Home / Monogamy and the Daily Rant

Monogamy and the Daily Rant

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

They say that there are certain species that mate for life and then I read that monogamy is not natural; the whole Myth of Monogamy and other such books in the genre that debunk the concept of one partner for us all and marriage and fidelity, the very underpinnings of our society. I suppose as a researcher who has studied infidelity from both angles, I can see the point, yet I wonder if those same people know of the animals that do mate for life.

I recently saw a post about “How Bald Eagles Mate for Life.” I’ve also seen, of course, on PBS on those lonely rainy days of stadium self-pity, which I allow myself because everyone is allowed one day of self-pity, that there are whole species of Icelandic albatrosses that mate for life. I watched for over an hour and thought of myself and my husband.

The way he works: the male leaves for a full year, or half a year in some cases to find food for his family, a sort of hiatus or sabbatical. Likely foraging for food and sustenance, while the female holds down the fort so to speak. What fascinated me most was that I wondered how, out of a flock of such gulls, how they would recognize each other after this six month or so hiatus when the male is gone.

It works something like this&#8212or like this exactly. The male comes along, approaching the cliff, the white and beautiful face where the mothers lay their eggs and they hatch and do their best of to feed their young. Many will not survive the cold and especially the winds. When the males return, they sort of dance before the cliff and the female, the “right” female who knows her partner well, will fly in perfect synchronicity with the male, mirroring his every move only slightly below him, but in a sort of parallel movement that is exact and precise. This tells the male and the female that they have again found each the other.

I had never seen a mating dance so beautiful, so moving and all the while I wondered if others saw what I saw, if they saw only instinct, in my view a mistake, or some kind of love that is beyond our comprehension. No matter which way you like it, the mating dance as it is called, is the first temptation the apple offered, and the female that can keep up will have and win a place in the male’s heart forever; and when she dies, he does not take another partner.

I also heard that penguins, before mating, stand toe-to-toe staring intently at each other’s eyes for almost a full six months, though what they seek I cannot say, only that it is a profound and deep thing; and if it works out, if the gaze is held for this period of time, then they will be partners for life, recognizing each other even amidst a flock of penguins who, to us anyway, may look the same, but who sound and look notably different to their lover, thus the recognition.

Whooping cranes, ducks, I’ve heard, and of course, the albatross and the bowerbird, one of my favorites because it is he that will build the most beautiful of bowers, often color-schemed to attract the female; look at an image of such birds and their clever bowers, and it is easy to see why a female would find such beauty. Yes, I suppose we humans so the same thing applies to some extent and love can be beautiful, yet the heart remains a fragile and luminous thing, and we quake and we break and go about often breaking hearts because it is not in the natural cards, I am told and I read, to be utterly and willingly monogamous. It is a choice we make every day. Call me a dreamer, but I do not wish to be simply a “choice.” I want to be The One. Not one of many. Not a choice not to inflict myself on anyone who holds my love back, but to be like the dance of the albatross or the jumping dance of the crane who cries and dances high to attract his life-long mate.

Now has here is no truth in this, though documentary tells me otherwise. So who then, I ask, are others, so labeled by many as lesser, so much more advanced in this way? Or is this some accident of Darwinism at its finest? Which of us has the true capacity for true and lasting; love, if indeed it is love, and I do believe it is true love, even now, as I write these words and have, as anyone, had my heart broken into a thousand pieces. Clearly monogamy is not a choice for some species, but is instead hard-wired, that would appear to be hard-wired.

Granted I believe in the world though, and I do trust PBS and the BBC who had the most beautiful footage of an ivory-white swallow and gulls flitting about their nests, and when I watched the utter fidelity my whole life view was changed and I saw things possible I never believe possible.

We learn to settle. We assume that partner will be or has already been attracted to someone of the opposite sex, and when you first find out that you are not The Only. The One sadly a certain innocence is lost and we find ourselves pulling back a bit or perhaps finding an attraction or diversion of our own. Not out of our vengeance necessarily, but out of hurt and though for some this is the case but because we want to check our “currency” and see if we too are attractive and desirable to others. If not good enough for our love, we think, then perhaps… perhaps someone else sees that spark, that atom crochus, and is drawn to us the way our lover is drawn to this other. It is natural to want to feel wanted, and while ultimately it is unhealthy, it is so human.

I am like Jimmy Carter who confessed to the whole world that he had committed lust in his heart and had therefore betrayed his wife. Where is my honest and true man who wants only me and always? Where is my cliff swallow, my beautiful dancing albatross, my hopping whooping crane? He may well be true but he says it is an active choice, which indicates to me anyway that there exist others, waiting in the wings, that he is no doubt aware of and perhaps engages with to some major or even minor extent. Perhaps if I smelled more like said party I would be less hurt, and would find my way through the muddle and maze of human love and to my mind, failure.

For all of the two step cha-chas and dances of lust or love that we play, I am tired, and tired of settling for less than any of us deserve, which is to be that girl, that guy to at least one person in this world. It seems a reasonable thing to ask, to me… I am waiting for my beautiful and decorated blue bower; my whooping crane graceful dance that I will win me over, and I am waiting for the one who will fill me, and to accept and understand these terms (and demand them in return because I can truly offer this) to the bitter-sweet end because love is always bittersweet, or human love.

thanks for listening,
Edited: PC
sadi ranson-polizzotti

Powered by

About Sadi Ranson-Polizzotti

  • Lovely post. In my way of thinking, you are waiting for god. Unfortunately, mere mortals don’t soar that high. We are doomed to fail, so try and forgive your husband, especially if you have kids. Perfection won’t be found on this earth. I feel your pain.

  • dear parker ~ such a lovely response and thank you. you are insightful and i am grateful… thanks…


  • Maynard

    Big difference between the sentience of Humans, and that of the animals you mention. Yes I do thnk they are sentient, just that there is a difference. Had you spoken of whales, dolphins or gorillas, creatures with the same order of magnitude in potential intelligence, I would have been more compelled by the thoughts. But those creatures don’t fit the beutiful imagery you are setting out.

    Other difference, not all people “roam” or experience only a single “love” or even come close to the profile of searching you speak of in the whole “learn to settle” bit.

    How dearth of life could those be that love only one person in their whole existance? Love shared is not love diminished, but rather amplified. Ask any mother of a big family if she loves only one of her children. Or the widow that years later finds another to stir her heart.

    Now, how about the many cultures in the history of the world where polygamy or even serial marriage arraingements are the norm? Might they not love each person involved, and all of them as their own?

    I can appreciate the sheer Romanticism of what you long for, I’m just leery of setting it up as the only way to go, or the implied denigration of those that feel differently.

    All thta being said, damn fine article, and well said.

  • Monogamy is a decision. I am with the spouse because promises were made and morality and obligation compel us to keep them. It bothers Spousal Unit that there were others before him — even though there were others for him before me. Which sounds hypocritical and stupid to these ears. But hey, people are flawed.

    Color me cynical, but I believe this one and only business is a fairy tale, often a cruel one. There once was a love of my life, but circumstance forced the relationship to end. Oh well, the world goes round. Better to have loved and lost, and all that rot.

    That said, your posting was very lovely. I wish you well in your search.

  • jenn

    hi sadi, inspired by your beautiful articles i joined blogcritics. lots of great people around here and great writing.

    this article is so touching on so many levels. i guess it’s true what parker said, we’re mere mortals and doomed to fail. but still, we should be allowed to have our perfect mate and not have to worry about whether or not we’re The Only One.

    “I also heard that penguins, before mating, stand toe-to-toe staring intently at each other’s eyes for almost a full six months”

    interesting..i wonder how much time human couples spend looking each other in the eyes. i have a feeling it’s not very much at all.

    i think we’re all secretly waiting for that blue bower to make an appearance in our lives, though it seems like there are a lot of seagulls hovering about.

    or maybe it’s vultures.

    xox, love

  • i think it is a choice, i do not argue that and one we make every day. Lord knows i could easily make a choice to cheat or be unfaithful ~~~ but i do not.

    The Truth, capital T for me anywway, is that the temptation simply does not exist. i am too focused where i am and maybe that is my mistake but there you have it; yes there are potential other sexual partners for me in this world, no doubt, but unless i am looking, i do not see them.

    as for gorillas apes etc. that is a valid enough point, but i think i was going for the i think equally valid point that i was at least trying to make and felt i did make that monogamy DOES exist when we have been told it does NOT and that it is a myth. That is simply not the case, and i only mentioned a few animals.

    you make a good point however and i will research more human like animals. actually, the most physically like a human animal is a pig, believe it or not, which is why physically, we use pig organs in transplants and valve operations and even as (used to anyway, just ask General Motors) as crash test “dummies” (a fact of which i protested years ago and even appeared on UPI for and yes, i am proud because we have crash test dummies and need not use live animals without need.) To use to save a life, yes., but when there are alternatives? no …but i digress, as always…

    i hope some people got my meaning and i think they did. i’m not FOR or AGAINST monogamy OR being a mistress. Be either one, be a lover or a good fuck or a good wife or fall in love even with someone else and leave your primary mate, and lord knows, i’ve done all of the above, but do it honestly and with some modicum of dignity, which is all i was saying… or trying to say.

    i apologize if it did not come across as clearly as i intended it. my web site that covers infidelity may be perhaps clearer in this regard and if you click on my name at the end of the article, it will take you there and you can read interviews with PIs etc and articles by others etc etc and letters from mistresses asking for advice, that i gladly give (and i’m a wife….)

    i see many sides to this issue: not just one. Please don’t be reductive of me… or perhaps i was reductive of myself; it was four a.m. when i wrote this piece, and perhaps i was not as clear and covered as much ground as i would liked to have, but you ahve to agree, it is a thorny and weighty topic and one that cannot be easily handled.

    i don’t believe in fairytales anymore… i wish i did, but that is just naive. so you are right…. still, what a shame, right? Too bad that we can’t believe in One True Love. Again, not one partner, but one that is just for us and who will love only us…

    that is what i meant; that one person who wants only YOU. Would you demand less of your spouse or mate than that? i wonder… i would not…

    but that’s just me.

    thanks for the very thought provoking comments.

    yours, as ever,


  • Yes, it’s a shame, but if I dwell on that there is no telling how deep my depression will sink me. This much I know: The spouse and I will not cheat on each other. Certainly we are tempted and we suffer greatly because of the choice we made, but we made it, so we live up to it.

  • right Natalie, i would agree… best not to dwell on this too much; it only leads to problems, and i write about it as theory for the most part, though it does come across as emotional to a large extent but that said, it is an important issue and on top of hwich, i just felt like writing about it at 4:30 a.m and couldn’t sleep and thought, ah, why the heck not, it was on my mind and so so be it.

    Jenn: thanks so much for your previous comments… i didn’t realize you had joined blogcritics… what name are you under? i’ll check out your pieces… i didn’t know… that’s cool…. what are you writing about, girl?

    lemme know. email me…xo xo xo

    et grosses bises et baisers.


  • As I said, Ms. Ranson-Polizzotti, it is a lovely piece.

  • KYS

    I’d like to share a story: Years ago I worked for a short time with an animal control company. I was called out to remove a “hurt duck” from somebody’s swimming pool. When I got there she was bobbing in the pool along with a mate, who flew off as I approached and landed in a neighbor’s yard where he made quite a fuss. Her wing was obviously hurt. When I finally caught her I realized that if I brought her back to the office she would be euthanized. So I put her in a carrier, secured her in the back of the truck and drove to a nearby stream , figuring that nature would take its course and she would at least have a chance. I got to the stream and took out the carrier. No sooner did I release her into the water than her mate swooped down and landed next to her. He had followed my truck! They swam off with making little quack-murmers at eachother. That was a great day.
    Great post!!!

  • thanks all:

    THAT is an amazing story; never heard anything like it but it’s just amazing…. thanks for sharing that with all, and thanks again to all for thoughts, advice, thought provoking points etc etc I am grateful truly.

    I am lucky: i do have a good husband who is true: the article for me perhaps was more about past than present and also, i should say, the concept of believing in the fairytale that actually, he and i just discussed after reading alll this and he would agree and would like to believe in it too. So at least we are on the same page and that is really important. We may both be totally delusional, but at least we are two people sharing a delusion, right?

    seriously, truly grateful to all and thanks again. time heals all wounds, or time wounds all heals if you’re nick lowe… something like that.

    or as a friend says

    pray for small mercies
    that they might pray for us.

    i quite agree.

    my best to all and be well… i’m off for most of the night now, so if i don’t respond to comment, not being rude; just not around.

    have a great weekend all… 🙂

    rock on,


  • jenn

    KYS: That is an incredibly wonderful story! Wow, that would make anybody’s day better.

    Sadi: Using the name Jones Violet.. Only got three things up so far, nothing too great. Hoping to get some articles about Henry Miller up, and some music reviews. I just put up a Ramones documentary review (i just showed it to my boyfriend and he basically said i have bad grammar! great! i told him that’s just my style, ha).

    anyway, xoxo have a good weekend.

  • Maynard

    I wasn’t talking about “cheating” at all.

  • No, Mr. Maynard, it appears you are talking about polyamory, which isn’t at all about cheating. but rather is based on different romantic agreements made by consenting, fully-in-the-know adults. Infidelity is a completely different thing.

  • yes, nat, polygamy entirely different thing ~ and yes, Maynard, widows can find true love again, but my point was simply this: even if you find true love again ~ which yes is possible, everyone deserves to be The One in That One relationship if they so desire that…. everyone who wants it deserves true and right monogamy if they so choose. That seems fair; if that is the deal, as it is in most marriages (forsaking all others) then truly forsake them.

    AT the end of the day, that’s really what i am saying, not that there is some Prince or Princess only for one person… though i’d like to believe that there are some or one best suited to us or to me than anyone else (experience tells me this is so) but yes, experience also tells me that i am truly capable of loving others and sleeping wtih them etc etc. Did i or do i love them as much as my husband? No. In a different way – absolutely, but love is so hard to quantify and it is different for everyone.

    How does one measuree true love? You can’t. The queston is, Are you happy? If so, and if the other person helps you thrive, then in my view, you have all that you need and you have succeeded.

    That is my goal | i would never impose it on anyone else. And i wasn’t trying to, in case i offended anyone. i just wanted to point out that monogamy does and can exist in the natural world and even if not in gorillas, though i’m researching that (because i think in one species i read that does… so i’ll pen a piece on that, no doubt…lol)

    but anyway, this is always a lively debate and a good topic and i’m grateful to all who read and read me… and Nat and Violet, All, Maynard ~ everyone, thanks for the words…

  • Nancy

    Sadi, a very nice post. Lyrical. The Canada goose is also a for-lifer.

    However, the hominids (which includes all great apes & humans) are not, & in fact in the case of some hominids (mainly bonobo chimps) sexual promiscuity (word not as a moral judgement but activity description) is quite spectacular, & is used more as a community-bonding & social tool than a partnership bonding tool. Like it or not, humans are hominids, and it would seem from what I read & hear from others that a majority of us identify very strongly with the bonobos. Human monogamy actually is uncommon; the norm in most modern societies is ‘serial monogamy’, not actual monogamy a la the albatrosses & geese. With humans, in most cases it tends to be women who are monogamous, & men who are promiscuous, doubtless because of both cultural taboos & the fact that women are far more likely to be ‘caught’ with pregnancy, while men are not. In cases of serial monogamy, where one of a pair dies, most survivors go on to acquire another partner, unlike the birds, who will remain celibate for the remainders of their lives, which arguably, are considerably shorter than ours (altho not to them, doubtless).

    In current anthropological thinking, monogamy in any form developed mainly from female pressure to have at least one male as a provider at all times for a particular female & young. One would think that the ultimate system would actually be polyandry, however the primate tendency of males to (generally, not invariably) neglect, ignore, maltreat or even kill ‘alien’ offspring not their own, in order to ensure maximum attention & therefore survival devolves on their own genetic offsping, as observed & documented by Diane Fosse, Jane Goodall, & other primate researchers, precludes this form of partnership to the point where polyandry is actually very, very rare in observed human or primate societies.

    All these behaviors point to the seeming fact that we may be several million years down the road from our apely cousins physically, but our hard-wired brains are still back somewhere on the veldt as far as trace behavioral norms go, including marriage & monogamy. Human females may yearn to be albatrosses, but human males tend to be bonobos. It’s in the genes.

  • you make some good points, but they are not entirely new ato me or doubtless, other posters who read the piece and most made comments ~ but still, yes, you’re comments bear noting and are worthwhile reading.

    However you put it, and i am aware of course of serial monogomy as i think most of us are here … i think i must be a total anomaly because despite what society tells me, remain monogomous and have been. And what of my friend M. who has been, truly, “been” in the biblical and literal sense with one woman for over fifty years. As with my grandparents. As with my husbands parents. His grandparents. etc etc etc ~ and i mean, no adultery; or do you question that?

    The point is, it does exist with no befores or afters, no serial monogamy there, just pure and simple monogamy. IN my family, this is an actual and real and tangible fact… so i can only speak from personal experience in thsi regard.

    I think this has been taken to literally; i was not comparing humans to geese ~ yes, we are hominids. We all had that class and remember it, no doubt… and it sounds like you probalby do this for a living, but i think we know more than you are giving us credit for… That isn’t to say what you say isn’t valuable, only that i think most of us know it already.

    The article was more of an upset over why we couldn’t be more like certain other species, not that we are but to me, more of a gosh what a shame…, though doubtless, to some others, it is gee, ain’t life grand we get variety and i mean that respectfully.

    Everyone is different. You can speak in general terms and you do… and htat’s fine, but i suppose you can’t include me or most members of my family in that group (with some very notable exceptions), for the most part, we have been a truly monogamous lot with only one partner = not serial monogamy. I admit, i had (and i’m an old lady), a number of lovers i could count on a few fingers and still pick up an object. That does make me a serial monogamist i suppose, but what if i choose monogamy now? Am i destined to then give it up because i am a hominid?

    I’m not sure. I pray not. But then… who knows. There are compelling reasons to leave a relationship: abuse, adultery, verbal abuse, incompatibility, etc etc ~~ in which cas,e yes, i would gladly give up my monogamy. But otherwise, i remain, yours

    an anomaly.

    thanks as ever ~ your comments were thoughtful and interesting. I hope you read through all of my response and take no offense. none is intended in that way. just a debate/answer.


  • KYS

    Interesting reading: Driven- How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices. Lawrence and Nohria. (Particularly the chapter “Drive to Bond.”

  • Khys ~ sounds good, i’ll check it out… surely available on Amazon. Will see if i can get…

    Nancy ~ thanks for the information on the Canadian Geese: recently a guy here stomped a whole family of them to death with his bare feet. It was an unbelievably horrible assault on any life and any sentient being… define how you like but just sadistic and cruel. He paid a small fine, and still has his job even though he did this at a work office park. Thought you’d like to hear that (well, not like, but be interested because you seem to care and know your stuff…)

    Thanks again for your words:” they are truly interesting and helpful




  • Nancy

    I know there’s quite a few exceptions, which is why I deliberately used words like “generally”, “mainly”, “majority”; there is no such terms as “always” when referring to behavior. No, I don’t think anyone here is ignorant; but not everyone is aware of all the aspects of the Current Thinking, either, and in fact, even among professionals it changes just about every time they have a convention or someone publishes another paper; put two anthropologists in a room & they’ll produce 75 hypotheses, etc. lol. Very contentious & free-thinking bunch of … uh … mental process bonobos, I guess you could call it.

    This guy did this w/his BARE feet? Why bare feet – not that he should have done it at all, obviously, but geese aren’t exactly easy to stomp, I should guess, judging from the size of the ones I see regularly up close & personal around here on lawns. They’re also not exactly passive; was he on PCP or something? I ask because I would myself as soon take on a smallish unfriendly dog as one of these geese. What the hell is wrong w/the judge to let him off like that, why does he still have his job (i.e. what’s wrong w/his employer – is he a moral skank, too?), & why hasn’t the public raised hell about having this guy at large? It’s a pity the federal government doesn’t step in and issue some sort of law forbidding animal cruelty; far too many of the states are totally blase about it.

  • yeah this guy was one sicko ~ and you’re right too about anthropologists. i’m reading a lot right now for a book i’m writing and all the neurologist and anthropoligists keep disagreeing. it’s rather amusing in some ways…

    so this guy, back to him: it is truly disgusting. i can find out his name. maybe there is something to be written here to raise a real stink about it because truly, it’s vile and yes, what the f. is wrong with the judge.

    sorry, the guy did have on shoes, but so what, ya know… i mean still… yes, geese can be agressive but really only if you go after their young or get near. i worked near many many geese at one point and never had a problem ~ a few yapped and yelled at me, but so what… no biggie. i didn’t feel the need to stomp them to death; this guy was not on drugs; some clean cut looking yuppie type who probably has been given everything his whole life and feels entitled and tht there are no consequences. SAdly, he is right. There were no conseqences of any significance for him and he roams free .

    I guess it’s okay to kill geese because they are “a pest” as far as the judge was concerned. Too bad, eh? If all the animals in the world are a pest, why don’t we just kill them all ~~ oh, wait… we’ve already started doing that !!!! i forgot!!!!

    let’s f..k with the eco-balance and then wonder why things are as they are… nuts. Funny how one topic leads to another, lol lol.. now we’re into environmental politics and anthropology; i find that really interstring how the mind works and sparks and connects. truly fascinating stuff.

    thanks 🙂


  • Nancy

    I figured he had to be on PCP since those on it seem to be totally w/out inhibitions or fear. I got bitten by a ‘wild’ goose once, & still have the scar to prove it – & I wasn’t even trying to stomp it, just trying to cut thru a corner of the path ringing the pond it had staked out. Like I said, I’d rather face a raging Jack Russell than a grown goose. Pity you can’t get a few good strong people w/jackboots together & perform a little vigilante justice on this guy, & give him a taste of his own medicine, or at least vandalize his car w/signs indicating his criminal nature.

    BTW, kind of obscure, but one of the biggest, longest-running anth. jokes I know in Human Evolution is that of knuckle-walkers vs. brachiators. The highpoint(?) of that argument was a photo of the premiere brachiating advocate in the field, squatting down & pointing to a fossil w/a big grin … while leaning on his knuckles. Not hilarious to anyone but another anth.

  • Nancy ~ i love that joke; it reminds me of “in” epileptic jokes that i cannot repeat here, but that are quite funny but like things about one’s mother, can only be said to another epileptic or neurologist. you get the idea ~ but yours was funny. I love this one, which is totally stupid, but nothing to do with anthro:

    “What do you use to kill a wabbit when you fowget yaw wifle” says Bugs Bunny

    pondering pondering pondering

    “why… a wock!”

    okay: totally stupid, but i’v ealways found that hilarious for some (albeit juvenile surely and stupid lowbrow reason, but hey).

    Yes. they should form a vigilante gang to give that X*$@@% a taste of his own twat-head medicine. i’d be thrilled. yes, the geese can get snipey and sorrry to hear of your incident. sounds painful, but you didn’t stomp them and their chicks to death.

    the thing is, i don’t doubt the mother goose went for him, but that’s her instinct. all he had to do was walk away…. but to go for her, break her wings with his hands and literally stomp all eight or more of her chicks is truly a violent, vile and most disturbing act.

    I cannot imagine how he is
    a. still employed.
    b. a free man
    c. gets dates or stays married or whatever.
    d. has friends (or are they like him?)

    etc etc. I will find his name. it’s been made public and i will post a story and a link. thta way, it will bring it to the fore again, as it merits. let me just finish this piece on Veronica Guerin and we’ll be ready.

    you’ve been and remain a pleasure to talk to 😉

    cheers to you ~~


  • Nick Jones

    Where can a man go to be free of these romantic hallucinations?

  • Nancy

    Nick – possibly a raceway rally?

    Oh, getting bit didn’t bother me except it hurt, but hey – geese are territorial, & you’d have to be a halfwit not to expect such. I just didn’t expect it to be such an agressive or STRONG goose! Which is why I’m surprised he actually gave battle, & even more surprised he managed to hurt the goose instead of it biting & beating the crap out of him. Kind of like in general an angry 10-lb kittycat is more than a match for me, who is exponentially larger, but far less agile or worked up, I guess.

    I have to wonder about his employer. This guy worked for me, he wouldn’t be any more. Maybe they don’t know.

    Also, it’s now recognized that anyone who would visit violence or abuse on an animal is dangerous to humans as well. Which is why I’m even more suprised at the judge letting him off like that. This judge is either abysmally stupid, incredibly ignorant, or unforgivably indifferent to suffering & violence. Not that ‘danger to humans’ constitutes a superior claim over the right of any critter not to be assaulted or abused, in my mind. Maybe this guy had a really slick lawyer. I don’t know. I know a lot of people have the attitude that abuse of animals is akin to and on a level with cutting down weeds, which is an outrage in itself. It’s up to the rest of us who have normal, sane attitudes to bring these jerks to a screeching halt & re-educate them, forcibly if necessary, if nothing else will stop them.

  • yo Nick (is that macho enough?) ~ perhaps a monster truck rally would be more your speed?

    More, hate to break it to ya kid, but women are just as capable if not more of deceit and playin’ as are men. This article wasn’t about “feminine or romantic notions” as you snappily say…or frustratedly or whatever… but then, nobody forced you to read.. or did they? and if they did, why are you even responding to this? why bother?

    you hit that monster truck rally. quelle fun…