I played Special Olympics Basketball this year. The team I played on got to play in the state tournament. Because you have to win a sectional tournament to qualify for the state tournament, I knew the teams we would play in the state tournament would be tough and they were.

The thing about any sporting competition is that because it is competitive, there are going to be differences of opinion about what should and should not be called as a foul. As an athlete, you just have to live with the calls and keep your head in the game.

Special Olympics takes three or four teams and puts them in a bracket based on skill. At least it is supposed to be based on skill, it's not an exact science. There is always a chance you will end up having to play a team that is a lot better than you are and you pretty much have zero chance of winning. I am happy to say that didn't happen to us.

We won our first game without much trouble and that sent us to the Gold Medal game. I knew the team in the Gold Medal game would be really tough and I was not disappointed.

After a hard fought 2 quarters, we managed to gain a meager 2-point lead. Anyone who has even casually watched basketball, knows that is not a good lead. Furthermore, the referees were not calling fouls, even when one of our players got poked in the eye!

We dug in for the third quarter and by the end of the third quarter we had extended our lead to 4 points! With just 2 minutes remaining and with possession of the ball, we were holding on to measly 3-point lead. Remember when I mentioned that the referees had not called any fouls on our opponents. With two minutes remaining, that turned into a HUGE advantage for us. We decided to play keep away for two minutes and run out the clock, thus securing our victory. To even have a chance of getting the ball back, our opponents would have to commit 5 fouls and send one of our players to the line for some free throws.

After about 30 seconds, the opposing coach finally realized what we were doing and yelled at their players to foul, which they did. Since that was their first foul, we just got to keep the ball. They committed three more intentional fouls. The penalty for those fouls is that we got to keep the ball. If the referee's had called any fouls before the last two minutes on our opponent, our opponent would not have had to commit 5 fouls, and we would not have been able to take as much time off the clock.

When our opponent committed the fourth foul, there was only 9 seconds left on the clock. We got the ball in and easily ran the last 9 seconds off the clock before they could foul us for that fifth time. After pulling within three, they never got to touch the ball again! We won the game and a Gold Medal!

The fans of the other team were not happy about us running the clock out. They called us cowards and accused us of cheating. I understand their frustration, but they shouldn't be mad at us for winning the game, they should be mad at the referee's for not calling any fouls on their team before that, which ALLOWED us to run out the clock and win the game.

Because the referees did not do their job, at the end of the game they pretty much handed us our victory. So, I could complain about the job the referees did, but I'm not because it all worked out to our benefit in the end, when it mattered.

One reoccurring theme I have noticed in a female centered forum on relationships that I peruse is that you have to vet people that you allow into your life. It would be obvious that they would stress vetting relationships with men and point out all the things that you should look out for, and they do that. However, it seems like they spend even more time stressing vetting relationships with other women.

The thing that kind of blows my mind but not really is the fact that they see how toxic other women can be because they post about it but completely dismiss how toxic women are to men. It's like women are only toxic to other women but somehow, they are not like that to men. They also don't make the connection that because other women have screwed over men that it affects how men relate to them.

Furthermore, they acknowledge that a woman can really screw you over more than men can, and I don't think they are wrong about that. There is definitely a disconnect there because they put down "red pill" talking points as misogynistic while they make those same talking points themselves. It's all in how you word it.

I also think that the more information (or misinformation) that a person compiles about the opposite sex, the less that person trusts getting into any kind of relationship.

Another term I have come across in my meandering through what has become of gender relations is the term "The table". This is usually in the form of a question like "What do you bring to the table?" and it is usually men who ask this question. Women rarely ask this question because it is common knowledge that men are supposed to bring time/attention and resources to the table.

There are two common responses to this question, one response is "I bring myself" and the other is "I am the table". Any women who says that she is the table, doesn't know what the table is. The table is the NEGOTIATING table. Each person brings something of value and exchanges it. A person cannot be the table. Any man who asks a woman what she brings to the table wants to know what that value is. Any woman who says she brings herself, thinks that the fact that she is even engaging with a guy is value enough and nothing else should be required to get that guys resources, time and attention.

Women hate men who ask this question for a couple of reasons, the first reason is because most men are not allowed to have standards. Unless you are one of the few men in high demand, you should just be happy with whatever you can get. You should be a beggar that cannot be choosey and if you are choosey, you are like a homeless person who feels entitled to something they don't deserve. The second reason women hate this question is because you should already notice what that woman brings to the table, which is herself and you should already be able to tell what an amazing person she is.

Women will say that any guy who asks this question is a red flag (another term I hear a lot) because that guy looks at relationships as transactional and that's bad. The reason it's bad is because he expects something in return for his time/attention and resources. I agree that this is a red flag but for a different reason. Any guy that cannot tell what a woman brings to the table should not be trying to date. If she doesn't bring anything to the table, you should be able to figure that out without having to ask her.

You might be wondering what love has to do with any of this and the answer is nothing. The more I realize that love has nothing to do with mating the more I realize I don't want to mate. So, what do you bring to the table anyway? Just wondering.

When I'm perusing posts and watching videos. I will come across some commentary that talks about being the prize. As you might expect, women think they are the prize while men take the opposite view and think they are the prize.

The word "Prize" is defined as follows according to the Oxford dictionary.

Noun

1. a thing given as a reward to the winner of a competition or in recognition of an outstanding achievement.

2. an enemy ship captured during the course of naval warfare.

Verb

value extremely highly.

I am assuming that most people are using the Verb definition. However, there is a problem with using the verb definition, it is highly subjective. One person may value something highly and another person might think that thing is garbage. So, there must be some objective way to evaluate a person's value if the "Prize" status is something that should be bestowed. Furthermore, just because you think you are the prize, doesn't make it reality.

So, how do we evaluate a person's value, do we look at the accumulation of wealth? If you don't want to work and want someone to take care of you, that would be something that should be considered.

Do we look at their physical appearance? I think everyone does, it might not be the top priority but it's on the list.

Do we look at personality traits? I think this only matters if you want a long-term relationship, but then if you only want sex, is the person really the prize or is being able to participate in sex the prize since you don't plan on sticking around?

You do not determine if you are the prize or not, you are the prize if you have people competing to win you. I think this eliminates at least 80% of the men (sorry guys) but it also eliminates quite a bit of women. I also think that when some women think they are the prize, they think that because guys want to have sex with them. If someone just wants to have sex with you, you are not the prize, being able to participate in sex is the prize and it's an important distinction.

So, who is the prize? It's the person that people are competing against each other to win. If there is no competition, there is no prize.

Just so everyone knows, No one has ever competed for me, and I don't think anyone ever will and that's okay. I don't need to be anyone's prize.

As I have digested more online content involving gender dynamics, I have become very aware of how perception becomes reality. When we digest content that reenforces a theme or narrative, it is easy to get sucked into believing that narrative is all encompassing.

Fifty years ago, there were people who were concerned that a population explosion would leave our world in a state where we would outstrip our resources. Now, there is starting to be some concern that a population collapse is coming that will doom us to extinction.

There is evidence that the population is starting to swing from growth to decline worldwide and that in the next 50 years, we will see the human population shrink by a lot. So, if the population explosion some feared isn't really a thing and that the real threat is that we just don't want to pop out babies anymore, what's going on?

If I were a sophisticated researcher, I would begin by explaining how humanity used to be in survival mode as a species as we swarmed over the Earth and subdued it and that we are now pretty much done with that process. When we no longer need to spend our time worry about where our next meal is coming from (as a species, some of you may still worry on an individual level) we need something to focus on and that thing that we focus on is ourselves. What I mean by that is our own quality of life. The things that our forefathers had to put up with, we don't have to put up with anymore.

But I'm not a sophisticated researcher, I'm just a guy on the internet with an opinion. So, I'll put it like this. Gathering many opinions that both men and women put on the internet for the world to digest, the message is clear. Marriage is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for men but it is also a bad deal for women.

The reasoning goes something like this.

Male Perspective: The law cannot enforce the female part of the marriage contract, but it sure can enforce the male part. So, your wife can renege on her part and when she gets bored with you, take half of your shit as she walks out the door.

Female Perspective: You will be expected to work outside the home, do all the domestic chores, raise the children (if children are involved) and be his sex slave while you sacrifice your own identity. After you get too old, he will trade you in on a younger model.

When you explain marriage like that, it's not hard to understand why some people would decline to participate.

Disclaimer: These opinions do not necessarily reflect my own, they are a summary of the basic attitude I've come across with the views that have been expressed by other people online. I also want to mention that there are a lot of people in the world and a lot of different ideas are embodied in all those people. Having said that, the ideas expressed above have been expressed a lot by various people. Furthermore, I am passing on my own observations, your observations may vary depending on what echo chamber you may be living in.

How much of these observations are actually reality? I don't know but I think whoever is around 50 years from now will have a pretty good idea.

I never really thought about how the process of being pregnant affects a womon or her body before, but I have now. After thinking about it, I don't think that I could live with myself knowing I put a woman through that.

I understand that it's a normal biological process and that at some point, some women get "baby rabies" and want to get pregnant. I just can't imagine putting someone I care about through that process even if it's something they want.

The only way to 100% assure that I don't kickstart such a process is to just not have sex with anyone, which is the responsible thing to do going forward. So that's what I'm going to do.

The timetable for World War III has seemed to have been moved up. The Biden Administration has authorized long range missile strikes into Russia. The reason he is doing this is because he knows that if he doesn't bring the US into a war before Trump becomes President, it's not going to happen. This is a serious act of treason against the United States by our current President.

All I can say is that despite our differences, it's been nice knowing you!

It's not about love, it's about security. If there is anything I've learned by listening to women in female spaces, that would be it. The second thing would be, You can't depend on a man for security. If you want to know why you are screwed (and not in the fun way) that's pretty much it.

I looked out this morning and the sun was gone

The rain fell down as I start my day

I tell myself, this really sucks

Cause I have to work when I'd rather play

More than a ceiling

(More than a ceiling)

That's keeping the rain out

(More than a ceiling)

I can't help but feeling

(More than a ceiling)

That my chances have all washed away

I feel my chances have all washed away

So many times I've tried to cope

But inside these walls that have kept me sane

I think of the things I could have done

While I watch the rain from my window pane

More than a ceiling

(More than a ceiling)

That's keeping the rain out

(More than a ceiling)

I can't help but feeling

(More than a ceiling)

That my chances have all washed away

I feel my chances have all washed away

When I'm tired and feeling old

I hide in my house to escape the day

and dream of a place that's safe and warm

I close my eyes and it slips away

More than a ceiling

(More than a ceiling)

That's keeping the rain out

(More than a ceiling)

I can't help but feeling

(More than a ceiling)

That my chances have all washed away

I feel my chances have all washed away

Now that the election is over. There are a number of people who are deeply disturbed by the outcome. To a lot of those people, the America they woke up to on Wednesday morning is deeply racist and misogynist.

Now, in the aftermath, there were a lot of opinions as to why Harris lost and most of them were based on race and gender rather than policy. The first group was men. Men as a group are racist and highly misogynistic and would rather vote for a convicted rapist than a woman. The next group were white women. Black women and Hispanic women came out and voted along gender lines but for whatever reason, white women didn't show up in big enough numbers. Those women must have internalized misogyny, I sure most of them probably don't even realize it. They deserve our sympathy.

Most voters claimed that the economy and immigration were the key issues in this election, but the explanation that Kamala Harris didn't really make those people feel comfortable enough with her policies on those issues, absolutely cannot be the reason why she lost. The reason is because our country which was founded by white European men, is both racist and sexist. It's the only explanation that makes sense to these people.

While all of the above explanations could be the reason, there is one other idea that is floating around that is really interesting.

Even though Donald Trump won the popular vote, he ended up getting about 3 million less votes in 2024 than he did in 2020. Kamala on the other hand, got 20 million less votes in 2024 than Joe Biden did in 2020. So, the question that a lot of people are asking is, "Where did those 20 million votes go?!" They didn't go to Trump, and they didn't go to any of the minor party candidates. Didn't those people know that this election is the most important election of our lifetime? (apparently not) Do they not think Trump is as evil now as he was in 2020? (again no) Are those people so lazy that they can't be bothered to vote this time? (maybe) Did twenty million people just suddenly not care about democracy? (I suppose it's possible) It's like those votes just VANISHED into thin air! It's almost like those votes never existed in the first place.

You might think at this point I'm going to go to some conspiracy theory to explain the discrepancy, but I'm not. The truth is a lot more disturbing. Jon Stewert of the Daily Show went on the streets of New York the day after the election and asked people if they were going to vote today, many people said that they were and all of them had no idea that the election was over! So, I'm thinking those 20 million people stayed home because they didn't know there was an election on Tuesday! Kamala didn't do enough to get the chronologically challenged voters out to the polls, and it cost her the election!