Miscommunication And Further Thoughts On Moral Agency

I.

One thing about the internet is that it exposes, for all to see, the vastly different communication styles that men and women possess. It is especially troublesome over the internet, where mistakes and the limitations of text can amply those differences. This post owes its origin and impetus to an incident that I suspect came about because of the divide in male and female thought and communication processes. I am writing this in response to a comment that was written by a woman who goes by the moniker Spacetraveller over at Dalrock‘s blog. Since it touches on Moral Agency, and because I haven’t written on it for a while, I thought a full post was a proper response.

It started with my comment in response to a few things Spacetraveller said in an earlier comment. You can find my original comment here.I will note at this point that my comment got chopped; several sentences were missing after “The answer would seem to be yes.” The missing sentences, which clarified some of what I was saying, may have tempered Spacetraveller’s response some if they hadn’t gone missing. Or perhaps not. Either way, what is said is said. Before continuing, I would encourage everyone to read my comment fully. Once done, you can read Spacetraveller’s response. The full comment is here, but as she addresses others as well I am quoting the relevant part of her comment below so as to save time:

Donalgraeme,

I am not sure what you are getting at. Is your argument one or the more of the following? Or are these strawman arguments of mine (that I have picked out from nowhere) that in no way reflect your thoughts?

1. I am a chaste man, but that’s only because no woman is chasing me. I do not expect a woman (who has many men chasing her at any given point) to be similarly chaste. It is just impossible.

2. Women have a natural desire to submit. So pre-marital sex is just another form of submission. So there…

3. Premarital chastity does NOT translate into post-marital faithfulness. All that rigorous moral training that young women used to have pre-marriage is unnecessary. All the data which shows that high pre-marital N-count is a risk factor for a woman commiting adultery because she is unable to stay faithful to one man …doesn’t count.

4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

5. ‘Keep your chastity’ is just as non-effective as ‘just say no to drugs’. It doesn’t work, so don’t even attempt it.

Donalgraeme, thank you for showing me the enormity of the problem we face in trying to correct the wrongs of the current SMP.
If a righteous man like yourself cannot fathom the idea that it is even remotely feasible for a young girl or woman to exercise some self-restraint before marriage, we are truly and totally lost as a generation.

You, like many well-meaning men are being hampered by the ‘women have no moral agency’ bug.
Whilst it is alright to note that many women are not doing the right thing with all the promiscuity that is going on, you seem to be resisting me for suggesting that we try to stop this. Because you see it as a ‘mission impossible’.
You make too many excuses for women. I am one, and I can tell you that we really do not need quite so many excuses, especially when it comes to sex. We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men (OK, I grant you, this becomes infinitely more difficult at ‘fertile time’, or ‘ovulation time’ when sexual drive in women approaches that of men…did someone say Bathsheba was in her fertile time when she decided to bathe in full view of King David? Um…if she had been in her non-fertile time, I am sure she would have bathed in a different place, away from prying eyes :)).

I am now convinced more than ever, that until this meme of ‘women have no moral agency’ is let go, things will remain as (rotten as) they are.
Which is another depressing thought.

I have just one more question: how does it benefit you to hold the views you do, Donalgraeme? Is it a self-preservation thing (‘it is impossible for women to be morally upright, so I accept that I can therefore never marry one’). Or is it a comfort to you to feel certain that you as a chaste man are morally superior to all women??

If either is the case, hey, that’s fine. I am however intrigued as to how this helps, in real life.
This level of ‘white-knighting’ is neither desired nor warranted though.
Because it gives you and other men more of the same as what you are getting – undesirable women.
I wish for you and others, that you get a better quality woman. I don’t have a younger sister (I am a ‘last born’). So the best I can do is make sure my daughter is a good one. And for that matter my son too. That is how I can contribute to the betterment of the SMP.

But it seems I shan’t be getting any help from you.
Shame, that is…
But no matter, I plough on regardless, with like-minded people.
If you change your mind in the future, please feel free to join us…

The rest of this post will try and answer her comment, and to expand/explain some of the themes connected to it. From Spacetraveller’s response it is clear that she didn’t understand what I was trying to say, much less my actual views. In the spirit of charity I assumed that she had merely misunderstood, in a dramatic fashion, and that prompted her response. Naturally I was concerned that my response was completely obtuse, and asked for second opinions to see if it was really that bad. Novaseeker helpfully chimed in and said that he disagreed with her conclusion about what I said, which has reassured me somewhat. Of course, that doesn’t mean I made sense, only that he came to a different conclusion. Hopefully this post will clear up previous misunderstandings and make my views on the matter a little easier to understand.

I will first begin by addressing each of the numbered points she brings up. Then I will cover some of her other points. Finally I will add a few thoughts of my own.

II.

Beginning with her numbered points:

1. I am a chaste man, but that’s only because no woman is chasing me. I do not expect a woman (who has many men chasing her at any given point) to be similarly chaste. It is just impossible.

In the past I am sure that the lack of women chasing me (or rather, the lack of desirable women chasing me) helped me in maintaining chastity. When I was in college in particular I think it was an aid. However, at present I think I am past that particular hurdle. By that I mean that I have built up my self-discipline to a point where I feel reasonably certain that I could resist any woman chasing me (at least, so long as I was of sound mind, i.e., sober). As for women, I believe that they can be similarly chaste. However, just as it can be difficult for a man to be chaste when he is “chased”, so too can it be for a woman. Being “chased”, especially by someone attractive and desirable, makes it much harder to resist temptation. At a young age this is especially true, when self-discipline has not been fully developed.

2. Women have a natural desire to submit. So pre-marital sex is just another form of submission. So there…

My word choice here was poor. So the misunderstanding here was entirely on me. I should have used the word yield, not submit. You see, its a pet theory of mine that women subconsciously want  to yield (sexually) to a man. But just not any man- the right man. Even as they resist the advances of men they feel beneath them, they secretly long for the man who isn’t so lowly- the man who they can “let through the gate”, if you will.

3. Premarital chastity does NOT translate into post-marital faithfulness. All that rigorous moral training that young women used to have pre-marriage is unnecessary. All the data which shows that high pre-marital N-count is a risk factor for a woman commiting adultery because she is unable to stay faithful to one man …doesn’t count.

There is definitely a link between pre-marital chastity and post-marital faithfulness. Statistics bear that out. However, there is no guarantee. A certain gentleman around these parts count vouch for that. Think of it this way- premarital sex makes the ability to bond and stay faithful weaker, but the opposite is not true. The bonding ability can only be damaged, it cannot be “improved.”

What I was trying to explain is that lumping not having sex before marriage and being faithful in marriage together ignores some significant situational differences. In the first situation, a woman (or a man for that matter) is entirely suppressing their sex drive. She has no outlet for it. In the second situation she has such an outlet, and should be using it whenever possible. A desire to “wander” on her part indicates that something more than just a desire to sate that drive is at play. A woman who has a high sex drive might have trouble being chaste before marriage. But if she marries the man she sins with, and stays with him, then there is only a slightly greater chance she will stray than if she had been chaste. Her problem was not a desire to sleep with lots of men, and be promiscuous, it was not sleeping with the particular man she wanted.

All of which is a way of saying this: I can see no advantage to requiring a woman to wait in order to demonstrate chastity, assuming she hasn’t strayed so far. That delay does not translate into something greater. And I am not the only person who believes this. In my latest Tradition post, St. John Chrysostom advised the very same thing I advise: marry children off when they are young. Help them find someone they burn for who will be a good match, get them married and give them that healthy and proper outlet for their sex drive.

4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

Does it always lead to frigidity within marriage? No. But it can and does. I believe that at least one of my readers and occasional commenters can vouch for the harm that the “purity” movement has caused with its antics. If you read around, you will find and hear stories that say just that. I didn’t come to this conclusion for the heck of it. It is the product of reading stories like that. Of hearing from men who married older virgins who found that they were frigid.

[DG: I am reconsidering this section, and may change my views after reflection. Understand that it may change if I come to a different conclusion]

[Here is the thing: it is not natural for human beings with a healthy sex drive to suppress that drive for long periods of time. It just isn’t. It may be required, for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences don’t exist. There are studies floating around which link men’s health to the frequency of sex they have. I’m not sure if similar studies are out there for women. But the point holds: everything has consequences. And requiring someone, woman or man, to suppress their sex drive for a long period of time will have consequences, whether they be physical, mental or emotional. Honestly, I’ve wondered about how I’ve been affected by my own chastity. I know that some damage has resulted, but I don’t know the extent. It is something that gives me considerable pause when marriage is concerned.]

5. ‘Keep your chastity’ is just as non-effective as ‘just say no to drugs’. It doesn’t work, so don’t even attempt it.

If all that is done is “say no to premarital sex”, then the truth is that it will be just as ineffective as “just say no to drugs” has proven. Emphasis on “all that is done.” My point being that you cannot simply say “be chaste” and leave it to that. As my original comment made clear, you cannot simply tell women to be chaste. You need to provide them the support they need to back this up, and to help them avoid situations where they will face grave temptations. Virtuous conduct is a community affair for everyone. Youth, especially, need people around them who will provide (real) moral support and look out for them.  As I indicated earlier in my original comment, sending young women off by themselves, either to college or to get a job, was not something widely practiced until very recently. At least, among those who could avoid it. When necessity compelled women to leave their homes and go elsewhere, it often did result in them being chaste.

III.

Having concluded the previous section, I will briefly try and address some of her other points.

If a righteous man like yourself cannot fathom the idea that it is even remotely feasible for a young girl or woman to exercise some self-restraint before marriage, we are truly and totally lost as a generation.

You, like many well-meaning men are being hampered by the ‘women have no moral agency’ bug.

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I do not hold such a view. Quite the contrary. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven’t read my blog and are mixing up some of my comments and arguments with those of other commenters at Dalrock’s blog.

You make too many excuses for women. I am one, and I can tell you that we really do not need quite so many excuses, especially when it comes to sex.

Let me assure you, I am not one to make excuses for women. If anything, I have been accused of going too far the other way.

We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men…

I will address that in the last section of this post.

I have just one more question: how does it benefit you to hold the views you do, Donalgraeme? Is it a self-preservation thing (‘it is impossible for women to be morally upright, so I accept that I can therefore never marry one’). Or is it a comfort to you to feel certain that you as a chaste man are morally superior to all women??

That is a good question, or a series of them, as the case may be… if I actually held those views.

This level of ‘white-knighting’ is neither desired nor warranted though.

I am not white-knighting here, trust me. I expect women to pull their own weight, just like men. However, I am also a realist. And that means that simply trusting people, without taking further steps, is not part of my approach to how to fix the problems we face.

IV.

I am going to conclude with two final points.

A.

First, I wanted to address this comment in further depth:

We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men…

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I find no Scriptural justification for this utterance. In fact, the Bible seems to take the view that neither men nor women are very apt to be successful here. Some of the early Church fathers do seem to have this view as well, but it is important to note the environment they adopt it in. Back then women did not act or live like modern, “liberated” women do. I will try and explain my thoughts on the matter as best as I can. Bear with me, this is difficult for me to get down to words.

I believe that in a relatively isolated situation without a lot of active temptations that women do have a greater ability to stave off sexual temptation. The primary reason for this is that the male sex drive is far more… predatory… than the female sex drive. Men are inclined to seek out sources of sexual gratification to a far, far greater degree than women. If left to our own devices, we will feel that impulse which will drive us to seek out a means of sating it. And that impulse is very, very powerful. And pretty much always active, with the exception of when we are very tired, or sick or famished. Think of the male sex drive as very pro-active. Whereas the female sex drive is more reactive. Women don’t have that same impulse to seek out sexual gratification. Nor is it as strong or constant. As St. John Chrysostom noted, “the management of them is easy.” But this only applies in an environment like what existed in his time- an environment in which young women didn’t wander the world like they do now.

When women aren’t isolated, their reactive sexual proclivities are less of a benefit to them when it comes to maintaining chastity. For one, they will be presented with more sources of temptation which could get them to react. Secondly, a woman’s sexual arousal state can vary far more than a man’s.

In most instance a man is always “on.” He is always at maximum. This means that a man who learns to control himself pretty much always learns to control himself when his sex drive is at maximum. Naturally, this is by no means an easy thing for a man to achieve. However, when a man does achieve it he is relatively immune- it becomes very hard to shake him when he is of sound mind [alcohol and certain situations might change this].Women, however, are not always at maximum. Their natural cycles affect how powerful their sex drive is. This makes is much more difficult for women to develop the discipline to control themselves when they are at their maximum. What this means is that women might have an easier time learning to control themselves during times when their sex drive is at low or medium. But they will find it more difficult to build the discipline to control themselves at times when their sex drive is a maximum because they will have less experience at it. And of course, their real maximum is not simply when they are at their cycle peak, but also when they are being aroused by an attractive man. Without experiencing both at the same time sufficiently, they won’t be ready for dealing with temptation when they are most vulnerable.

The end result of this is that in situations like today, I don’t think that women are any more suited to resisting temptation than men are. In fact, they might have a more difficult time for the reason just given- learning to control themselves at their “maximum” point is more difficult. Less opportunity means less chance to build that discipline.

B.

Also, I wanted to briefly touch on miscommunication. My suspicion is that Spacetraveller assumed that my comment was part of the larger discussion about moral agency in women that she was taking part in on the blog. It wasn’t- I was merely addressing a few points she raised in one of her comment’s, isolated from the rest of the overall discussion. What I think happened was an example of how men and women think differently. Men tend to compartmentalize ideas and discussions, while women take a holistic approach. In my mind I could see how my comment was merely a targeted addressing of a few select, discrete points of hers. She, on the other hand, naturally folded it into the overall context of the situation.

This highlights the importance of careful communication between men and women. When we talk with one another, we need to keep in mind that what is obvious to us may not be obvious to the opposite sex. While I think this particular explanation of our differences is a bit over the top, they truly are significant. The internet, because it is mostly limited to text, makes these communication problems even worse. Despite the fact that I should know better, I often forget that these differences exist. All of which means that when talking with women, I need to be especially careful in what I say and how I say it. Otherwise gross misunderstandings, such as the one in this post, will inevitably occur.

V.

That brings this post to an end. It could probably use some clean-up, but I want to get it uploaded sooner rather than later. So if anything needs fixing, I will get to it later. If anyone has any thoughts on anything I’ve discussed, feel free to express them in the comments below.

I do have one additional bit though- one of my readers, who doesn’t comment, was curious about a book called The Real Story. Are any of my readers familiar with it? And if so, what are your opinions on the book?

Advertisements

17 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Men, Moral Agency, Pair Bonding, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sin, Temptation, Women

17 responses to “Miscommunication And Further Thoughts On Moral Agency

  1. For what it’s worth I think your initial comment read just fine, although I still lack the greater context of any of her previous comments or the discussion it occurred amongst.

    “I can see no advantage to requiring a woman to wait in order to demonstrate chastity, assuming she hasn’t strayed so far. That delay does not translate into something greater.”

    If I am perfectly honest her idea of forcing an eighteen year old woman to wait an additional two years before marrying made me shudder. Most girls reach puberty around fourteen, by the time they are eighteen they will have been trying manage their drives for four years (or so) already. If they have managed to stay chaste that long then I think they have already proven themselves. It doesn’t mean it is safe to send them gallivanting off, but there is no point in intentionally torturing them by forcing them to wait longer. Especially if a good man is already at hand. I think if most parents sat their daughters down and told them “We aren’t going to let you get married until you are twenty, because you need demonstrate chastity first,” the majority of those who have been doing their best will feel insulted, at very least they will feel that they are seen as untrustworthy. In the very worst case they may run away from home, which would hardly encourage chastity.

    I think what others around here say is the most sound course, encourage them to marry young, and do all you can to support them in their struggle to remain chaste and in their finding a spouse. I wouldn’t advocate marrying them off in arranged marriages at eighteen, but encouraging them to wait, much less forcing them to is not the answer either.

  2. Thanks for your perspective Alla. Truth be told, I don’t know the whole context either. I was just cherry picking certain points that I wanted to address. In retrospect, a mistake on my part.

    I think if most parents sat their daughters down and told them “We aren’t going to let you get married until you are twenty, because you need demonstrate chastity first,” the majority of those who have been doing their best will feel insulted, at very least they will feel that they are seen as untrustworthy.

    Well said. I’ll stop here lest I quote your whole comment.

  3. Feminine But Not Feminist

    First, I’d like to +1 Alla’s comment. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Second, I’d like to address this part of the post:


    4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

    Does it always lead to frigidity within marriage? No. But it can and does. I believe that at least one of my readers and occasional commenters can vouch for the harm that the “purity” movement has caused with its antics. If you read around, you will find and hear stories that say just that. I didn’t come to this conclusion for the heck of it. It is the product of reading stories like that. Of hearing from men who married older virgins who found that they were frigid.

    I think this idea of a woman’s continued frigidity within marriage after remaining a virgin for so long depends a lot on why she remained a virgin all that time. If she did so for proper reasons, then there is no reason for her to remain frigid, nor is it good to wrongly assume that she will. For example, if she did so because she wanted to do things God’s way, or if she understands the high value of sex within (only) marriage. If these reasons are the case, then there’s no way she will be frigid within marriage because she will have the view that sex within marriage is indeed a good thing. But, if she remained a virgin for less than good reasons, then frigidity can be expected. Reasons like, she has a negative view of sex (perhaps she was taught wrong things by her parents or church growing up) resulting in anxiety about having sex at all (even after being married). Or if she had been molested as a child (which I’m not sure if she could technically still be called a virgin or not, but since it wouldn’t have been consensual I’m going to include such situations under the virgin label for the purposes of this comment), she would be scarred and understandably reluctant to have sex at all even within marriage. Or if she simply has a low enough sex drive to keep it from being a heavy temptation, especially if she wasn’t solicited for sex by men that would’ve been tempting enough to awaken her drive (not that I’m calling a low sex drive a bad thing, but I included it here because it wouldn’t fit in the first category as well).

    Here is the thing: it is not natural for human beings with a healthy sex drive to suppress that drive for long periods of time. It just isn’t. It may be required, for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences don’t exist. There are studies floating around which link men’s health to the frequency of sex they have. I’m not sure if similar studies are out there for women. But the point holds: everything has consequences. And requiring someone, woman or man, to suppress their sex drive for a long period of time will have consequences, whether they be physical, mental or emotional. Honestly, I’ve wondered about how I’ve been affected by my own chastity. I know that some damage has resulted, but I don’t know the extent. It is something that gives me considerable pause when marriage is concerned.

    I don’t know about this one Donal. This suggests that anyone (man or woman) who has managed to remain chaste longer than desired is now damaged as a result of their chastity(as opposed to being damaged for engaging in sinful behaviors) and should therefore not be considered a viable marriage candidate due to that damage. It doesn’t make sense to say that someone can be damaged for doing their best to live as purely as they can under the circumstances that they find themselves in, because if that is the case, then God’s ways are flawed. But His ways aren’t flawed. Paul even said it is good to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom, which wouldn’t be a sacrifice worthy of him even mentioning in the first place if the person choosing to remain celibate doesn’t have a healthy sex drive.

  4. @ FBNF

    I’ve had to think a little over before responding.

    As to your first point, I agree that the “why” matters a great deal. However, I think that there is another possible reason other than a wrong intent, or past abuse of some kind. It might be possible for a woman who says “No” for a long time, and often, may internalize that “No” when sex is concerned. For some women, they might experience difficulty in turning that “No” into “Yes” when they get married. Does that apply to all women? Nope. Probably not even most women. But I do think it is something that can happen, and should be considered. In light of my most recent post, consider it another stumbling block put in front of a sister in Christ.

    Concerning the second point, I said that they could be damaged. I did say there would be consequences. “Damage” could be one of them. It might have been a poor word choice on my part. And you raise a good point that there is a counter-intuitive nature to my argument. After all, we know that not obeying God’s laws damages us. So it would be nonsensical to assume or believe that obeying them will damage us as well. Definitely going to need to think this over. In the meantime, I will make a caveat in the post above indicating uncertainty over that portion of the post.

  5. DJ

    Any choice you make including the right ones even marriage will most assuredly damage you. Thats life get used to it, no matter what we all end up disappointed and hurt at least sometimes.
    Life is pain anyone that tells you diffrent is selling something- Dread Pirate Robert’s

  6. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ DJ

    Pain and hurt are different than damage in that pain and hurt can be alleviated, while actual damage (an example of which would be alpha widowhood) can’t. Once damage is done, it’s done. Pain and hurt are a part of life. Damage doesn’t have to be if one makes the right choices in life.

  7. @ FBNF

    Damage doesn’t have to be if one makes the right choices in life.

    True, if you only consider your own actions. But other people can always damage you, no matter if you do everything right.

  8. @ DJ

    I think that FBNF has a point with regards to the difference between pain and hurt and damage. However, I think you are right that life is messy and we can expect to suffer along the way. Even if we do everything right.

  9. A point needs to be made on “damage.”

    “Damage” tends to be either physical or psychological. The vast majority of physical damage of sin (say STDs leading to infertility) or uncurable things such as herpes, papilloma, HIV, etc. are physical damage that is undoable barring a miracle of God. Which has happened before. I’ve heard of a few people getting miraculously healed of say HIv but it’s rare and negligible in any case (although maybe we should be believing God for more miracles).

    In any case, psychological damage is a more nebulous concept and it’s also harder to quantify and deal with in some respects. They always say that the body may heal but the mind doesn’t but that’s not true. With God there is joy and peace that passes all understanding, and He can heal people of any type of psychological damage or impairment. He can heal men and women of their frigidity, their incorrect perceptions on virginity, etc.

    However, often is the case where we think we are right and prideful about our views and don’t have the humility to allow God to work in areas of our mind. That is the major factor holding back most men and women from walking in Spirit and Truth, just as it is for most christian men to actually be masculine Christian men. It’s all about the mind, and when the mind isn’t renewed well. You know the rest.

  10. Elspeth

    I have to agree with Deep Strength about God healing emotional/psychological damage. Having experienced the same at a very young age through no fault of my own, I can attest to the truth of that.

    Pain and hurt are often the result of bad personal choices, damage can be something else entirely.

    Of course I am not including physical damage wrought by bad choices.

  11. Feminine But Not Feminist

    DS makes a good point about “damage”.

    I think a better way to say what I said in my reply to DJ is this: pain and hurt are just feelings. They can be rid of fairly easily, simply by experiencing a more pleasant emotion, or (oftentimes) by the circumstances that you are hurt / in pain about being changed. Damage is different, in that it is far more serious, and not something that a person can simply get rid of in their own strength (though God can get rid of it, as DS pointed out). Hopefully that makes sense.

  12. Feminine But Not Feminist

    I should clarify: when I said it’s “fairly easy” to get rid of hurt / pain (emotions), I meant that only in comparison to damage, not in the context of the emotions by themselves. Negative emotions aren’t really “easy” to get rid of, obviously.

  13. DJ

    Damage changes a person, emotions are only chemical. I’m not talking chemical, I mean when you aren’t the same person as before, when you lose something, when parts of you break that’s damage. God can fix anything doesn’t mean God will or that you’ll let ’em.

  14. mdavid

    God can fix anything doesn’t mean God will or that you’ll let ‘em.

    For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.

  15. jack

    The fact that women are much choosier about whom they will have sex with should not be confused with a “greater sexual self control”.

    I have tremendous sexual self control around women I am not attracted to.

  16. Tru

    jack: Just retire already. You’re going to be that old guy who spends five years dying in the hospital.

    Oh, and we’re out of milk. I thought we talked about this: it gives you gas. You need to slow down. I get that you want to be the alpha male and don’t want to hear MY advice, but for the love of Adam, jack…

  17. Tru

    He told me, “I’m a MDMHOW: a Man Drinking Milk His Own Way.” I says, that’s fine, you’re paying for it. Then, I have him go shovel the driveway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s