No, Being Interesting Isn’t Enough

There’s an author who is apparently niche-famous in polyamory circles and quite prolific on at least one online question-and-answer service. He writes well. Let’s call him “Mo.”

Mo frequently bashes anyone who’d label themselves (or be labeled by him) as “incel,” “MRA,” “MGTOW,” “redpill,” or “Manosphere,” and their talking points.

The older I get, the less I accept most labels as concrete. “What do you mean by that?” is a very helpful question. “Incel,” strictly speaking, means “involuntarily celibate.” How can someone be blamed for something that’s involuntary? Well, the term “incel” has come to mean, in common usage, a lot more than simply being involuntarily celibate. But there are people, including men, who are involuntarily celibate who do not behave in ways or think in ways Mo cites as so detestable.

Mo often writes that all those other guys (and probably many more outside of those labels) are wrong when they say a man needs to be rich, powerful, famous, tall, built, very handsome, and/or play games to get women. He says what a man needs to be is interesting. Mo is interesting, you see. Those other guys aren’t. Or their uncouth behavior or offensive beliefs override their level of interesting. (Leonardo DiCaprio must be really interesting, right?)

Here’s the problem. There is usually an enormous disconnect between what Mo and the other men are talking about.

What is meant by “get women” (or whatever phrase one might use)?

In Mo’s case, it is “have sex with a woman who doesn’t expect exclusivity from me or much of anything else, nor will she be exclusive with me.” Mo wouldn’t mind, in fact it might turn him on, if his wife bangs 100 men in one night, none of them him. In turn, there are at least two or three other women Mo is apparently banging on a regular basis, or at least when he can see them. Mo engages in orgies and apparently his relationships are all open (polyamory doesn’t automatically mean an open relationship).

We know what Mo looks like. And he readily admits to being poor.

It’s a good thing Mo has no interest in monogamy. Because if he did, he’d quickly find out that being “interesting” (and what he might think of as enlightened) would not be enough. His choices in available women would be quite limited. (I’m curious as to how many women he was actually able to get before he became niche-famous.)

But because he lives as though he doesn’t mind if any of the women he’s banging, even his wife, bang other people, they are willing to use him as a dildo. Heck, he even lets them beat him for jollies.

If he’s to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt him, he hasn’t been monogamous since literally his first sexual experience, since it was with multiple people.

Mo wants multiple women sexual partners, which, if we’re being honest most men want but are willing to at least attempt to suppress. But that’s where the common ground ends. The men he’s saying are wrong about women AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME POOL OF WOMEN AS MO.

Mo doesn’t want monogamy.

Mo doesn’t want to have kids.

Mo doesn’t want to be a provider.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as husband material.

Mo doesn’t want to be what most women think of as boyfriend material.

Mo doesn’t want a woman most men would consider wife material.

Mo doesn’t want what most men would consider girlfriend material.

None of those women expect Mo to protect them, provide for them, fulfill all of their sexual needs, fulfill all of their romantic needs, father/raise children, build wealth for retirement, eventually be grandpa, or any of that sort of thing. He’s basically a dildo that gets passed around between multiple women, though he presents it as more meaningful or deep than that. 

“Sounds great to me,” you might think. Except these women aren’t really what you’d want. Nor are they what the men Mo mocks want. 

These men he mocks want a classic “girl next door” type of woman, not a “girl from the street corner” type, even if the street corner is online. Some want virgins; Mo will not date/have sex with a virgin, as he’s stated many times.

They want a woman to be THE woman in their life: their girlfriend, and maybe their wife and the mother of their children. They don’t went her to be the village tramp.

If one were to leave the other, it would be a significant life event and cause much difficulty, whereas if Mo “left” any of his lovers, they might have to find another man to beat them - consensually, of course, so that makes it OK, or something - or they could simply do with one less lover or beater.

These women the guys are seeking wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other men, and the men wouldn’t be flirting with or spending social time with other women - at least not without the spouses also there. Mo calls this very standard condition of monogamous marriages controlling and abusive, because it means telling someone else (your spouse) who they can’t spend time with.

It’s a big disconnect. 

What Mo is doing is like responding to people who say, “It’s hard to find a true, close, enduring friendship” with “No it’s not! I just made a friend on Facebook by being interesting!” It’s like saying to someone who wants to grow their own food homesteading that they can drive through at Krispy Kreme and get a doughnut.

He’s never been in a monogamous situation. Never had a woman to himself, never pledged himself to one woman. He’s never had to financially support a woman on an ongoing basis, as far as I can tell.

Conversely, many of the men who would be labeled as “Manosphere” or “redpill” and the like have been “traditionally” married and may still be married. Tom Leykis, who I’d guess Mo would have significant disdain for despite overlaps in their politics and sexual behaviors, was, last I knew, married and divorced four times.

What these men are encountering is a situation in which they are being held to ridiculous standards and obligations to so much as get a date or two, let alone have a serious relationship.

These men are dismissed for not being at least six feet tall, earning at least six figures, not having a six-pack (toned abs) and/or not having a penis at least six inches in length. If any one of those criteria isn’t met or surpassed, these men are passed over, no matter how interesting they are, unless the men are wealthy, famous, or powerful.

A woman who wants a man to be her lifelong wallet, bodyguard, sperm supplier, etc. isn’t going to find a man who is “interesting” to be enough; not unless he’s meeting all those other criteria. 

Rather than mock these men and claim I have the answer because I’m interesting, I try to help them with the truth:

1) Odds are, they won’t have a lasting, happy marriage with what they’d consider a great wife. Almost no man will find that these days, but if they are determined to try, they should look for certain criteria, avoid certain things, and they should take certain steps. 

2) Running game works.

For either of those, being “interesting” isn’t sufficient. 

I’m here to help other men, not mock them. I’m not superior to them. I’ve simply observed and processed a wide spectrum of relationship advice and real-life relationships. I know what it’s like to be “traditionally” married, I know what it’s like to be in serious monogamous relationships, I know what “works” as far as running game, because I dated before I knew about it and then I later dated implementing some of it.

She Likely Doesn’t Exist

  

Guys just need to accept that it is EXTREMELY rare to find a woman who:

1. Has a low, especially 0 body count

2. Will be a good, enthusiastic lover

3. Is willing and prepared to be a good wife

4. Will be faithful in every sense of the word, never divorcing

5. Is attractive to him

6. Is attracted to him

It’s better to stay free and date strategically or not at all.

Accept that if you marry, it’ll almost certainly be detrimental to you and you’ll be with a woman who doesn’t actually meet the criteria you are seeking.

The first two criteria will almost never be found together. Sex is a learned skill, and the kind of woman who is enthusiastic is unlikely to hit the age of 18, 22, and especially 25 without having multiple, if not many, lovers. If she’s in her late 20s and hasn’t had lovers, how much can she really want sex?

Each additional criterion further reduces the pool of women to the point that it might be empty. I didn’t even include compatibility, which is an absolute must, or health. 

Most women don’t actually know what they want now, let alone 40 years from now; to be fair your goals can change, too.

You can complain all you want on social media media, in forums, on podcasts, to advice columnists, but just assume you’re not going to find a compatible woman who meets those six criteria.

Once you accept reality, you can plan and live your life accordingly. I recommend being a Free Man.

The Biggest Reason for Men to Remain Child-Free

Yes, children are expensive, tiring, and limiting, but the biggest reason not to have any children is if you believe that they should be raised within a good marriage, and a good marriage is now too rare or too costly. The sad, brutal truth is that you're not likely to be able to provide children with a happy, stable, intact, nurturing, loving, married mother-and-father home in which you are a genuinely happy participant.

We are naturally child-free. We have to do something (and things have to go right) in order for us to have children. The question should not be "Why don't I have children?" but rather "Why should I have children?" You shouldn't, unless you can 1) explain exactly why you want to have children in a logical, coherent, rational, unselfish explanation; and 2) have reasonable certainty you can provide any children you have with a happy, stable, intact, nurturing, loving, married mother-and-father home. Most people can't manage 1. Most people who think they can manage 2 are wrong.

Even if we can be determined to be a good spouse and parent, even if we think we're choosing a spouse wisely and treating that spouse kindly, we can be fooled or fooling ourselves, or our spouse can suffer and illness or trauma that proves fatal to the marriage, or at least the positive environment of the marriage.

The biggest reason for men to remain child-free is to avoid entering into a detrimental partnership with a woman and to avoid being tied to a woman for the rest of his life, regardless of what she does. Stay free.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 3

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Two can live together for less than separately.

What this means is if you're paying $3,000 per month and a woman is paying $2,500 per month, if you marry and move in together, she can stop paying rent or a mortgage and some redundancies will be eliminated, and the overall cost of living for the two of you will be less. Allegedly.

That benefits her. Unless you're already paying her way through life, which you shouldn't, how does that benefit you? IT DOESN'T. Even if she plans to contribute to rent or the mortgage, she will likely push to live in a bigger/more expensive place, there's no guarantee she will even keep working and financially contributing, and you're better of NOT allowing her to develop a claim to a home you owned.

Having her move in to your place puts your place at risk. She can have you kicked out of your own place, compel you to keep paying for her to live there, and claim at least some ownership. Don't allow that! DON'T MARRY! Don't let her move into your place!

Having her move in with you or you moving in with her will also will increase your utility bills and grocery bills, and she will likely insist on removing and replacing many items (especially if she thinks another woman touched them), and that will be costly.

Always keep in mind that divorce is very expensive, and even without divorce, at least half of your earnings are legally shifted to your wife. Wives make 80 percent of the spending decisions.

Stay free and keep control over your own assets and finances. Don't pay a woman's way through life. Respect their independence, their capability, their girl power. Believe women who say women don't need a husband.

Part 4

Don't Be This Guy

If they didn't have kids together, I'd call for someone to liberate this beaten dog of a man.

Emily Lefroy wrote this article that is somehow at nypost.com and not The Onion.

A mom-of-two has revealed how her husband’s addiction to porn almost ruined their marriage and tore their family apart — and is now desperately warning others to be careful of any secrets their partner may be hiding.

"Porn addiction" is a term used by grifters, charlatans, pushers of porn panic, and people whose partners are angry about them viewing porn. It is not a term used by serious mental health professionals.

Jourdan Kehr shared her story in an effort to warn others about the hidden secrets their spouses may be keeping from their wives, calling her own experience “truly unbearable.”

From the looks of it, she shared her story to try to humiliate at least one other person and to get herself attention.

Kehr had had a hunch something was off with her partner, but what she discovered on his phone, an old video of two people having sex open on his screen, she described, was “truly unbearable.”

“I couldn’t stop shaking and I felt like my soul had left my body,” the photographer, from West Virginia, US, told NeedToKnow.co.uk.

“I didn’t know how to go on and I didn’t know how it was possible for any human to survive being in this much pain,” she admitted. “It made me physically ill for months.”

There was a problem alright. She might be mentally ill or have a personality disorder.

She mistreated her husband.

While Kehr, who shared two children, aged five and one, with her husband of nine years, believes it’s normal to find other people attractive, she deems it “unfaithful” to lust and fantasize after them sexually.

Then just about every married person is unfaithful, by that definition. The only way a healthy man doesn't fantasize about other people is if he is actively, constantly trying to avoid it, and never screws up. Dr. Laura and Dennis Prager, both very strong about marriage, fidelity, and "traditional values" would both say this woman's behavior and standards are problematic.

Now, couples can set their own rules. If they mutually agree that using media can be "unfaithful," then that's up to them. Of course, I would tell a man to never ever agree to such relationships. If he does, however, he should specify what she isn't allowed to look at, too.

Five months after Kehr’s devastating discovery, the couple are now in a much better place, crediting copious sessions with therapists, support groups and sexaholics anonymous as helping them get through.

What a farce. That poor man. I hope he does a better job of hiding it until the kids are grown.

“The porn industry is corrupt and I hope that with time, more men will wake up to the very real dangers of porn on their mind, body and relationships,” she said.

Go ahead and name an industry that isn't "corrupt." The garment industry is "corrupt," but I bet she doesn't make all of her clothes from scratch.

“I don’t want to shame men or women for viewing pornography,” she continued.

"It's cheating and it's corrupt, but I don't want to shame people." Get out of here with that crap.

According to a study by The Recovery Village, 10% of U.S. adults admit to having an addiction to internet pornography. 20% of them are men and 17% women.

I couldn't believe that line was still in the article when I retrieved it. The implication is that 63% of porn "addicts" are not men nor women. They are genderless, or something.

It's too bad the article didn't include comments from some good therapists.

Unmarried ladies: If you can't handle the fact that a man is going to notice other women, depictions of other women, and fantasize about other women, don't marry a man.

Wives: If your reaction to normal male sexual nature in your husband who isn't having an affair is anything close to this woman's reaction, you need some serious help.

Men: Don't be this guy. If you haven't married, don't. If you're married with minor kids, and your wife hasn't indicated she'd be rational about this, hide it from her and don't be careless about it, at least until the kids are grown.

Translating Happy Hubby Talk

[Bumped up.] Recently I considered what I'm sure I've realized before... that many men who say how great and wonderful marriage is either had no game as bachelors or felt guilt about fornicating. A lot of them are, and always have been, nerds. They couldn't get laid when they were younger, but once some woman figured that she'd better cash in her aging chips and look for "security" and a "good provider" (someone who'd actually be able to pay her way through life) and that she could settle for a nerd because he would have a dependable high salary and probably wouldn't whore around.

Why Some Men Refuse to Interact With Women in the Workplace

In some places in America, sexual harassment laws and polices have gotten so absurd we may look back someday and laugh at our own stupidity. But it isn't funny for people who have to deal with the problems now. It isn't funny for grade school boys who get labeled harassers for hugging grade school girls. [This was posted here in May 2012. It is even more relevant than ever.]


As with so many other things that involve the government, the cure is worse than the problems.

Imagine three workplaces:

1) A workplace where interaction between coworkers is dull and strained, with little socialization; everyone is fearful of acting naturally.

2) A predominantly male workplace where men talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading lady in the movies and how hot she is, and where women get asked out for dates, and everyone jokes.

3) A predominantly female workplace where women talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading male in the movies, a star male athlete and his physique, PMS, a jerk of an ex, and everyone jokes.

Now, I know those are just three examples and do not exhaust the spectrum, but who really prefers the first option?

Here's where we are in the workplace in some states:

A regular customer comes in, chats with a favorite employee, and hugs that employee before leaving. A different employee, who was on the other side of the room, files a complaint for a "hostile work environment". The customer and the first employee are barred from hugging again.

That is the world that has been created. Normal, harmless (even beneficial) human behavior that has gone on forever in the workplace is now banned. It isn’t by employer choice, really. Since I believe in property rights and freedom of association, I think business owners should generally be able to hire, fire, promote, or demote anyone or any or no reason, and set the tone of the workplace to their liking. Under that policy, if they create a workplace someone finds hostile, that person can take their services or business elsewhere. Guess who loses? The business owner, if that was a good customer or employee. But employers have lost or are losing the freedom to set the terms and conditions and tone in their own workplace, due to laws and court decisions about sexual harassment.

It’s another way trial lawyers and stupid juries are doing some harm. It is another way the Left takes the fun and joy out of life. Yes, this is a Leftist issue. Sexual harassment is something that has been the drumbeat of Leftist feminists. Leftist feminism was, to borrow from El Rushbo, largely about getting less attractive women greater access to the mainstream, and “hostile environment” sexual harassment is their way of punishing men they find unattractive. That is evidenced by the fact that two people can say the exact same thing ("that's a nice blouse") to the same woman in the same tone, and the male who says it is punished while the lesbian who said it isn't. It is also about forcing all workplaces to cater to female sensitivities, even if there are 100 men there and 1 woman. The people who investigate allegations are usually, guess what, women. Leftist women. And men are more prone to violate restrictions because we're visual creatures, we want sex more than women, and we're expected to do the pursuing.

Policy and law about quid quo pro isn't as ridiculous, but even with that, I tend to prefer property rights and freedom of association. If your boss asks for sexual favors, it is time to find a new place to work, if you don’t want to do your boss.

The Left loves to convince people they are victims, and this is just one more way they can be victims.

I know that discrimination and a bad work environment do hurt some people. None of this is to say I think assault, exposure, stalking, or slander/libel should be legal, nor that I think quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment is morally acceptable. I have a mother, a daughter, sisters, and a wife. I don't want them treated crudely and rudely. However, I'd like to think they all know how to hold their own against rude jerks. But I'm also a man and I have a father, a brother, and a son, and I don't want any of them screwed over with ridiculous laws and polices stacked against men.

Creating a workplace in which nobody will ever be offended in regards to their sex, body, love life, sexual orientation, or delusions about "gender identity" is not possible. I can only conclude that stringent laws and standards regarding "hostile work environment" in regards to sexual harassment are those that everyone knows will not be followed or met most of the time, and are meant to give women an edge over men and to punish employers and reward trial lawyers and government bureaucrats. Employers subject employees to laughable prevention training for the sake of liability issues, though sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone's been through training – the employer will still get nailed and have to pay out large sums of money.

Why does sexual harassment get special status? If an employee eats bacon in a lunchroom, is that dietary harassment to someone trying to avoid pork products for weight loss, health, or religions reasons? What about if I eat a big, beefy hamburger in front of a devout Hindu? Or if a vegan tells me how wrong I am for eating meat?

Why has the workplace had to conform to female sensitivities, rather than how things used to be when a woman entered a male-dominated workplace or profession: the thickening of her skin, and often sharp wit on her part that disarmed rude men and charmed others? I've personally known women who broke glass ceilings with no help of quotas or sexual harassment polices – they succeeded because they were outstanding employees who knew how to deal with people as adults.

If I invite someone to my home and I want to be a good host, I’ll strive not to offend them. But since when has there been a right to never be offended anywhere, especially if you are a member of a group favored by the Left? (Nobody cares about offending heterosexual white Christian males.)

Why couldn't I run a workplace the way I’d like? As it happens, I would choose to have a policy against quid pro quo harassment and I would have a fairly high standard for decorum. But that should be my choice, not something determined externally and imposed upon me.

What say you?

*****

UPDATE: Post "#MeToo", some men are refusing to mentor or even hire women, or women who are at all attractive. It's sad, but it is an understandable reaction. Saying "Just don't be a jerk" expresses a nice sentiment, but one that doesn't deal with reality. Men could act within the rules of today, only to find in 10 or 20 years that they're being attacked because their behavior or the words they used have since been deemed problematic.

Why Running Game Works

Running game helps you get what you want for as little cost (money, time, effort, freedom, etc.) as possible. It works.

But why does it work?

Running game works because of how women are.

Boys are often told they need to jump though all sorts of hoops, be successful, hard workers, good earners, romantic, generous, sensitive, sweet, strong, chivalrous... on and on and on... to get a woman. But it's just not true.

How do we know it's not true?

One extreme way of knowing it's not true is that there are women who are sexually attracted to men in prison for being serial killers or for raping children.

A far more common way of knowing it's not true is that we all know young, attractive women who are or were with unreliable jerks and deadbeats; many of them allowed those guys to knock them up. Ever hear women talk about their ex husbands, ex boyfriends, baby daddies, and what terrible guys they are? Those are the guys who turned them on so much, they were willing to have intercourse and do all sorts of other sex acts with them.

The proof is in what women do, not in what they say they want.

There's a very small percentage of men that many women will immediately want to have sex with based solely on his body and face. Many of those men are gay. Other than that, it's about how you carry yourself and what she thinks you can do for her.

Prager U Gets it Right on Some Career Advice

Prager U doesn't always get it right. After all, they've posted multiple videos trying to trick men into thinking what we now call marriage is actually a good thing for them.

But they got this one right.

I have encouraged you to Know Thyself. This, below, is also great advice, especially in conjunction with knowing thyself.. It's "Career Success and the Proximity Principle" featuring author Ken Coleman. The video is below, but I'll include much of the transcript below. And, if for some reason, the YouTube embed isn't working, try this link.

Proof of Evil

 

Be warned: This contains reports indicating extreme and murderous child abuse.

Disclaimer: I’m dealing with a news report. I am not responsible for errors and omissions in that news report. I don’t claim any direct knowledge of the people or events described below. The mother’s last name is spelled two ways in the article.

I frequently post on X (Twitter) links to stories of terrible things happening to parents because they’re parents, and terrible things happening to children, often at the hands of their parents. This story warrants an entire blog post.

This article is from Will Conybeare at KTLA, and given how things have been going there, he might have been let go since he wrote it.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is being sued over the death of a 14-month-old who attorneys say was subjected to prolonged abuse at the hands of two Long Beach residents with past criminal convictions who had the infant placed in their care.

The taxpayers of LA county will be paying any judgement or settlement, along with attorneys fees.

An investigation into the case of the child, identified initially at Tilly S., began on Nov. 7, 2025, when officers with the Long Beach Police Department were dispatched to Miller Children’s Hospital after the toddler was found unresponsive and with signs of trauma. The girl, just over the age of one, was placed on life support but died from her injuries three days later.

On Nov. 25, 2025, two people — Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Anelalani Muñoz — were arrested in connection with the infant’s death after detectives found she had suffered extensive ongoing abuse from them, and that her death was the result of that abuse. The couple was charged on Dec. 2 with one count each of murder, torture and assault on a child causing death.

At least there is a criminal case against the alleged abusers. No lawsuit against them? Well, their pockets probably aren’t that deep, unlike Joe Taxpayer.

Alfredo Muñoz Jr. is Tilly’s biological father, and Kelly Muñoz her stepmother; Tilly’s biological mother, Alexis Servin, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, relinquished custody for personal reasons, her attorney Brian Claypool said.

So Tilly’s mother had “personal reasons” to give up custody. Gee, what do you think those could be? What are the odds she wouldn’t be available because she was going to be working in the International Space Station? In my opinion, if I had to guess, the guess would be she was either too messed up to care for a child or she didn’t want to bother.

However, Alexis’ parents — Tilly’s grandparents — were “ready and willing” to care for the infant.

The people who raised Alexis?

Here come the blood boiling details.

Lawyers say that an autopsy of Tilly, who was “under the care, custody and control of the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) at all relevant times,” revealed she endured prolonged abuse that led to injuries including acute blunt head trauma with skull fractures, multiple hemorrhages, a severe spinal cord injury and multiple skeletal fractures. Skeletal findings included healing fractures of multiple ribs, the femur and the tibia that were sustained weeks prior to Tilly’s death.

“The autopsy report confirms Tilly’s death was the result of the combination, severity, distribution, and differing ages of these injuries indicate repetitive inflicted trauma,” the complaint states, adding that Tilly’s official cause of death was found to be a catastrophic brain injury, cerebral edema, brainstem compression, and hypoxic-ischemic injury.

Is there any sane person who’d say it would be unjust to have a public lynching of the murderers?

Legal representatives for Alexis Severin, in the wake of the 14-month-old’s death — one that was described as “tragic” by L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman — are now pointing the blame at DCFS, alleging the department should have known that Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Muñoz posed “an extreme and foreseeable danger to any child placed in their care.”

That’s a fair accusation, as we’ll see. But unless Alexis is alleging Alfredo forced Tilly’s conception on her, keep in mind that Alexis was in position to know Alfredo wasn’t a good man, yet allowed him to knock her up. And again, why couldn’t she have/keep custody? Doesn’t Alexis have any blame in this?

Both Alfredo Jr., 41, and Kelly, 34, had prior felony convictions for willful cruelty to a child from a 2021 case. The former was described in the complaint as having an “extensive” criminal history dating back decades:

Alexis didn’t know any of that? Really? And it sounds like Alfredo and Kelly were together for years. How did Alexis get into the mix? Did she choose to let an evil, married man stick it in her and knock her up? He was a father already, and according to a letter the article quotes, considered unable to care for the children he already had. What a turn on! What woman can resist that???

• 1999: Muñoz was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, and sentenced in 2000 to five years in the California Youth Authority 
• 2006: Muñoz was convicted of possessing a switchblade knife, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to 30 days in a county jail
• 2009: Muñoz was charged with three misdemeanors (use/being under the influence of a controlled substance, resisting arrest and providing false information to an officer) and two infractions (operating a bicycle in the dark on a highway and not having reflectors on the bicycle pedals) — all were dropped except the resisting arrest charge, for which he was sentenced to a year of summary probation
• 2010: Muñoz was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to three years of formal probation; he violated his parole in 2012 and was sent to a county jail for 16 months
• 2012: Muñoz was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was also required to go to outpatient substance abuse treatment
• April 2016: Muñoz was convicted of carrying a dirk or dagger, a felony, and sentenced to three years of probation. He violated the terms of his probation in 2017, for which he spent two years in state prison
• July 2016: Muñoz had a misdemeanor petty theft dismissed in furtherance of justice
• 2021: Muñoz was charged with two felony counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and felony possession of a firearm by a narcotic addict. He was only convicted of one count of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and sentenced to four years in state prison

Was Alfredo let out early? Or did “time served” get him out in time to knock up Alexis? Or was he allowed conjugal visits? Anything’s possible in California. Notice his light sentence for a serious crime after being a repeat criminal.

Kelly Muñoz has three prior convictions, the complaint states:

• 2012: Muñoz was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia and sentenced to 44 days in jail
• 2013: Muñoz was convicted of methamphetamine possession and sentenced to three years of summary probation, five days of community service and a $150 fine
• 2021: Muñoz was charged on the same day as Alfredo Muñoz Jr. with two counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death; she was convicted on one count and the other count was dismissed. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years of formal probation

Delightful people.

The complaint states that Tilly was placed with the Muñozes not long after Alfredo Jr. had been released from his four-year sentence for willful cruelty to a child.

Again, if that’s true, when and how did he knock up Alexis? Or did he knock her up the moment he got out and nine months later, “not long,” a newborn was given up by her mother? 

“Tilly Servin’s death was caused by the failures of DCFS and the County of Los Angeles,” the complaint adds.

The “dad” and his wife had something to do with it. But again, they don’t have deep pockets.

Were the grandparents seriously shady, or did DCFS simply have such a preference for biological parent bonds that they preferred giving the girl to a convicted child abuser?

Well, there you have it. Hopefully other inmates will do their thing and carry out prison justice.

Maybe someone from DCFS will be fired. They’re probably severely overworked and constrained. But it sure looks like taxpayers are going to be, once again, soaked. I know there are millions of people in that county, but it seems like there’s always a kid being tortured to death and authorities knew about it before they are murdered.

And to bring this back to what I blog about most: How many women have allowed that guy to knock them up? How many women have polished his knob? He’s apparently what turns some women on.

Ponder that.