All posts tagged pregnant

Lead With The Breasts

Our Minister of Defence, Mr Philip Hammond, has announced that his Department is considering accepting women as combatants. He received the following letter:

Dear Sir,

As you are one of the only four ministers who did not vote for same-sex marriage (although you were not brave enough to actually vote against it), I assume that you are more intelligent than most of the Cabinet. I was, therefore, surprised to read that you are considering putting women into combat. You have used the phrase that the military has “a macho image.” I do not know if you are aware that the word “macho” means “manly” in Spanish. Would you want a military that was not manly? Is it not necessary to be manly in order to kill people? As for “male chauvinism”, the word “chauvinism” refers to people who are ultra-nationalistic. What does nationalism have to do with the word “male”?

But what was most worrying was that you said, “Last time I checked, over 50% of the population were women”. In other words, you are suggesting that because women make up half of the world, they should also make up half of every human occupation. I must tell you, with great respect, that is very bad logic. If it were true, then half of all plumbers should be women, half of all lorry drivers should be women, half of all street sweepers should be women, etc. But I do not think that is what they want, or what you want. I see that you received a First Class degree from Oxford, and I find it extremely worrying that one can receive a First Class degree from Oxford, without understanding logic.

Apart from logic, it is obvious that men and women are very different in every way – physically, emotionally and intellectually. Would you say that most male soldiers have the curse? And what would women combat soldiers do when they have the curse? Women always create sexual jealousy when they are surrounded by men, and the next step is they get pregnant. Do men get pregnant? When the U.S. Army withdrew from Iraq, and returned to the United States, 15% of the women soldiers were pregnant. Is that what you want – a pregnant army? Think how terrified Putin would be to have to fight against battalions of pregnant women. Also, please do not pretend that breasts are not a handicap in fighting. Most of all, men are physically much bigger and much stronger. This obviously makes an enormous difference. You tell us that the army should be fully open to women who can “meet the fitness and other requirements”, but, with respect, that does not mean anything. When the police in London started recruiting women, they had to scrap their requirements for height and weight. That is what you will have to do too, if you take women.

Finally, although women have a lot of moral courage, perhaps more than men, they do not have physical courage. I know that from personal experience. In addition, some years ago, the U.S. Army held military exercises in Panama, in which they had a troop of men soldiers fighting a troop of women soldiers. The fighting did not last very long, before the women turned and ran.

Most people would say that women were put in the world by God to create life, not to destroy it. It is bad enough that political correctness is allowed to interfere with our daily life, but that it should not be allowed to interfere with our defence is not acceptable.



Female Attire

In her column in last Sunday’s Times (11th August 2013 – “No, m’lud, it is women who have been caught in the temptress trap”), Jenni Russell brought up some interesting points, but she was misguided about several things.  To begin with, paedophilia is defined as “sex with a child”.  Now, according to the Dictionary, the definition of a child is a human being from birth to puberty.  Over the age of puberty, one is no longer a child, so there is no such thing as paedophilia after reaching puberty.  It is true that in England, sex with teenagers under the age of 16 is against the law, but different countries have different laws about this.  In Italy, for example, the age of consent is 14.  It is somewhat naive to say that one cannot imagine a 13-year old girl “persuading” a man to have sex with her (her word “force” is inapplicable).  All she has to do is open his trousers and take hold of his penis.

Miss Russell is also somewhat adrift about the question of women’s attire.  Since the beginning of time, the way a woman dresses was always meant to indicate her intentions.  Miss Russell said that today there is “huge social pressure” to look “hot”.  This is nonsense.  No girl is forced to dress in a tarty way, or to look vulgar, or to encourage men.  Those that choose to do so must take the consequences.  Suppose three women walked into a pub — one is dressed in a normal way, the second is wearing a skirt up to her crotch, and has her boobs hanging out, and the third is completely nude.  Does anyone believe that the men in the pub would have the same reaction to all three women?

It is true that all adolescents develop sexual desire, but they do not all behave the same way.  Some have manners and dignity, and above all self-preservation.  It is this self-preservation which has disappeared from women’s behaviour over the past 50 years.  Miss Russell is also quite wrong to suggest that women’s sexual activity is “disturbing” to men.  On the contrary, men welcome it.  Men love naughty girls.

Why should anyone be surprised that there is a “double standard” when it comes to sex?  Men and women are clearly very different.  It is well known that if any attractive, or even semi-attractive, woman encourages a man, the man will NEVER say no.  So whether a man and a woman to go bed, depends entirely on whether a woman says “Yes”, or “No”.   As we live in an age of easy contraception, women today never become pregnant unless they want to.  That is why people laughed at Ulrika Jonsson – she was incompetent as well as promiscuous.  But there is nothing to say that Liam Gallagher asked his mistresses to get pregnant.  If they wanted children, that was their affair.

Everyone knows that men do not require emotional involvement to go to bed with women.  But women are expected to have emotional involvement, otherwise they are considered to be promiscuous – like Ulrika Jonsson.  Nor is it true that sexual women are considered “deviant”.  It is at least 100 years since people thought that way.  All women have sexual desires – some control them, others do not.  These things are not “prejudices”, they are simply conclusions from thousands of years of human behaviour.  Obviously one can never see men and women in the same light.




Reply To The Daily Telegraph

In view of the personal attack on me by the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, I have replied to them as follows:

Dear Sir,

As you made a personal attack on me in your editions on Saturday, I hope that you will allow me space to reply. Your article accused me of being “controversial”.  Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with being controversial, but as it happens my views are not at all controversial. They are traditional, which is the opposite. If one believes in Christianity, that is not controversial, but if one supports same-sex marriages, that is very controversial, as the recent riots in Paris have shown.

You bring up the fact that I do not approve of women wearing trousers. But what you do not say (although I explained it to your reporter) is that the Bible says (in the very beginning) that anyone who wears the clothes of the opposite sex is “an abomination”.  Is it controversial to accept the Bible?  Indeed, for thousands of years, wearing the clothes of the opposite sex was considered a crime throughout the civilised world, with severe penalties.  Several years ago, the Pope said in a speech, “The blurring of the genders is more dangerous to the world than the destruction of the all rain forests.” In short nothing has changed. Is it controversial to agree with the Pope?

You also mention that I consider unwed mothers as “naughty girls”. Of course I do — have they not been so considered since time immemorial? Furthermore, today they are much more naughty than in the past.  We live in an era where contraception is easy and cheap, and most of the unwed mothers today have become pregnant deliberately, in order to get their own house, and not to have to live with their parents.  But today they are even naughtier than that, because they are also cheating the Government. According to the law, they are only entitled to benefits if they are living alone. But few of them are alone, they all have a man living with them, who disappears the one day a month when the social worker comes. Is it controversial to consider them “naughty”?

Finally what I said about rape was that the rules are the same wherever it happens. There are no special rules for a “date”, so there is no such thing as a “date rape”. There is only rape.

My ideas are traditional ideas over thousands of years. No one is obliged to agree with me, but what is certain is that, by definition, my ideas cannot be controversial – they are the traditional views that have prevailed since time immemorial.  It is those who oppose traditional ideas whose views are controversial.



A Chance For UKIP

I believe UKIP now has a wonderful chance to move up into a major political party. The criticism of UKIP has always been that it is a one-issue party, and it was obvious that it had to bring more issues into its orbit. The amazing thing now is that instead of having to look for issues, issues are being given to UKIP right and left. There is the religious/same sex issue; there is the immigration issue; there is the Social Services issue, and, of course, Europe, which is hotting up. All that UKIP has to do is pick up and run with them.

I would like to say something about each of these issues, which I believe are there for the taking, beginning with religion. Although the treacherous Cameron promised to uphold Christianity, he is doing the opposite. A young lady, who was sacked from her job as an airline stewardess because she wore a cross, and who is appealing the matter, is being opposed by government lawyers. Is that how the government supports Christianity? In schools, teachers have been told that they must teach young children about same sex marriage, and that if they do not, they will be sacked. Furthermore, parents are not allowed to withdraw their children from these classes. Is this upholding Christianity? And, of course, same sex marriage. There are countless Christians who oppose all these things, but they do not know where to go. So in desperation, they are looking to UKIP. UKIP must welcome them and pick them up.

There is immigration – another balls-up by Parliament and the Home Office. It is not very long ago that the Home Office lost 500,000 immigrants. How is that possible? The important thing that no one seems to think about is why do these immigrants, who have to come to the Channel Tunnel via France, and often Germany, not stop in those rich countries, but come on to England. Of course, the answer is that the suckers are here, ready to accept anyone and to put them immediately on benefits. By contrast, in France and Germany immigrants have to have ID cards, and they are not allowed to go on benefits unless they have worked for at least 12 months in the country.

is not a person that one can see; it is an amorphous enterprise, so people do not feel that they are cheating anyone. A good example is unwed mothers, of whom there are roughly 700,000. First of all, the question is why should unwed mothers be given anything? They have been naughty girls, and should be given a good smack. But secondly, in today’s era, it is easy and inexpensive to get contraceptives. Which means that almost all of these girls became pregnant deliberately, in order to live separately from their parents. But most of all, almost every one of these unwed mothers is cheating on the rules, because the rules are that they receive money only if they live alone, and none of them are living alone. They all live with a man, who disappears on the day that the Social Services worker comes. The rest of the time they both live on the state. Occasionally, a Social Services investigator is sent to check on them, whereupon the live-in man says he will break the investigator’s head open if he ever sees him again. That is the end of the investigator. Just this one scam costs £4 billion a year.

The European situation is hotting up, with more and more support for a referendum. Cameron’s response to this is typically dishonest. He continues to want to word the referendum so that it requests “tough” negotiations, while at the same time remaining a full member of the EU. This is an idiotic idea, but more importantly, it is not possible according to EU rules. It seems that Mr Cameron has not bothered to read the Lisbon Treaty. Under EU rules, there is no possibility of any country renegotiating its rules, except under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would compel the other EU nations to negotiate, but in order to achieve this, Britain, or any other country, must first categorically state that it wishes to leave the EU. In short, what Cameron is suggesting is not only feeble, but impossible. Finally, the suggestion that by leaving the EU, we would lose our trading relationships with other countries is nonsense. We run an enormous trade balance deficit with Europe – we are their biggest customer. There is no way they would want to lose us.

I believe that this is a wonderful chance for UKIP to make a significant leap forward by taking up these issues. I also suggest that UKIP’s name should be shortened, because people are more comfortable with short names for political parties. I would drop the “UK”, which adds nothing to the meaning, and become simply the “IP” or “Independence Party”.



Letter to the International Herald Tribune

15th June 2011

Dear Mr Krugman,

Harry Truman, one of the shrewdest and most candid of U.S. Presidents, replied to Keynesian demands that the U.S. target an “acceptable” rate of inflation that would do no harm, but would be economically stimulative, by saying,  “You can’t.  That’s like being a little bit pregnant.”

What do you think?

Yours sincerely,

D P Marchessini


Two Italian ladies

Dear Ladies,

Your article in the Herald Tribune last Saturday, raises some interesting points. Unfortunately, there is one thing that you have not touched on, and it is the most important thing in life, namely freedom – the freedom to live one’s life as one wishes.  Now, you and I have the right to find Mr Berlusconi very vulgar, and we have the right not to vote for him.  But we do not have the right to tell him how many parties he is allowed to have, and we do not have the right to tell him whom he can invite.  If we live in a free country, he is allowed to arrange his social life as he pleases.  You complain that his parties reveal a society in which women are “not taken seriously”. That is like blaming the mirror, if you see things in it you do not like. Berlusconi has not created this society. If his parties show women as weak, that is because they are weak.  No one forces them to come, they come willingly, and wander around half naked. Indeed this does not happen only in Italy.  It is what the whole world has become. Berlusconi is just the new Elsa Maxwell.

You say that Italian men look at women as if they were “interchangeable goods”.  But, by embracing promiscuity, women today have chosen to become interchangeable goods.  Promiscuity, by definition, makes women interchangeable goods.  You also complain about “affronts” to the “dignity of women”.  But no one is entitled to dignity or respect. Dignity and respect must be earned.  When women embraced promiscuity, and started wearing skirts up to their crotch, with their boobs falling out, they gave up both dignity and respect.  There is a basic rule in life that you cannot have it both ways.  Women must choose.  You mention the case of a lady government minister who used to be a showgirl, and is, therefore, never taken seriously.  That is another rule of life.  “Once a tart, always a tart”.

There is also another important reason why women do not receive respect from men.  That is because men only respect manly qualities, and women do not have manly qualities.  A few years ago, Japan appointed a lady as Foreign Minister. It was the first time that this had happened and there was a huge fanfare about it in Japan.   The lady was intelligent, her father had been Prime Minister, and she had spent her life in politics.  Unfortunately, within a fortnight, when a civil servant was rude to her, she burst into tears.  After a few days she was quietly removed from office.  Not a manly quality.  Alessandra Mussolini and another lady Member of Parliament recently had a screaming row, and were shouting at, and insulting each other like two Neapolitan washerwomen.  Do you think men were impressed by that?   Mme Sarkozy accused, in public, a French lady Minister of wanting to sleep with her husband. This is a woman whose preparation for being the wife of the President of France was to have a very active love life, followed by becoming pregnant by a married man, and being an unwed mother.  Manly qualities?  Mrs Merkel says something different every day.  Her nickname in Germany is Frau Teflon, because she never sticks to anything.  She also thinks that by wearing trousers she looks like a man. In fact she only looks like a hippopotamus.  At least Mrs Thatcher had the sense to only wear only skirts.

There is also considerable confusion about the meaning of the frequently used word “macho”.  The word “macho” simply means “manly” in Spanish.  Don’t all men wish to be manly? Of course they do.  It is a compliment, not an insult.  Those who do not succeed in being manly are wimps. Now if a woman wishes to have a wimp in her life (perhaps in order to do the cooking and ironing), she is perfectly free to have one.  But what she is not free to do is to try to impose her views on the rest of the world, and in particular on men.  Indeed most women who choose wimps find out after a few years that they do not respect them, and have to get rid of them.  It is human nature for men to be manly. What you ladies are suggesting is not only against human nature, but also against Christianity.  In the beginning of the Bible, Genesis says “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.  In the Christian wedding ceremony, women are asked to swear to “obey” their husbands.  In the New Testament, St Paul says, “But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man”.  You are free not to agree, but you are not free to attack those who do, i.e. Christian men. 

The other point that you refuse to address is that marriage is a voluntary affair. Men are not obliged to marry women, and unless they are very stupid, they will not marry a woman who is not prepared to please them, and who will not do what they ask.  Like everything else in life, marriage is not a level playing field, because men do not need wives, but women need husbands, not only to support them and be fathers to their children, but also for emotional security.  Women like to see the same face when they come home every night. But men are not interested in seeing the same face every night. Men are interested in sexual excitement, and they are happy to see a different face every night, as long as it is an attractive face. 

You also mention that women are judged more for their appearance than for their “brains and souls”. Of course, “brains and souls” are the most important part of a human being, and when one is choosing friends, these things are most important.  But when you have to make love to someone for the rest of your life, the same considerations do not apply.  The fact is that “brains and souls” do not give men erections.  What attracts men to women is quite different.  Nature has made men and women complementary.  Women give men what they lack, and men give women what they lack.  The things that attract men to women are first of all, their looks.  Secondly, how they dress and turn themselves out. Thirdly, their charm.  Fourthly, their sense of humour.  Finally, their femininity.  And, just as men’s masculinity attracts women, so women’s femininity attracts men.  

Yours faithfully,

D P Marchessini


Birgit Cunningham

Letter to The Daily Telegraph

23rd February 2011

Dear Sir,

With reference to your article on Birgit Cunningham the unwed mother, I would suggest that she has done almost everything as badly as anyone could have done.

1. She was going to bed with someone who didn’t love her;
2. She allowed herself to become pregnant with him.  That was even more stupid;
3. Instead of going to live with her parents, where she would not have to spend any money and she would have stayed out of the public eye, she chose to be supported by public monies and to make a public spectacle of herself;
4. She decided to sell her story to the newspapers for money, and then pretended that this was a “protest”. As one of her friends pointed out to her, it cannot be a “protest” if one is making money from it – that is pure hypocrisy.  Anyway what is she making a protest about – her own stupidity?
5. She rang Lord Strathclyde, an old friend, lured him to her flat, and then went to bed with him, although she knew he is married, simply to have a story to give to the newspapers.  She then sold the story to the newspapers, betraying both Lord Strathclyde and his wife. There is nothing more vicious than betraying a friend, but it is even worse if one does it for money.  I cannot think of any other bad thing that she has omitted to do.  On the Continent, they would say she is a tart, but in England, people are sentimental.

Yours faithfully,

D P Marchessini


Single Mothers Manifesto

Letter to The Times

15th April 2010

Dear Miss Hartley,

With reference to your letter in the Times today, it is very important to distinguish between single mothers (widows and divorcees), and unwed mothers.  I have never heard of any widows or divorcees being “vilified or blamed for society’s ills”.  Unwed mothers are quite another thing.

What the Labour Party ignores is that in today’s society, contraception is widespread, and easy to obtain, therefore, any woman (or girl) who becomes pregnant does so only because she wishes to become pregnant.  She is not forced to do so.  It is also important to remember that pregnancy is not just an emotional decision; it is also a financial decision.  If a woman cannot afford to have a child, she should not have one.  Or if she does have a child, she should continue to live with her family, instead of asking the rest of us to support her.

Finally, you must remember that most of these “unwed mothers” are not actually living alone.  They have a man living with them, who disappears on the one day a month that the social worker visits.  So all of us are supporting countless couples, where the man does not work, but simply lives off society.

Yours sincerely,

D P Marchessini

Page 1 of 1

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.