crime scene didn’t match her injuries, according to the Dallas Morning News.

“The puzzle pieces just weren’t coming together,” Denison Police Chief Jay Burch said, according to the Morning News.

Harmon told police two weeks later that she made up the rape and that cuts on her body were self-inflicted.

She told officers that she was upset after she and her fiancé had been fighting, according to the Herald Democrat. Harmon said she cut herself and her clothes, then made up the rape story because she didn’t want her family to be angry with her.

Burch said Harmon’s false allegations have hurt the community, especially its African-American residents.

“Breana [Harmon’s] hoax was also insulting to our community and especially offensive to the African-American community due to her description of the so-called suspects in her hoax,” Burch said, according to the Herald Democrat. “The anger and hurt caused from such a hoax are difficult and all so unnecessary.”

•    This article originally appeared on HuffPost.


April 3, 2016

Cliffhanger




On July 7, 2013, a black widow skank decided to murder her new husband by pushing him off a cliff about a week after their wedding.

Jordan Linn Graham, a 22-year-old Montana woman, pushed her husband, Cody Nathaniel Johnson, to his death at Glacier National Park (I'm assuming they were on their honeymoon?).  According to Graham's second story (she changed her story at least 3 times), they got into an argument and he ‘grabbed her arm’, after which she pushed him off the cliff.

She of course claims it was an accident, but I think we know better.

She also claims she was ‘unhappy’ with the relationship.
[So why did you marry him you idiot?  Are you also aware that divorce is legal in the United States?  Call me crazy, but isn’t getting a divorce or annulment better than murder?]  I guess not.

She originally told authorities that she last saw him driving away and didn’t know where he was.

Afterwards, she admitted to killing him.  She also allegedly said she lured him to the cliff and pushed him from behind.

A friend of the husband claims he had misgivings about Graham before the wedding.  I think marriage should come with a warning label.

Jordan Linn GrahamIf you run into her, better watch your back!

_________________________
Sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/newlywed-cliff-death-victims-friend-suspicious-jordan-linn/story?id=20222596




October 11, 2012

Where have all the good men gone - bad-ass-chick sucks




I always hear women complaining about “where have all the good men gone?”, so I did an internet search for this topic.  One of the first websites I came across was this pathetic excuse for an article on dating tips. 

I’ve broken the article down into separate parts and commented on it.  The original text is in italics; my response/comment is in plain text.  The complete original article
( http://www.badasschick.com/where-have-all-the-good-men-gone/ ) is at the very bottom (for posterity, in case the original author thinks the better of it and decides to delete it one day).


The article opens up like so:

“As a Badass Chick, you are an intelligent, independent, beautiful woman, confident in your sexuality”

This sounds like a very narrow demographic.  Though I’m sure most women have at least one of these traits, I’ll wager that a much smaller number of women have all of them.  Especially that last one.

I wonder if these women would be okay with a man being “independent” and “confident in his sexuality”.  Probably not – I think it would make them nervous.


“The underlying problem with The Dirty Seven [types of men] is a kind of selfishness that makes them incapable of giving your needs fair play. They lack empathy (the ability to put themselves in your shoes). They are looking for a relationship like you, but they are not capable of sustaining one.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  Why is it that when men talk about their needs, they are told to suck it up?  Where is “fair play” then?  How come women never put themselves in our shoes?  Probably because they could not walk a day in them.  They are so accustomed to getting their own way that they couldn’t hack it (when the going gets tough, it’s men who have to constantly set aside their comfort and needs for the greater good because that’s what society expects of them.  In general, women in this society aren’t raised that way, so they would have a hard time with it).


“I categorized the Dirty Seven the way the scientist or naturalist describes species of insects or birds.”

So she is basically comparing men to animals; something less than human; an unfeeling specimen.  Nice one, lady.


“Don’t give up your freedom and happiness for these guys.”

Don’t worry – the feeling is mutual.


“They will always put you and your needs second or last.”

See the recurring theme here?  It’s all about HER.  What a sense of entitlement!

Why should men put your needs before theirs?  What makes you so special?  You’re a big girl, you can take care of yourself.  I’m not going to jeopardize my health or my career for you (who would take you out to nice fancy dinners if I did?).


“1.  ScarMan: Talks continuously about his ex and the past, to the exclusion of everything else, including you.”

This is more of an issue with women than men I think.  Everyone should stay away from these kinds of people (men or women).


“2.  SideMan: Married or living with someone but looking for some excitement on the side, with no intention of creating a real relationship.”

Really?  Does this category need be included, as if women don’t already know this?  I think it goes without saying that these men are not looking for a serious monogamous relationship – DUH!!!
So much for being an “intelligent” woman . . .



(But, if women are just looking for something physical, these guys are the way to go.  They tend to be disease free, stable, and not psychopaths.  Despite the drawback of being in another relationship, they are still a better catch than some of the single weirdos out in the dating scene.  Sad, isn’t it?)


“3.  CrazyMan: Has so many quirks, a hospital wing of psychotherapists couldn’t figure him out. He’ll drive you nuts if you give him a long-term try, so don’t start with him.”

Great, now can you tell us what exactly makes him crazy? (I thought there’d be more to this paragraph, but it just ends like that; it doesn't elaborate on what makes someone crazy).  Is that all?  Just avoid lunatic men?  Thanks professor, I did not realize that.




“4.  GuyMan: Likes guys better than girls but pretends to be straight. The fact that he is lying to you about it is what makes him one of The Dirty Seven.  Let him go on his journey of discovering his true identity without you.”

Oh snap – she did not just say that!  Does this bitch actually think that if a guy wants to hang out with his male friends that makes him gay?!  OMG!! – what is this bitch smoking?!  So let me get this straight: a man is expected to spend every single waking hour with the woman, or the woman’s “needs” are not being met?  What a goddamn selfish ho.  And by the way, the “it’s either me or your friends – what’s it gonna be” ultimatum does not sit well with men.  I would strongly advise against putting a man in this predicament.

And no honey, he is not lying to you –he actually would rather hang around with his friends and do fun things than have to spend all this time with you having to mind his every little move/gesture and pretending to enjoy himself.  That doesn’t make him gay.

I do agree with the last statement, though.  Do both him and yourself a favor and let him go on his journey on his own.  He doesn’t need you to discover himself, and when he does, by that time hopefully he will have found a woman who is deserving of the man he’s become.


“5.  YAPpie: (Young And Poor) have the benefit of youth on their side but not much else: No money and no job prospects. You pay for everything and drive him around too.
Do less for him. He is a species of parasite that survives by living off of women and will move on.”

I have no issue with the first statement – nobody wants someone who is broke with no prospects.  Regarding the second statement however: “You pay for everything and drive him around too” – now you know how WE feel. God forbid we don’t have a car and so you wouldn’t even give us a second look.

The third statement is just plain wrong: “Do less for him”.  Really?  Nice one, lady.  How about just NOT dating him in the first place, jackass?  And they say men are jerks!!


“6 OLMan: (Old Loser Man) is the YAPpie, grown older but not wiser. He has not provided for his future. He is looking to you to do that for him. He was lazy, selfish, and clueless in his youth and has remained the same in his old age.”

This also goes without saying.  But what do you mean he has not provided for his future?  Are you suppose to look through his portfolio or bank statements?  How do you know he was a YAPpie as a youth?  For all we know he was young go getter who got disillusioned.  Or maybe he gave all his money away to charity.  Really, you don’t know if he was selfish or clueless as a youth.  Bitch be crazy!

And the last so-called person to avoid, according to the author:

“7.  BagMan: Difficult children from different marriages some of whom live with him, multiple alimony payments, and lots of bitterness over past woes are just some of the baggage this man brings to the relationship.”

This sounds like a special case of the first category (“scar man”).  Of course she had to throw in that jab about alimony – again the author betrays her real concern - money (more payments to others means less money left over for HER).

And as if all this nonsense wasn’t enough – her piece continues!  Will this bitch ever STFU?!



“The good mate thinks about the “us” before he thinks about himself.  The relationship is foremost in his life and he shows you that it is.”

Oh, NOW it’s about ‘The Relationship’.  I thought a relationship meant TWO people.  So shouldn’t someone who is committed put the needs of both rather than just one?  Because if one suffers doesn’t the other?  She totally contradicts herself.  From her tone (and especially from the first sentence), I still think “us” is really a euphemism for (it’s all about) “me”.


“His life is not about his miserable self, self, self and he wants to do something to make things better in the world instead of being a drain on the system.”

So men caring about themselves is “miserable”.  Now who’s the parasite? (see man #5 above).  Do you know what happens to a man when he doesn’t take care of himself?  He becomes sick and miserable. That’s what this parasitic author fails to notice.

I think we can all guess who the REAL drain on the system is - a fault-finding shopaholic.


“He takes care of himself because he has self-respect.”

Now she contradicts herself and says it’s acceptable for him to take care of himself.  Pathetic!!


“Money is not what motivates him”

No, but it’s what motivates women like the author.  So that’s why the man feels the need to make money.  Otherwise women won’t date him.


“His heart guides him.”

OMG this is SO LAME!!!  Can you get any more cliché!?!


“He lives his life with passion and is not a wound-licking victim or an ego-driven control freak.”

When you (women like the author) are through with him, he will be a passionless, wounded, shadow of his former self.  His ego will be destroyed.  Men Beware!!!


“He understands the territory of love and shares it with you.”

This is SO CHEESY!!!  What the hell does it even mean?


“He appreciates and respects you and you feel a warm glow of happiness when you think of him.”

Thbbbttt!! (chokes back a laugh).  Jack Handey could not come up with something better.  Notice how appreciation and respect are only expected from the male; all she has to do is sit back and ‘feel a warm glow of happiness’.  Blaahhh!!  What a lazy, entitled, selfish beeyotch!!!


Now she proceeds to name the counterparts of the men she listed above (by simply adding an ‘un-‘ prefix – the way a grade schooler would).


“The un-ScarMan: He is not stuck in the past and is here with you, now. He wants to learn about you because he is interested.”

HE wants to learn about YOU, because as we know, it’s all about her.  Who cares what his goals and interests are as long as he isn’t broke.


“The un-SideMan: He is devoted to you and not lots of chicks on the side. He puts his whole heart into your relationship.”

Who said ‘lots of chicks’?  A married man or a man living with someone usually only has one chick (maybe 2 if he’s a total player).  Unless he is a polygamist or is a serial dater (not cheating), most men don’t have time for that many women if they are living with another one already.

Notice how she says ‘HE puts HIS whole heart into “YOUR” relationship.  And what will the woman contribute?  I’m almost done with this article and I’m still waiting to find out.


“The un-CrazyMan: He has enough reference in reality to be able to share your world with enthusiasm. He is balanced and rational.”

As already stated, if you need to be told that someone not based in reality is not good “mate material” then you may need professional help yourself.


“The un-GuyMan: He is honest about his sexuality and loves you because you are a woman with a woman’s body.”

OMG give me a friggin’ break.  Enough with the gay-ness already.  This is the oldest trick in the book – calling a man gay to make him feel insecure so that he feels the need to prove his masculinity.  These sort of shame tactics are what feminazis use when arguing with men (you’re gay, you can’t get a date, you have a small penis, you live in your parent’s basement, etc.).  Nice try June Marshall, but no one is falling for it.


“The un-YAPpie: He can support himself and does not expect you to be a Sugar Mama. He has plans and goals for what he wants from life and how he wants to contribute to others.”

But do you expect him to be a sugar daddy?  And as far as the comment regarding ‘contributing to others’, by ‘others’ she means HER. (don’t forget man #7 and how alimony to others is bad)


“The un-OLMan: He has had a life vision and continues to work on it, even when he is up in years. He can support himself and stays young-at-heart, though he has the wisdom that comes with age and experience.”

She contradicts herself again.  According to #6 above ("OLMan"), she claims this person has grown older but not wiser.  Here, she claims that wisdom comes with age (and experience).  So which is it, stupid?  We’ll I’ll tell you: to quote an old roman proverb, “Wisdom comes NOT with age, but with good sense.”

Hopefully his age and experience has taught him to avoid gold-digging beeyotches like her.


“The un-BagMan: He might have some baggage, as everyone who has lived has, but he does not inflict it on you so that it takes over your life. He has handled it cleanly and fairly so that it does not keep coming back to haunt him and you.”

Well at least she agrees that everyone has baggage (at first she made it seem that anyone with baggage was not worth dating.  Or maybe she only meant MEN with baggage).  I’m actually surprised she ended her sentence with “him and you” (I was expecting only the “you”).


And the author ends her juvenile article with the following statement:

“Even the sex sours when you lose complete respect for a man. Assert your Badass Chickness and move on to someone who has the ability to really love you!”

Actually, the sex sours once the man commits.  Why do you think guys like #2 (above) exist?

And as far as ‘losing respect for a man’, it seems that many women never had any respect for them to begin with.  Pretty hard to lose something you never had.


So to sum up: June Marshall's article is complete bullshit.  I would advise women to ignore it and men to be wary of people like the author.


____________________________________________________________________________
(below is the original article, in its entirety, without my comments)





WHERE HAVE ALL THE GOOD MEN GONE?

As a Badass Chick, you are an intelligent, independent, beautiful woman, confident in your sexuality. But if you have been floating around on the dating scene, you might be asking yourself, “Where have all the good men gone?” From my many years of experience dating, mating, marrying, being friends with and divorcing men, I can tell you: It takes patience to find someone you can respect, whose heart is open to you, and you can be with without driving you up the wall.

Good mate-material is out there. But, while you are looking, don’t waste your time and money on The Dirty Seven. The Dirty Seven are dead-ends and no matter how much hope, love, and denial you throw in their direction, they won’t change. There’s have too much of a pay-off being the rotters they are.


Underlying Problem
The underlying problem with The Dirty Seven is a kind of selfishness that makes them incapable of giving your needs fair play. They lack empathy (the ability to put themselves in your shoes). They are looking for a relationship like you, but they are not capable of sustaining one.


Who are these Guys?
I categorized the Dirty Seven the way the scientist or naturalist describes species of insects or birds. They have stayed true to type for over twenty years of testing in the laboratory of society. Don’t give up your freedom and happiness for these guys. They will always put you and your needs second or last. Read for a brief description of who they are and what you can do about them.

1 ScarMan:
Talks continuously about his ex and the past, to the exclusion of everything else, including you. You feel like saying, “Hello! You are out with me!

If you want to feel first in a man’s heart, throw ScarMan back on the dating beach.

2 SideMan:
Married or living with someone but looking for some excitement on the side, with no intention of creating a real relationship.

Walk away and don’t look back. He wants to use you. If it takes a lie, he will lie to get what he wants, without a thought for the pain he causes. Divorce is expensive, he loves his kids, and he wants the best of both worlds. Don’t think he will leave his wife for you.

3 CrazyMan:
Has so many quirks, a hospital wing of psychotherapists couldn’t figure him out. He’ll drive you nuts if you give him a long-term try, so don’t start with him.

4 GuyMan:
Likes guys better than girls but pretends to be straight. The fact that he is lying to you about it is what makes him one of The Dirty Seven.
Let him go on his journey of discovering his true identity without you.

5 YAPpie:
(Young And Poor) have the benefit of youth on their side but not much else: No money and no job prospects. You pay for everything and drive him around too.
Do less for him. He is a species of parasite that survives by living off of women and will move on.

6 OLMan:
(Old Loser Man) is the YAPpie, grown older but not wiser. He has not provided for his future. He is looking to you to do that for him. He was lazy, selfish, and clueless in his youth and has remained the same in his old age.
Do not get involved with him until you find out where and how he lives. Go there with him. If he is penniless, especially beware of how he lives.

7 BagMan:
Difficult children from different marriages some of whom live with him, multiple alimony payments, and lots of bitterness over past woes are just some of the baggage this man brings to the relationship.
Give up on him before you are left holding the bag.


Good Guys
Let me reiterate, good guys are out there and are worth taking the time to find. The good mate thinks about the “us” before he thinks about himself. The relationship is foremost in his life and he shows you that it is. His life is not about his miserable self, self, self and he wants to do something to make things better in the world instead of being a drain on the system.

He takes care of himself because he has self-respect. Money is not what motivates him. His heart guides him. He lives his life with passion and is not a wound-licking victim or an ego-driven control freak. He understands the territory of love and shares it with you. He appreciates and respects you and you feel a warm glow of happiness when you think of him. He is the exact opposite of all of the Dirty Seven:
  • The un-ScarMan: He is not stuck in the past and is here with you, now. He wants to learn about you because he is interested.

  • The un-SideMan: He is devoted to you and not lots of chicks on the side. He puts his whole heart into your relationship.

  • The un-CrazyMan: He has enough reference in reality to be able to share your world with enthusiasm. He is balanced and rational.

  • The un-GuyMan: He is honest about his sexuality and loves you because you are a woman with a woman’s body.

  • The un-YAPpie: He can support himself and does not expect you to be a Sugar Mama. He has plans and goals for what he wants from life and how he wants to contribute to others.

  • The un-OLMan: He has had a life vision and continues to work on it, even when he is up in years. He can support himself and stays young-at-heart, though he has the wisdom that comes with age and experience.

  • The un-BagMan: He might have some baggage, as everyone who has lived has, but he does not inflict it on you so that it takes over your life. He has handled it cleanly and fairly so that it does not keep coming back to haunt him and you.

Be Badass
So don’t be a wimp when one of the Dirty Seven comes your way. Only women with low self-esteem fall for these guys, or continue on with them when they find out what they really are. The Dirty Seven don’t get better. They don’t even want to get better. The payoff for being selfish is great for them. Only the chick loses in this situation. Even the sex sours when you lose complete respect for a man. Assert your Badass Chickness and move on to someone who has the ability to really love you!

June Marshall - is author of The Dirty Seven: Ladies Beware.

_______________________________________________________________________