Feminists Not All That Happy With the World They Created

I came across something that caught my eye.

Radio For Men With a Daddy Complex
Published by Auguste February 14th, 2007

I’m always surprised when I find out that my feminist friends haven’t heard of Tom Leykis. He’s a syndicated talk radio host whose show puts the “lowest common denominator” into “men’s rights activism.”

She says this like that is a bad thing. Oops. Wait a minute. This person is allegedly a guy. Wow.

His show, The Tom Leykis Show, is probably best captured by the description on his web site about a segment called “Leykis 101″:

An unapologetic primer to help men get laid with minimum effort, its “rules” - a retort to the women’s self-help guide - include Never spend a lot of money impressing her on the first date, Stop seeing her if you don’t get laid by the third date, and Never date single mothers…

[SNIP]

On paper, Leykis’ schtick is bad enough - if you look up “patriarchal sense of entitlement” and “othering of women” in the dictionary, you might find the above paragraph.

I don’t think a sense of entitlement has anything to do with it, and certainly not patriarchy, since Leykis is not a father and has made it clear he doesn’t want to be. The truth is, there are women who are willing to have sex with men without any sort of commitment. It is not entitlement - it is what is available, and Leykis is advising men how to find and interact with such women. If you’re not one of those women, then you have nothing to worry about.

As for “othering” - anyone who is not me is someone other than me. Also, men and women are different. Leykis wants something from women he can’t get from himself or other men. They are “other”. He advises men about how not to get used by women who "other" men and want to use them for their money. Again, if you aren't such a woman, you have nothing to worry about.

Now here’s where I’m going to get into difficult-to-prove territory: Leykis doesn’t believe what he says.

It’s an interesting accusation, but it doesn’t address the truth or falsity of what he says. This is an appeal to sincerity, another example of how what matters to Leftists is intention and sympathy, not facts or results.

As time went on, though, he began to develop some of his more patriarchal impulses into bigger segments of the show until it pretty much became four hours of misogyny daily.

He developed a money-making program. As he freely admits, he’s there to make money. What kind of ratings do the Leftist political radio programs get? Very low ratings. Leykis is going for ratings, which are converted into dollars.

And here the Leykis devotees are going to start getting really annoyed with me. “Misogyny?” they’ll be saying. “It’s not misogyny, it’s just telling it like it is. It’s just standing up for men, who are getting the shaft, and all because of feminists!”

No, there are a lot of men who contributed to this situation, too. Men let this happen to them.

All straight out of the MRA handbook, and all essentially quoted from Leykis.

I’m not sure what that MRA is. I’ve tried to find out. Perhaps a reference to the Australian organization? Men’s Rights Activism? If that is the case, why shouldn’t men be able to protect their rights? Has this guy ever peed standing up? If you define “misogyny” as “hatred of women”, one need not hate women to agree with Leykis, if you’re using a secular standard of hate. If you define it as “distrust of women”, well, I get the impression Leykis doesn’t trust anybody, and Leykis is advising men who are having casual sexual encounters not to trust their sex partners - and why should they trust them? The women shouldn’t trust the men, either. This is what happens when people fornicate so casually.

I don’t have much evidence for that other than the way the program metamorphosed as segments became more popular with his listeners, and events like the time a woman called into the show complaining that her boyfriend was becoming more and more violent; Leykis convinced her to leave immediately, essentially speaking the truth about how abusers never stop and only escalate. His siding with men only goes so far.

I’ve never heard him advocate violence. He tells woman AND men not to tolerate abuse. This is not inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy.

The same, however, is generally untrue for his listeners.

Oh come now. You’ve surveyed enough of his millions of listeners?

They do idolize Leykis - they even call him “Dad” - but they wouldn’t need him to be angry at women.

So then you are not placing the blame on him?

At a Portland live broadcast - I wasn’t there, but I tuned in for the local interest and to “watch” the trainwreck - a woman called in with the message that men should start taking responsibility for birth control, that if they don’t want to be “saddled” with kids they should wear a condom - some guy in the crowd could clearly be heard yelling, “Well try keeping your legs closed, then!” (That he wasn’t immediately torn apart by the crowd like hyenas on a gazelle is just another sign that MRA-types aren’t really interested in consensual sex, or they’d spend a lot less time trying to browbeat women into being ashamed of having it.)

Um, first of all, Leykis advocates that men always wear condoms when they fornicate. Secondly, these men do want consensual sex because it is the path of least resistance and the fewest negative consequences. Maybe your experience has been different - and that wouldn't surprise me, but there are some very easy women out there. Finally, they maintain that since it is women who get pregnant and condoms are only so effective, women should use one of the many forms of effective birth control if they are having sex with a man who does not want kids - or they should abstain/move on to another man.

He’s creating an army. Like the right-wing noise machine, he’s presenting easy talking points for the MRAs to utilize when, say, trolling a feminist web site - or elsewhere: There’s a promo running on our local Leykis affiliate which quotes Leykis saying something like “If it was a Men’s Night, with half-priced drinks for men, Gloria Allred would go ballistic.” Sound familiar?

I’m trying hard to find what’s “wrong” about this. Freedom of speech. right? Shouldn’t men avoid getting into relationships they don’t really want to be in? Shouldn’t men stick up for their rights? Shouldn’t men make wise use of their time and money? Shouldn’t men avoid getting women they aren’t married to pregnant? Shouldn’t men fight double standards that hurt them?

Here’s the bottom line.

Tom Leykis is the result you get with the following factors (facts, convictions, and personal preferences):

There is no G-d.

Hedonism - men should do what they want to do (have sex).
-They should not do what they don't want to do.
-Either way, they should use as little of their resources (time, energy, money) as possible to get what they want..
-There is no need for a man to bond with women, and attempting to do so in the workplace can lead to charges of sexual harassment.
-Sexual pleasure is worth the remaining risk of STDs and pregnancy that exists with condom use.
-People should comply with the law - that is almost the extent of morality. This includes abortion being okay because it is legal.
-Leykis 101 is an efficient way for men to get sex without commitment using as few resources as possible.

Men and women are different.
-A woman decides if she's going to have sex with you before money is spent.
-A woman who keeps seeing a man who is a jerk to her has low self-esteem and is therefore likely to have sex with him without commitment. Some women will have readily have sex with jerks but will pretend to be more chaste with a “nice guy” in the hopes that he will commit to her, because he can be better provider than an unreliable jerk.
-Women are more likely to have sex if they have been drinking.

Marriage Offers No Benefit to a Man While Subjecting and Exposing Him to Negatives
-Having a Wife (for girlfriend, or children) places certain demands and restrictions on a man's autonomy, lifestyle, and resources.
-Laws/court rulings, and social customs (women marrying up, not working, high divorce rate) make marriage a contract in which a man agrees to pay a woman if she leaves him, and to pay child support to her children, even if they are not biologically his.
-Men can get the benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, home cooking, a kept home, even children) for “free” or by paying less to a professional without being married.
-Men are attracted to physical beauty, which almost always diminishes with time. Women are attracted to money, power, and fame (which translates to security and confidence), which almost always increases for a man over time.
-Even if true, marriage giving a man longer life and more income isn't worth the other negatives, risks, and loss of personal autonomy.
-Husbands are expected to go without sex whenever their wife is not agreeable to it, while an unmarried man will find it easier and more socially acceptable to seek sex elsewhere.
-Men are almost always the ones arrested in a domestic dispute, and women have attacked and killed men and children and successfully used hormonal defenses in court.

Tom Leykis Doesn't Want Kids

Men should live within their means, including saving for the future. This includes not spending more money than necessary on a date/woman.

Given the needs of children, a woman should not give birth to a child unless she is in a stable marriage to the child's biological father, they both want and have agreed to raise children at that time, they are both suitable parents, and they can afford to raise children and give them the attention they need.

Which one of those do you disagree with? If you want kids, that's fine - does everyone else have to want kids, too? Does everyone else have to want to get married?

If you don't like what Leykis is promoting...
You can listen to something else or nothing at all.
You can (tell women you love to) avoid men like this. Simply “hold out” more than three dates. That should be enough to avoid avid students of Leykis.
You can encourage women to “reward” nice guys and stop rewarding jerks.
You can change the core beliefs of men, such as encouraging a belief in G-d that supersedes their libidos.
There are a lot of things you can do, but whining about Leykis is silly. He is logically consistent given the "facts" I cite above. If you agree with all of those facts, then you can hardly fault Leykis.

Here’s where/why I disagree with Leykis:
I’m convinced there is a G-d.
I want kids, and I want my kids and all kids raised in the best possible environment (marriage).
I believe marriage was created by G-d.
I believe marriage can be good for a man.
I believe fornication is an affront to the holiness of G-d and is damaging to the soul and spirit of man.
I’m convinced that it is wrong to kill human beings even if they haven’t been born yet.

But just because other men disagree with me and will not lead the same lifestyle I think is best doesn’t mean I think they should be getting into relationships they don’t want or for which they aren’t prepared, should be doing things they don’t want to do, should be spending their time and money on high-maintenance women when all the guys really want is sex, or should be conceiving children they don’t want.

Either a woman should be put on a pedestal or she shouldn’t. Women demanding postfeminist rights, freedoms, entitlements, protections, privileges, independence, and lack of traditional obligations and moral restrictions for themselves while demanding financial support, chivalrous manners, and fidelity from men is what has prompted the rise of people like Leykis.

Traditional women can still find a traditional man who will treat them "right", no matter how popular Leykis gets.

Christian Research Institute - My Response to Their Latest Fundraising Letter

Let me preface my comments by saying that the Christian Research Institute - in the past - helped educate me, helped me to clear a lot of bad thinking from my head, and helped me to avoid some serious pitfalls. I was introduced to some great authors and ministries through CRI.

It has been a while now since I have let my monthly support for CRI’s “The Bible Answer Man” radio program lapse, as my credit card expired and I didn’t give CRI the information for the new one. However, I still get mailers from the Christian Research Institute. These kinds of mailers are standard for charitable, religious, and political organizations... you send them money once and they will spend more than your donation sending you pleas for more money for years to come.

This mailing contains a basic survey, probably to gage what topics are important to the people who will donate the most money – if the surveys will be examined at all.

I’m guessing I will be more likely to get my opinion to someone in a prominent place in the organization if I write it here than if I send back the mailer - at least that has been my experience with other organizations. That’s why I’m writing this.

Now, you can’t be an organization like CRI, or have a program like “The Bible Answer Man”, or a host like CRI President Hank Hanegraaff without all kinds of controversy. First of all, they ask for donations, and there are always people who are leery of that and people who hate anything Christian. Hanegraaff was also accused of misleading donors about a postal mix-up in order to get them to donate more. And then there are people who identify as Christian who condemn anyone who doesn’t adhere to their exact form of Christianity in every minute detail and likewise condemn anyone who doesn’t, and thus they hate CRI. There are the cults, organizations, and personalities that CRI exposes as teaching things counter to the essentials of the Christian faith, or having harmful practices - you can be certain they yell about CRI. There are Roman Catholics who think the Protestant ministry is too anti-Catholic, and Protestants who think that it isn’t anti-Catholic enough. There are people who disagree with how CRI is run, or the tactics and practices of Hanegraaff.

Organizations that are built from the ground-up around a dynamic founder, especially innovative ones, always are the subject of controversy once that founder is gone. It never fails, whether they are churches, businesses, nonprofits… whatever. Someone will always say they are drifting from their original mission, values, and methods, and others will always point out that change must come with changing times and needs, and there are a whole bunch of people somewhere in the middle of it all. CRI was founded by Walter Martin, who certainly was a dynamic personality, and has been headed by Hanegraaff since Martin’s death. Walter Martin’s familial heirs have since expressed their concerns about Hanegraaff, but other than influencing supporter opinion, they don’t have the ability to remove Hanegraaff.

I’ve read criticisms of “The Bible Answer Man” radio program that have focused on what the show isn’t. Those critics want the show to be a more detailed, extensive Bible study. That’s like criticizing paramedics because they don’t treat cancer. There is a place for programs that give some basic answers to questions people have about the Bible, and what the Bible does and does not teach.

For the most part, I’m not writing this to focus on those controversies and criticisms (despite all of the space I have used up writing about them). For most of them, I have no way of even knowing if they are true. Rather, I want to let CRI know what would motivate me to start supporting them again.

I first caught on to “The Bible Answer Man” (and thus, CRI) in 1990 or 1991 when I caught the show on KKLA, running in the 3 p.m. hour. (I had found KKLA through the late Wally George, of all people, who once had a political talk show on the station.) Friday shows were tapes of the late Walter Martin, who had passed away in 1989, lecturing on topics like The Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Mormonism, Christian Scientists, the New Age movement, the Occult, Atheism, Mary, and more. I had never heard anything like it. Here was this guy exposing the methods and mistakes of the leaders of pseudo-Christian cults, contrasting false teachings with what the Bible actually teaches, and defining and defending the essential doctrines of the Christian faith in a logical, linear, researched way.

The shows Monday through Thursday consisted mainly of people like Ron Rhodes, Paul Carden, Ken Samples, and Elliot Miller taking calls. I liked the explanations regarding Christian doctrine and practice and what was orthodox and what wasn’t, and the exposing of heresy and fluff masquerading as Christianity on too many TV shows and in too many books. I liked the warnings about cults and the tips for witnessing to people in cults – they were helpful. I liked the defense of the Bible from attacks by atheists and the like.

It was still good when Hanegraaff took over hosting duties most of the time, especially when he’d play audio clips of these bizarre-but-popular televangelists making their outrageous statements, as it was good to hear with my own ears where these people were making serious errors. Christianity in Crisis, Counterfeit Revival, and the countering of “millennial madness” and the Jesus Seminar were all very helpful for me.

Now, I don’t listen much. Why? Los Angeles radio, on the stations that are still broadcasting in English, has a lot competing for my attention at 3 p.m., and if I can listen to the radio, I prefer to listen to something that is teaching me something and keeping me informed. Over the last few years, it seems like whenever I check in on “The Bible Answer Man”, it is Hanegraaff talking with someone selling a book, DVD, album, or software in what amounts to an infomercial without much useful, practical information other than “buy this resource.” If it is a program where Hank is taking calls, there seems to be little practical information given out – usually it is “I wrote a book that addresses this – I’ll send it to you.” Everyone else can call the toll-free number or go on to the website to order it.

To be sure- the last time I checked out their magazine – the Christian Research Journal - it was chock full of great information and in-depth analysis. But I can listen to the radio at times I can’t read… like, oh, when I’m driving, and I stopped getting the Journal when I let my monthly payments to CRI lapse. I wasn’t motivated to go resubscribe to the Journal because I wasn’t lacking in reading material or mail to go through.

Also, I’m not criticizing Hanegraaff for putting out books where he sees a need. For example, even though there seemed like an endless number of other books exposing the “factual” elements of The Da Vinci Code as fictional or erroneous; it was good for Hanegraaff to offer another because he does have a way of making things clear and memorable for the average person. In fact, he was accused of wrongly using CRI resources to promote his memory-building business and himself - he is good enough at making things memorable to have had a business around it. While I do not know if such accusations were true, I do know my own perceptions. Over the years, many of the prominent authors and experts that used to be on staff at CRI either left or were pushed out. Does CRI even distribute any books written by staffers other than Hanegraaff anymore? Ron Rhodes, for example, has authored many great books over the years, but he’s long been gone from CRI. My perception is that CRI has become mainly a bookstore that also publishes a great magazine, and a radio infomercial for promoting the books that bookstore sells, especially the books of Hank Hanegraaff. Again, I have bought many of Hanegraaff’s books, and I have found them extremely helpful, but where are the days of having the kind of people on staff who could also write books?

CRI’s store used to be one of the only places I could find a good collection of books that weren’t sandwiched between nonsense from Benny Hinn and Bob Larson, but since then, online book buying has brought an unlimited selection to my fingertips at low prices, and since CRI moved across the country, I can’t physically go to their store anyway. If I'm going to order a book online, I might as well do it elsewhere, unless CRI has a special deal.

Maybe the lack of authors on staff and a (perceived) diminishing of primary research is the inevitable result of an innovative organization “growing up.” When CRI first took off, there was nothing else like it out there. However, as people leave the organization to start their own and as others are inspired to form similar ministries, it became inefficient for CRI to keep that in-house. Perhaps CRI is more efficient as a conduit for the movement it spawned? Still, I’d think there would be something to be said for having a large, integrated organization doing primary research with various specialists on staff, instead of only having a loosely-connected group of smaller ministries contributing material. The website has some good information (especially the articles from the Journal), but there are many websites out there I find more helpful and timely when I’m looking for answers and research.

I’m an outsider – so maybe I just don’t have a clue.

But I was a donor, and I’m willing to be one again if I like what I see – which gets me back to the reason I’m writing this in the first place. There are probably other people like me, too.

The mailer CRI sent said “Please indicate how interested you are in learning more about each of the following topics.” So, here goes…

The creation/evolution debate
I’m extremely interested. However, other organizations specialize in this, so CRI’s role should be examining/explaining the work of those different organizations, such as the Discovery Institute, Reasons to Believe, and the “young earth” folks like Answers in Genesis.

The Intelligent Design movement
See above.

Mormonism
I’m extremely interested. With a major Presidential candidate being a Mormon, this is very timely.

Jehovah’s Witnesses
Extremely interested.

Scientology
Quite interested, due to the front groups and celebrities it uses.

The cults in general
Quite interested. I don’t have the impression that they are as big of a problem as they used to be – maybe because I’m not being informed.

Islam
Extremely interested. What is more relevant right now?

The Prosperity Gospel and other false Christian teachings
Quite interested. These people make Christians look bad and draw many astray.

Spiritual warfare against satanic/demonic forces at work in this world
Mildly interested. Let’s face it – if we focus on Him, we need not focus on the enemy.

“Scholarly” attacks on the Bible or Jesus by secular “experts,” such as The Gospel of Judas
Quite interested. We need to continue to show that Christianity embraces good scholarship and can be defended from such attacks.

Popular attacks on our faith in books and movies, such as The Da Vinci Code
Extremely interested. Our society is obsessed with pop culture.

Attacks on biblical Christianity in the mainstream media
Extremely interested. See above.

Human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.

Abortion
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.

Homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.

How to raise children who will stand firm in their faith
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.

How to read the Bible for all it’s worth
Not interested, if it means more infomercials.

End times biblical prophecy
Mildly interested. Explain the difference between the various constructs while keeping alarmists and newspaper prophets in check. Do not focus on only Hank's conclusions on the matter, though they are good to hear.

How to share your faith
Quite interested, but you can cover this by having Greg Koukl on the program frequently.

Personal spiritual growth
Mildly interested. Other organizations are doing a great job on this one.

Other
Mildly interested in discussion about “paranormal” and occult topics that are so popular today – expose the bogus and potentially demonic.

Quite interested in countering “liberal” church stances (universalism, extreme pacifism, acceptance of fornication) that go against clear Biblical teaching.


What I’d really like to see is CRI get back to extensively researching churches, cults, and religious movements; helping callers and thus listeners by explaining the very real differences between other belief systems and Christianity, and defending the Bible, debunking false teachings and perceptions, and investigating claimed phenomenon.

Maybe Hank will get bored talking in depth about the same topics over and over, but there are new listeners all of the time who need this kind of help, and Hank can avoid boredom by having other authors on-staff who can host the program.

Get a blog going on your website that covers the topics raised in the radio program, and news of what is going on in media, churches, religious movements, and cults. Bring on an established blogger if need be.

End the desperate pleas for money. Really. Fundraising is needed, of course, but there is a tone to take here. I had a pastor who mocked appeals that hinted a ministry was on the brink of shutting down with “Good – maybe it’s not serving a purpose anymore.” CRI isn’t nearly that bad in their appeals, but they do tend to make it look like getting money in by June 30 and December 31 each and every year is going to save the ministry from drastic cutbacks. You know, if I don’t eat, I’ll starve! Technically, it is true. But guess what? It’s going to take a long time of not eating for me to starve to death. I could stand to skip a few meals.

I’ll be more likely to resume supporting CRI if I see it being more than a bookstore with its own magazine. As I wrote at the start of this post - CRI has helped me a lot over the years. Hank has done some great work. People who expect Hank to be perfect are asking too much. They have a great magazine. I want to support CRI. Please restore my motivation.

PLEASE SEE MY UPDATE POSTED ON 12/29/2011

Let's Just Be Friends

This is one of those things that gets sent around in e-mail and on MySpace. It’s bad enough when schoolgirls do it, but for grown women to send it around is ridiculous.
====================================
Am I pretty enough now? sad but true

Girl:I have to tell you something.

Boy: What?

Girl: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.

Boy: Ok...

Girl: What do you mean "ok"?

Boy: I don't like you like that...

Girl: Why not?

Boy: I can't tell you... maybe another time...

From then on, the girl kept asking the boy "Why not?" whenever she saw him, and he kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Finally the girl got fed up.

Girl: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!

Boy: Do you really wanna know why?

Girl: Yes!

Boy: It's because you're uglier than ANYTHING! What's the point of going out with someone when they're not pretty?!

Girl: But... I...

Boy: Just shut up and leave me alone!

The boy leaves and the girl is sitting there alone, crying her heart out. Then her cell phone rings.

Girl: Hello?

Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.

Girl: Alright Mom.

Mom: I love you.

Girl: I love you too, Mom.

Mom: Bye Bye.

Girl: Bye

The girl heads home and once she got there, she went in the bathroom and looked at herself in the mirror.

Girl: I'm not pretty enough...

She set to work, knowing fully well what she was going to do. 2 hours later, her Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.

Mom: Honey? Are you alright?

She opened the door and was shocked at the site. The bath was overflowing onto the floor, and the water was tinted red. She walked over to see what was inside and screamed. There, her little girl was lying with cuts all over her face and wrists. Her Mom backed away and was going to run to call the police when something caught her eye. On the mirror, am I pretty enough now?

No one deserves to be told that by someone they love. If you find it messed up then forward this to everyone you know.

A person's appearance doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...

Repost this in 5 Min or something bad will happen 2 U tomorrow

=================================

Yes, it was finished off with the always-lame threat that you’d better forward it our something bad would happen.

Any girl who’d kill herself over this already had problems, and it isn’t the responsibility of every boy in the world to lie to her and tell her he’s attracted to her when he’s not.

Well, I think it is time to offer a similar story from a male perspective. I don’t hate women, I don’t hate girls. I’m just a man who needs to vent and needs to mock such tripe, and I do disdain women who shun traditional roles, use and manipulate men, date and marry jerks, and then have the audacity to expect men to still live by old rules and to treat them like ladies. Here goes


Am I rich enough now? sad but true

Boy: I have to tell you something.

Girl: What?

Boy: I really like you. And I... I think I'm falling in love with you.

Girl: Ok...

Boy: What do you mean "ok"?

Girl: I don't like you like that...

Boy: Why not?

Girl: I can't tell you... maybe another time...

From then on, the boy kept asking the girl "Why not?" whenever he saw her, and she kept answering the same answer of "I'll tell you later." Meanwhile, she ran to the school administration and filed a sexual harassment complaint, and the boy got kicked out of school. Finally the boy got fed up.

Boy: I'm tired of this! Tell me why you don't like me!

Girl: Do you really wanna know why?

Boy: Yes!

Girl: It’s because you don’t have any money. Look at your CAR! What's the point of going out with someone when they can’t buy me an expensive dinner?!?

Boy: But... I...

Girl: Just shut up and leave me alone! I have a restraining order!

The girl leaves and the biy is sitting there alone, crying his heart out. Then his cell phone rings.

Boy: Hello?

Mom: Sweetheart? I want you to go home, ok? I'lI be home from work in a few hours.

Boy: Alright Mom.

Mom: I love you.

Boy: I love you too, Mom.

Mom: Bye Bye.

Boy: Bye

The boy heads home and once he got there, he went in the bathroom and looked at himself in the mirror.

Boy: I'm not rich enough… time to get over that chick.

He set to work, knowing fully well what se was going to do. 2 hours later, his Mom came home and heard the bath water running. She went upstairs to find the hallway flooded so she knocked on the door.

Mom: Honey? Are you alright?

She opened the door and was shocked at the site. Her teenage boy was in the shower with the neighborhood tramp, too involved in his sin to notice that they were no longer alone. And now he has the clap.

A person's bank account doesn't count. What counts is their heart inside of them and their personality. No one wants to be told they're not good enough...