Choices
Remember those rich kids in high school who always got in trouble with school officials and with law enforcement but their parents always got them out of trouble? Remember how their behavior got worse with every incident until it got so bad that their parents couldn’t or wouldn’t get them out of the mess? I wasn’t one of those kids. I made bad choices and always suffered the consequences, and eventually, I started making better choices.
Well, these days we have a whole generation of those spoiled rich kids. No matter what bad choices they make in their lives, the government is there to bail them out. If they drop out of school, get crappy jobs that don’t support the lifestyle they think they deserve, the government will raise the minimum wage for them. If they have scads of children with men who aren’t willing our able to support those kids, the government has programs to give you money for those kids.
If you see a house that fits your desired lifestyle, but it’s outside your price range, the government will help you buy it and then step in to help you keep it when you can’t make the mortgage payments. And the government will blame the lender because the government forced them to give you the loan.
If you want a degree from a fancy university instead of getting the same education at a local college, the government will help you pay for it with loans. When your degree in underwater hemp weaving doesn’t land you a job and you can’t pay back your loan, the government will forgive you and probably help you get a few years of unemployment benefits.
When you want your employer to cover your promiscuous lifestyle and that employer doesn’t want to pay for your birth control, the government will take them to court to force them to pay for your inability to say “no” to men who have no intention of paying for the children that might spring from that union.
When too many people are making bad choices that government has to pay to correct, guess who ends up pay for it eventually – those of us who learned about consequences and adjusted our behavior accordingly. Because the money that government spends isn’t their money, it comes from law abiding citizens who work hard and pay their taxes like they’re supposed to do. It comes from people who didn’t live outside their means or live to be popular. Folks who saw that the popular culture is a trap and sought to be independent as opposed to the alternative.
Yeah, I know I’m preaching to the choir, but watching the Supreme Court decisions today and the media reaction, I just felt that I had to vent a bit. Carry on.
Category: Society
Jonn…Thank you for this article. I wish I had something to add but you said it so well it does not need my input. I have nothing better to offer. Thank you again.
Nicely done, Jonn. Perfect.
Very well written. And true.
Agreed.
Regarding today’s Supreme Court decision: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the decision “jeopardizes women’s access to essential health care,” adding that “your boss should never be able to make your health care decisions for you.”
“your boss should never be able to make your health care decisions for you.”
He’s joking right!!!
Hypocrite! Those are the same “bosses” who are making health care choices for their employees right now, by turning their employees to part time to deny them insurance and/or dumping their coverage and forcing them onto Obamacare.
Reid is a hypocrite who can’t keep his facts straight or make logical thoughts come out of his mouth. In one case for him, 2+2=3 and the next 2+2=5, whichever suits his and his fellow liberal’s agendas.
Hey Sparks, He’s not the only hypocrite.
With all due respect to the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious views seem to stop at the moment they can make a dollar off of baby killers.
They don’t mind doing business with China to make a dollar, I think we are all aware of the Chinese and their pro-abortion stance. So I guess the idea of buying cheap products from known baby-killers who performed 13 million abortions in a single year (2008) and sold 10 million abortion pills that same year is acceptable to their tender religious views but providing insurance for their employees is not….
How does that work exactly? How does your religion tell you it’s wrong for your employees (who cost you money) to get abortions, but its’ quite alright for your business partners (who make you money) to perform more abortions in year than every one of your employees could ever cumulatively get in a lifetime?
I think the Hobby Lobby ownership is full of shit, if abortion is such a matter of conscience stop doing business with the abortion king of the world and I might believe you. Otherwise the Hobby Lobby folks are just another group of bullshit lying sacks of shit.
VoV: Do they really handle all that much merchandise from China? Hardly an expert on their marketing or product line, but was in one of their stores a few years ago and did not see an abundance of stuff made in China.
Just an impression, and hardly proof of anything, of course. You do make a good point, though, if they really do buy most/much/some of their line from China.
It’s estimated to be north of a billion dollars worth of goods.
I don’t have any problem with them dealing with any nation that the US government declares to be appropriate for business dealings. I do have a problem with someone who states they are in the business of promoting good Christian values buying stuff from a 3rd world nation known for worker mistreatment and abortion and pretending that’s okay for their nation but not their own employees.
I realize one is a direct interaction and the other a bit more indirect, but the money they export to China is used by the government to fund abortions. That’s a fact. Steve Green can pretend otherwise all he wants, but abortion is a government service in China so his business supports Chinese abortion every time he pays a Chinese tax on products he purchases from China.
VOV…I don’t do any business with Hobby Lobby just because they have nothing which I use or need. I did not know what you just wrote about them using China as a major importer. Therefore, I too will hang the “Hypocrite” sign around the necks of the Hobby Lobby Company and its owners. They can’t really have it both ways and stand on the abortion issue as their platform. If they have a true concern over the issue of abortion, they chose the wrong country to import from for sure.
Not to mention anyone who is using a cell phone or computer to post here… they ain’t exactly American made. Sorry, if you shine a light it hits ALL the cockroaches.
When I used birth control, I had to buy it. It never occurred to me that anyone else would. I got the script from my doctor and took it to my pharmacy and I paid for it, like I paid for my groceries and all my other purchases that I made with my paycheck. That’s what the paycheck was for!
God, I feel old today.
Your boss isn’t making a health care decision for your. Your boss only said he’s not going to pay for your decision.
Like I just told one of my “friends” on Facebook – if you want your employer to pay for your recreational sex, and yours doesn’t, find a new employer that does.
I guess I am a moron.
I fail to see how not paying for female contraception is controlling women’s reproductive rights.
Wow.
It doesn’t, GT.
I had to pay for mine out of my own pocket.
I am TIRED of the ‘gimme gimme’ kids and the spoiled brats they’ve become.
All that SCOTUS said was an employer who refuses to cover contraceptives, based on his/her religious choice, is acting within his/her rights.
No one is being deprived of ANYTHING.
Jonn’s right: find another job.
My advice is stop being a slut.
Ex-PH2 says:
“All that SCOTUS said was an employer who refuses to cover contraceptives, based on his/her religious choice, is acting within his/her rights.”
Justice Ginsburg, writing on the dissent of the Hobby Lobby case: “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”
If any religion is empowered by government to discriminate, they will. The court has opened a can of worms.
Not really.
Those issues that you listed are philosophical in nature and a lot different than recreational sex.
Unless, of course, you believe sex is philosophical. And you failed to mention Catholicism in your comparison.
Sex, drugs and rock and roll is all it is about to this generation and they believe that I (we) should pay for it.
I think not.
Nice try.
A cursory review indicates that Justice Ginsburg is, to be polite, engaging in the strawman logical fallacy.
1. Mandatory vaccinations have been ruled legal by the SCOTUS (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905). Thus, requiring mandatory insurance coverage to cover legally-mandatory vaccinations would seem to be the proverbial “no-brainer”.
2. While much compulsory medical treatment of adults has been forbidden by the SCOTUS in a number of decisions (e.g., O’Connor v. Donaldson, Rogers v. Okin), the general rationale in these decisions was based on a violation of civil rights due to lack of consent from the individual concerned to treatment. Further, though involuntary treatment of adults was severely restricted (not so much for minor children), it was not banned outright. Exceptions for health/safety were recognized.
It is thus difficult to see how the SCOTUS would recognize an employer’s right to veto a recognized emergency and/or lifesaving treatment for a third-party due to claims of “religious conviction”. As with any other First Amendment issue, such rights are not absolute. The balancing of the alleged religious beliefs at stake against the other individual’s civil rights (e.g., their right to a reasonable chance to keep breathing) would occur. It appears a reasonably good bet that in this case, the third-party’s right to continue breathing would prevail.
The same rationale would doubtless apply to the other strawman issues Justice Ginsburg raised.
Let’s be clear here. The Hobby Lobby case WAS NOT about providing contraceptives. It WAS about providing abortificants.
The owners of Hobby Lobby have never had (and publicly stated this many times) any issue providing things like condoms and birth control pills, that keep a fetus from forming.
The only issue they had was being forced to provide things that abort a fetus after it is formed.
Please, let’s not fall into the same trap that the left has by making this an false issue about all methods of contraceptives. Whether you are pro or con on the issue, let’s keep the facts straight.
Abortifacients are considered to be a form of contraceptive.
My advice still stands: stop being a slut.
Facts…hmm what facts?
The fact that most of the crap sold by Hobby Lobby is made in a nation where yearly abortions are 13 million and abortions pills another 10 million? They don’t mind Chinese abortions, only American abortions?
Steve Green, president of Hobby Lobby, explained, “We believe that the principles that are taught scripturally is what we should operate our lives by … and so we cannot be a part of taking life.”
Unless they are Chinese lives taken by our business partners and their workers…that’s apparently not a problem.
Steve Green is being a bit disingenuous I believe. You are part of taking a Chinese life if you support business and infrastructure in China, that’s a reality of Chinese life where abortion is a service offered to all women as a legal service on request.
It will be interesting when the next case involves a religion that doesn’t believe in blood transfusions so they don’t want to offer major medical insurance that covers operations.
The inevitable outcome will be not offering insurance at all, the question then becomes will you be paid more to buy your own or will we end up with that single payer option that the left so fervently desires brought to us by our religious friends.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/30/white-house-hobby-lobby-ruling-could-endanger-womens-health/
“‘It is our view …. that Congress needs to take action to solve this problem that’s been created, and the administration stands ready to work with them do so,’ Mr. Earnest said.
He added that the White House also would consider whether President Barack Obama could take action to mitigate this issue.”
Am I reading that correctly? Obama is considering laying aside a Supreme Court decision? Tell me I am reading that incorrectly.
No, you are NOT reading it incorrectly.
This guy makes Mussolini look like an amateur.
The Supremes have ruled. So, now the Preezy will just go and do what he wants, regardless of what the law has been determined to be, because he has “a pen and a phone”. Next up, amnesty for the chirrun invading the U.S. from the south.
Not paying for contraception as part of healthcare is not impacting reproductive choices. It may make them more expenisve.
However, I think any healthcare program that doesn’t cover birth control pills also should not cover Viagra.
No issue with that, Susan. Neither is in general a medically necessary prescription for maintaining physical health.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think most health insurance plans have ever covered the most common male birth control method: condoms. Virtually all I know of exclude OTC meds w/o prescription – and I believe that’s true for HSAs and FSAs as well. And even with a prescription, I’m reasonably sure they would be a “subject to annual deductable and copayments” item – with zero reimbursement as they’re OTC.
But maybe some do.
Never really needed it.
When HHS wrote the regulations mandating abortifacients they left Viagra out. There is no mandate to provide it to men. Remember, this was a Regulation not part of the original law. All the court said was that the government can not usurp one of my rights so as to provide a right to others. Regulations do not provide or grant rights. A clear case of overreach by HHS and it needed to be slapped down.
Sandra Fluke reportedly could not immediately be reached for comment.
(For the terminally dimwitted and/or perpetually outraged: yes, OF COURSE the comment here is satire.)
Racist! Because sex-positive Feminism! (It’s what she and/or her supporters would say.)
She could not be reached for comment because she and her team were addressing a group of students majoring in “Urban and Women Studies” at a liberal college.
While speaking to the audience, reclined and with her feet in stirrups, Fluke exclaimed, “me and my virgina believe that …”.
Business gets to decide what benefits they provide to their employees? Who freaking knew!
And for the record, my insurance doesn’t pay for little blue pecker pills, nor would I want them to. I think health insurance in this country has become a total joke. Imagine buying automobile insurance that paid for oil changes, tires, filters, and even gas. That’s how far out of control we’re getting.
I have a service plan that covers tires, filters, and oil changes….along with other major repairs. But it’s what I choose to pay for. Which is how all insurance should be.
Something offered as compensation should be subject to the same rules as other forms of compensation. My employer can’t dictate what car to buy, why can they dictate how I use my insurance if it’s offered in lieu of wages as it so often is in the United States?
If my employer discovers I like to drink and they are anti-drinking can they reduce my wages to not pay for that portion of my wages I use for alcohol? Of course not, but insurance offered in lieu of wages can be dictated. Let’s see if the noble folks at Hobby Lobby decide doing business with the baby killers in China offends their tender religious sensibilities. I’m guessing not so much.
Hypocrisy is not confined to either side of the aisle, nor apparently either side of the pew.
You are hung up on the whole China thing. First off doing business with a country like China, where there are a large number of abortions performed, is no different from doing business with the US, UK, Japan, Australia or any other 1st world country where there are also a LARGE number of abortions performed. It’s not like hobby lobby is donating to the Chinese abortion fund. Doing business with Chinese companies does not mean they are sending money to Chinese abortion clinics. So stop insinuating it does, come off your high horse, settle yourself down and go buy your plan B pills yourself, because Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to anymore.
All you said plus I really don’t give a damn what Hobby Lobby does or does not do. The issue is larger than whether or not Hobby Lobby is perfectly consistent in its practices-the issue is to what extent a private entity can be exempt from a government mandate based on Constitutionally protected liberties.
Except I’m not claiming any religious reason to deny coverage to anyone based on my fervent religious beliefs so pull your head out of your ass and compare apples to apples.
If your views on providing abortion coverage are so upsetting to your tender sensibilities that you don’t want to provide that coverage for your workers how do explain investing in non-Christian mutual funds that support the drug makers providing abortion pills?
Their religious views stop when they make money and start when they lose money it’s a bullshit premise now and it was when they started.
I don’t need abortion pills, and never have supported abortions. I am just tired of religious hypocrites who conveniently trot out their religion when it suits them and hide it when it doesn’t.
As a 22 year old OEF Vet looking at my own generation, I’m seeing a split, the main group of Millennial that demand everything with no work and the second group, mostly veterans I’ve seen but i know of others outside the service, that are slogging through the mud and blood of this government.
My hope is that this second group doesn’t get completely handicapped, remembers what this mess of a economic situation was, and runs for politics on a embrace the suck,lets get to work ticket
Here I am, working full time as a forensics analyst for the Army while trying to get my degree from a local college to convince the civilian market that maybe because I’ve done this for years maybe I know what I’m doing.
Instead of hiring the kid who spent 6 years on a four year degree from a fancy college with no field experience
Just a thought from a Young Vet
Well, first off, your work ethic and background lead me to believe you’ll have less trouble than most in convincing the civilian market that you’re worth hiring. If you’re looking to go federal or local government (agencies, police force, etc.) in forensics, your military experience is likely to help a lot.
Some random kid from a fancy school that took six years to graduate isn’t going to stand a chance against you.
Now, what about a kid who busted his ass for four years at a top-notch school, worked in research or internships over the summers and built up a good amount of experience? Yeah, he’s got a decent shot, too. But this notion that going to a ‘fancy’ school is all it takes is a lot of baloney.
Landing the right job is tough these days – between incompetence in Human Resource departments to blatant nepotism to a culture of hiring the familiar (Ivy League managers hire Ivy League recruits; ex-military managers hire ex-military recruits), there’s simply no ‘sure bet’. Be confident in your own training, your own value, and just keep truckin’ along.
My own two cents. Good luck!
Sorry Anon I didnt mean to down play the hard workers outside the service.
That hard working kid who busted his ass, that guy is going to be my friend because dammit he is a hard worker and I want him as a peer both friendly and competitive
I am confident in my own training, I’m just worried about the jokers in DC really.
Hope to see you on the side of a successful business / career Anon
No offense taken, Watch Dog – I just know a bunch of people at ‘fancy’ schools and many of them bust their asses day in and day out in order to excel. They generally don’t understand the training and experience veterans have, and veterans often don’t understand their hard work either. I just like to foster understanding rather than allow misconceptions to continue whenever possible.
As you said, the hard working ones are excellent allies, co-workers and peers.
Best of luck to you!
Watch_Dog,
God bless you,
thank you for your service
and keep “fighting the good fight”. You will eventually be the winner while all of the others that wait for everything to be handed to them will continue to wait.
You are doing it the right way..
What Blaster said!
Well said.
Hooah!
Hobby Lobby and religious freedom:
But Hobby Lobby’s right hand apparently doesn’t know what its left hand is doing, at least when it comes to the companies that make certain forms of birth control that it equates with abortion. While the company has waged a fight against the Affordable Care Act’s coverage of birth control methods it opposes, its own 401k plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in companies producing intrauterine devices (IUDs) and emergency contraceptive pills.
It’s no small share, either: the $73 million represents three-quarters of the retirement plan’s total assets.
So which companies are being supported by Hobby Lobby’s 401k investments? They include Pfizer (PFE), which makes the drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions, and Bayer, which makes the Mirena and Skyla IUDs.
Hmm….religious freedom? Really Mr. Green? Or religious hypocrisy?
If you claim you can’t contribute to an abortion, how come you invest so much in companies making abortion drugs?
Sometimes SCOTUS gets it all wrong…
VOV: verifiable source for the above quote, please?
That is from an article by Ungar, quoting from Mother Jones (Apr 2014). However, when you look at the retirement plan documents all that is there are mutual funds, some that may have(?) investments in the companies mentioned. I’m betting they didn’t know and who knows if they divested. The forms, see the last few pages for the assets held: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1099360-savings-incentive-and-profit-sharing-plan-for.html
The article from the the “I write for the left’ Ungar: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
Thanks for providing the links, I’m not a big fan of Ungar but when you are right, you are right regardless of political affiliation.
Their own paperwork is a problem as pointed out in the public document. I work with some folks of the Jehovah Witness persuasion, they all are very careful about where their money goes when investing. I find it difficult to believe that someone who is so fervently attached to their religion with respect to providing abortion insurance for employees could be so completely negligent when investing 73 million of their money.
It doesn’t prove they knew, but it sure smells like a pile of crap to me. Of course my anti-religion views probably color my perspective a bit. I’ve known far too many hypocritical religious shitbags over the years. Folks who talk a good game in public and when they’re alone with you are the worst NIMBY assholes you ever want to meet.
So maybe Mr. Green and family are just naive multi-millionaires exercising their religious freedoms, or maybe they are the kinds of folks where religion matters if it costs them money, and not so much when it comes to making money.
The real test is whether or not any savings from avoiding the cost of insurance will be provided as a wage increase for those employees to purchase additional insurance not provided by Hobby Lobby, or will Hobby Lobby keep the extra money (if any) saved from not providing full coverage insurance. I’ll be watching, and I hope to be surprised. History tells me I won’t be.
The point here for me is not the religious nor the political views of the participants but rather the fact that the gubmint is dictating the relationship between an employee and an employer.
I simply don’t care what criteria either the employee or the employer uses to decide if the contractual arrangement between them is satisfactory. Doesn’t matter if parking places, private offices, 7-week vacations, root canals, or any other benefit is included – it’s none of my business.
VoV: If you only want to invest is companies which produce hot air balloons, it also doesn’t matter to me. None of my business. (I might advise you to diversify a bit, but the decision is yours.) It should offend us both if the government tells you to either diversify or to hold what you have.
Same applies to Hobby Lobby, and every other employer in the country, in my mind. All this discussion of contraception just muddles the real problem of the government dictating terms of employment.
But it is being trotted about as being all about religious freedom. The government already dictates a great many terms regarding employment. I agree that insurance should not be one of them, but that means a paradigm shift of thought in the nation. Insurance in lieu of compensation has been offered for quite some time, originally because health insurance was so cheap employers made out better by paying less and offering insurance instead of better wages. I’d rather negotiate for more money and pay my own health insurance just like I pay my own car and home insurance. But the government has allowed employers to integrate themselves into our health care process by continuing to offer insurance for health instead of paying higher wages. Consequently the government regulates insurance by viewing it as compensation which is what it really is. It’s not a “benefit” it’s in lieu of more money in your hands. As such it’s a component of wages, which is why pre-tax deductions of insurance payments are allowed on employee contributions because it’s viewed as a component of your wage in the same fashion as your contribution to a 401(k). Hobby Lobby claiming their religious views give them the right to determine how you use a portion of your wages is problematic for me. If insurance premiums are considered wage components for tax purposes how can they be considered benefits on the employer side? It’s no more a benefit than the unemployment tax, it’s a required government mandate of wage protection. Because religion was invoked, it is religion that applies here. The company wants to alter a form of compensation based on a religious view. I would respect their position a helluva lot more if they were consistent in that position with respect to how they make their money as well as how they spend it. Otherwise, it comes across as more than a little hypocritical. They could very easily choose to avoid doing business with the abortion kings in China and stop investing in Bayer and Pfizer, but they haven’t. That puts the lie about the “religion”… Read more »
That’s not exactly what happened VOV: “The link between
employment and private health insurance was strengthened during World War II when in 1943 the
War Labor Board ruled that controls over wages and prices imposed by the 1942 Stabilization Act
did not apply to fringe benefits such as health insurance. In response to this ruling, many
employers used insurance benefits to attract and retain scarce labor.” http://www.nber.org/papers/w14839.pdf?new_window=1
So the government, having enacted wage and price controls, encouraged employers to pursue an alternate means to attract workers-health insurance.
The government is complicit in having created this entire mess and disentangling them from it-in any and every possible way-is a net positive
RunPatRun: thanks. Figures it would be from a source with an obvious – and highly biased – agenda.
I’m guessing most people – as well as many financial managers – would have quite a bit of difficulty in finding out precisely and accurately where a given mutual fund has invested its money on any particular day. Seems to me that much of that info is often close-hold and only published infrequently (semi-annually or annual reports, I think).
There are several organizations for Christians to invest with that scrutinize for exactly the type of anomaly that exists with the Hobby Lobby investments. The Christian investment groups actively avoid the companies involved in abortion drugs or procedures.
My point was that this smells funny, and while I agree Ungar is not the most unbiased man it doesn’t make him wrong on this issue.
There was always a way for Hobby Lobby to actively control the investments and to actively control whom they do business with. When a company makes money off of investments in abortion drug manufacturers and does business with Chinese companies I’m far less inclined to believe their pseudo religious horseshit.
I realize this a great “win” for some conservatives. I’m not so sure I agree…
I agree that employers should not be funding health care related to personal choices. I also think that groups religious or not have a right to offer alternative choices to abortion. I just wish if they are so convinced that it is wrong they should not stop at the moment of choice. If they talk someone out of birth control or an abortion why do they not step up and pay the expenses related to that choice. Why am I forced to pay the bills related to that decision. Seems like their moral outrage stops at their check book. WICK, food stamps, medical card, Earned Income Credit, and on and on. Fine to stand up for something you are passionate about, I just have little respect when the obligations of that opinion are passed on to everyone else. Just saying……
Just my thought on the matter. I think all contraceptive devices and STD screening and treatment should be a basic part of American Health care, regardless of sex. Id even go a far as having basiv feminine hygiene products paid for via insurance.
Its a health issue.
This country is becoming pants on head retarded with the entitlements.
That’s your boss. Not your daddy giving you an allowance. Grow the fuck up, America.
If you pay for insurance or have a job that provides you health care it’s not a handout. It’s part of your contract.
It’s a matter of negotiating your coverage. Businesses dont like paying for any extra coverage, workers want coverage.
If it was up to busineses they would ban their employees from smoking and drinking, even when not working to lower their costs.
They already do. I have to show proof via physical that I am “preferred” or else I get into a higher bracket and pay nearly double in my insurance.
Not only do I have to be tobacco (not just smoking) free, but the other requirements at my age would be damned near impossible, such as <24 BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc., (without drugs).
So no, not really having a whole lot of sympathy for the little snowflakes who can't be bothered to pay $10-30/month so they can spread their legs or dip their wicks with impunity. YMMV.
It’s a employee-business-insurance issue that would ammount to less then a few bucks a month in additional coverage.
It’s been made into a morality issue.
To me its a no fucking brainer. If you are an Insurance company or business that has to cover the costs of pre-natal care, maternity leave and costs of delivery of a baby why would you not cover medication that would PREVENT a pregnancy?
As OWB states clearly above, Just an Old Dog: the point isn’t whether doing that makes good business sense. The point is whether the Federal government should be forcing that requirement on employers (or employees, for that matter).
Freely negotiated? I got no problem. A government mandate? Yeah, I got a problem with that.
It costs about $10/month for the pills. If your man wont pay that to sleep with you then your either ugly as sin or need to check yourself on your choice of partners.
From what I’ve seen in this town, alcohol consumption has more to do with needing birth control than looks do.
CHOICES:
I choose coconut cream pie!
This is also known as having your “Druthers”.
Sounds like you just described little adam kokesh
I can’t say I know which type I am. In some areas, I have been spoiled. In others, I haven’t.
I’m looking forward, though, to becoming my own man, taking hits full on, and becoming a better person because of them.