Hola a todos. Well first it was organist Diane Bish that people became fascinated with and who would show up here looking for information about her sexual orientation. She’s still a hot item by the way. Nearly every day someone comes to pink barrio in search of information about Diane Bish’s sexual orientation. The search words are usually: “Is Diane Bish married?” Of course they mean is she married to a guy. I think it’s accurate to say that the crowd that listens to and appreciates Diane’s superb organ playing is mostly anti-gay/fundamentalist Christians who hold to the bigoted belief that “marriage is between a man and a woman,” (roll eyes) — with their over 50% divorce rate here in the US — which is why I took them on here in this article. I’d had enough of them. Los pendejos.
Well, lately Brasileño pianist Nelson Freire has been coming up in my search words too with people wondering about his sexual orientation. The search words used for him are: “Nelson Freire’s wife” and “Nelson Freire homosexual.” Note that they use the clinical word “homosexual” instead of gay. That tells me it was probably one of the bigoted and prejudiced Classical Music Snots searching for information about him.
Why is it so important to some heteronormative (and bigoted/anti-gay?) people that pianist Nelson Freire have a wife? What’s that about? Why must he have a wife? Why does he have to be a breeder/straight? Suppose he’s a Queer boy/gay? Would knowing that destroy people’s image of him and would they lose all respect for Nelson if they learned that he’s gay. It would certainly expose people’s anti-gay prejudices and bigotry.
To my knowledge Nelson doesn’t have a wife or need one quite frankly! The only pictures I’ve seen of him with a female have been with his longtime friend and concert pianist Marta Argerich.
Of the interviews I’ve read with Nelson, he’s a lovely guy. Very down-to-Earth. He’s certainly not narcissistic. Quite the opposite. He doesn’t make his music all about him. In fact, he doesn’t like attention, and I sense that his agent — who gets concert engagements for him — has had some problem with that aspect of his personality.
I don’t know if he’s gay or not and it doesn’t really matter. I can take a guess. But sometimes it’s very difficult to tell — even with the most reliable Gaydar — until one talks with the person a bit, and then one gets a better feel for them.
It’s just that no one ends up here by searching, “Nelson Freire’s boyfriend” or “Nelson Freire’s partner.” No, in the typical world-wide Breeder Agenda, it’s always the word “wife” that the anti-gay, heteronormative prejudiced bigots use, which is rather typical of many in the classical music audience — even though many classical musicians are Queer — as I wrote about in my article about Diane Bish and people’s obsession with her sexuality.
I might as well talk about Diane a little bit. I think she has retired from performing. Would Diane’s fan-base be crushed if they learned she’s la lesbiana? Some would. Some already have written despairingly about her because of her alleged lesbian sexual orientation. I can hear them now: “I’ll never listen to her again or watch The Joy of Music.” I’m sure Diane will be absolutely crushed to hear that. [sarcasm intended]. Who cares what you do?! Then use that time that you would have used to watch Diane and go get yourself some psychotherapy to work through your unhealthy anti-Queer prejudices and bigotry, okay? Do we understand each other? Basura. I can’t stand these trash.
Nelson is still performing and he’s an outstanding pianist, although I doubt that he’s still playing the Saint-Saëns’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in g these days. If he is, he’s probably not playing it quite like he played it back in the 1980s (see videos below). I say that because he’s 73 years old as of this writing. The aging process is so cruel. The last piece I saw him perform was the Schumann Piano Concerto in a in The Royal Concertgebouw in Amsterdam (I think that’s where it was; am I remembering that performance correctly?) in the Nederlands. (By the way, a little geography instruction: Please don’t refer to Nederlanden/the Nederlands as “Holland.” That is incorrect. Holland is only 2 provinces — Noord-Holland and Zuid-Holland (North and South) — in the Nederlands so it’s incorrect to refer to the 12 provinces known as Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/the Kingdom of the Nederlands as “Holland.” I would think that the Dutch people would get tired of hearing that and would probably think to themselves, “Where did these stupid people go to school; didn’t they ever open a world geography book?” Most likely they’re from the stupid-is-in US, and don’t know the difference! Because I suspect that many people from the US couldn’t find the US on a world map.)
I think this interesting and tour de force performance by Nelson of the Saint-Saëns PC2 is probably from the 1980s. Chau.—el barrio rosa
I’ve seen this over and over. You may have too. The Millennial breeder couple: Him-tall and an alpha-male. Her-short, thoroughly submissive and anti-feminist. Both wearing conformist all-black clothing head to toe. They want to “start a family.” They are probably being pestered by family members such as their mothers and/or fathers with, “When are you going to have a baby and make us grandparents?” The family members want the couple to breed to fulfill the Family Script/Plans they have for this couple. So, whether they have the time and money or not for this additional expense called a baby, is beside the point. The Millennial couple prepare to breed, thinking “this might get our folks off our backs.” (Don’t count on it!) And also from family members, they have probably been brainwashed with the illusion that, “Having a baby will make us so much happier (with the unspoken being: and will tame him down).” Don’t count on that either; that’s wishful-thinking! And don’t use/exploit a baby to try to be happier because it’s going to backfire on you. Instead, get some relationship therapy. But neither of them likely have the courage to tell their parents to butt out and that they are quite happy as they are, if that’s the case, and that they don’t need a baby to “make us so much happier.”
But this breeder couple continues to have sex as they have been — but she’s now off the pill — and she gets pregnant at some point. One day she tells him, “Honey, I’ve got great news. You’re going to be a father. I’m pregnant.” He says, “Oh honey, that’s wonderful.” Then, emulating the brainwashing behaviour he’s seen on television countless times when a female announces she’s pregnant, he picks her up and twirls her around in celebration of this supposed good news and then realises there’s a fetus inside her that he needs to be careful about, so he puts her back down and lightly pats her abdomen. By the way, picking her up and twirling her around is the same type of ludicrous brainwashing that guys receive when they think they must get down on their right knee to propose marriage. ) A bit later after this so-called “wonderful news,” it dawns on him that he’s now tied down for 18 long years of parenting. That’s something he didn’t really think about before and it hits him like a rock at some point in time. In the back of his mind he’s thinking, “What the hell have I done? Why did I allow her and our interfering parents talk me into this? I didn’t want this. I just wanted to have sex. I didn’t want to have a kid at this point in my life. I’m not ready to be a father. That comes way down the road. This must be what they mean by wedLOCK.” You’re locked into it. In reality, they’re both in lock down for 18 years, but especially him with financials and child support payments after “The Divorce,” which will likely come at some point. And in many cases, he’s gay but in the closet and thinking about guys when having sex with her and sometimes playing with guys on the side. As if life isn’t hard enough without one of these babies that one has to take care of for 18 years. And with humans, it seems there’s no such thing as one baby. She talks about her pregnancy endlessly for 9 months with her amigas/female friends who also decide to get pregnant — they’re called copycat pregnancies — so they can all be pregnant at the same time so that their children can all play together because, “it’s going to be so much fun, you’ll see!” Then she squeezes out her baby. After about a week, it’s clear that she’s beginning to get a little tired of the little darling. It’s a lot of work and with sleep interruptions. But she’s been taught to say, “I love being a mother” so it’s unspeakable to say anything other than that. Having to take care of the child day and night with little sleep while “the husband” is on the golf course and having sex with other women (think: el hombre naranja/the orange man) and/or other guys, becomes drudgery. Or, “the husband” is out late nights with his jock tech bros talking about chicks they’d like to bang.
After many months or maybe years, the parents realise what a job the child is. One hears them say, “We didn’t realise it was going to be this hard.” And they begin talking about sending the child off to camp (to get rid of the child temporarily) or “We can get next door to take care of the children for a couple days while we take a break; she loves children.” Or, I know, here’s my phone. Let’s just give “the kids” our phones to serve the role of a baby sitter. Or, in extreme cases, they leave “the kid” in the car for an extended period of time on a suffocatingly hot day and the child just, well, dies from the heat. Somehow the parent forgot about their child baking in the hot vehicle. To begin with, how on Earth could a parent forget about their child? Isn’t the child on the parent’s mind most of the time? Was the parent too busy on their own phone? Or too busy getting sex elsewhere through their phone and some sex app? Some females enjoy being mothers so much that they are accused of killing their children. As of this writing, a 20-year-old mother in Arizona is being held on a $2 million bond on suspicion of first-degree murder after her two children — a 2-year-old boy and a 10-month-old girl — were found dead in car seats inside a car outside the family’s home, with evidence of “foul play.”
Or the father goes to a business event in another state and then sees a beautiful, young, blond, blue-eyed chick up in some floozy hotel room where they have bareback sex. These women are usually called “Stormy Daniels.” Even while their wife is pregnant with their next baby (an unplanned pregnancy?), he’s fucking around with one chick or another guy after the other, banging away. This is often the same hypocritical crowd that goes on about “family values” and right-wing religious bull shit.
Now, how much do we see of this in the Breeder Mecca (the former Gay Mecca; The Castro in San Francisco)? Depending upon the day and time of day, we see lots of it. These breeder couples are the ones you see where it looks like they obviously just met — based on their heavy, uncontrollable make-out scene behaviour — and are about to fuck right there on the sidewalk. They look like they can’t even wait until they get to the motel down the street. I have seen these couples where they both have a phone in one hand (that’s extended behind each other’s head) and they are glued to their phones while heavily making out, with one eye fixed on the phone. That looks a bit awkward. These are often the same breeders who sometime ago whined about, “Gay people being in our face with their sexuality” while these hypocrites are making out in front of the few remaining Queers in The Castro. It’s alright when they do it.
Often a child is used/exploited to give a needy-female (the mother) attention that she constantly craves and demands. She buys the biggest all-black condominium-sized stroller she can find to put the child in for a “presentation mode,” in the stroller hoping that anyone who walks by on the sidewalk — that’s she’s clogging up with this gigantic stroller — will “ooooooooh and aaaaaah” over her child as they pass. It’s just another baby. As my straight neighbour says, “With babies, when you’ve seen one, you’ve pretty much seen them all!” But part of the reason for having the baby in the first place was/is to give the mother attention and to hear people say, “What a cute and adorable (white) baby you have. How old is it? What is it’s name?”
Also, it should be pointed out that many people unfortunately become quite the conservative prudes after becoming a parent. They become different people. With Queer couples, they sometimes become just like the conservative people they fled from decades ago when they moved to gay areas of major cities. Related: Sexual Freedom and Revolution.
Most parents refuse to “wear their child” on their body, which is healthier for the child in order for the child to bond with the parent. “Baby wearing” does present a problem for attention-seeking parents and especially the needy-mother. The problem with wearing the child is that people can’t easily see the child when she’s wearing it. That’s because the child is supposed to be worn facing the mother. So this sort of contradicts the sole purpose of having a baby to begin with. I mean, what’s the point of having a baby if nobody can see it and oooooooh and aaaaaaaah over it? That seems to be her thinking. “I have to show off my trophy baby.” Lately, in San Francisco, I have seen some breeders wearing the child facing outward — clearly they didn’t do their research — to give the child and parent the mandatory attention the mother demands. But that looks odd because the child is just hanging off of the parent. It looks uncomfortable for the child. Whereas when the child is worn inward — as it’s supposed to be — it looks like the child is hugging or lying on the parent. Much more natural-looking. I guess getting attention is more important than the health of the child and bonding with the parent. But some needy parents do anything for attention even when the health of their child (as in bonding with the parent) involves another approach.
The Earth can sustain about 1 Billion people. But the current world population is approximately 7.8 Billion, and growing, because most females love being baby factories. And I think with most breeder guys/alpha male guys, getting their chick pregnant is a big macho turn-on. (Related: The British Royal Baby Factory). From what I’m seeing in The Breeder Mecca of San Francisco, most people don’t give a fuck about overpopulation. Couldn’t care less, and especially females, where it’s all about them and their craving to be (constantly) pregnant to keep up with their pregnant friends and to Keep Up With the Joneses. Chau.—el barrio rosa
Hola a todos. In our increasingly insane upside-down world, most lesbians are trying to look like straight woman. Notice that straight women are not trying to look like lesbians. What’s next? Buses trying to look like cars? Anyway, this topic about lesbians came up (as well as another topic) at our most recent get-together of our little group of local Queers here in San Francisco.
Once again, we talked about the many (most?) Queers/GTQBLs going out of their way to be extremely heteronormative to be as much like the obnoxious breeders as possible to “assimilate.” (ugh). This shit didn’t happen during the Gay Mecca decades. This is relatively new, historically speaking. It’s a most unfortunate and sad consequence of that nonsense to “assimilate” with the breeders that the corporatist Queers — with their bloated executive salaries at those pro-corporate wealthy US national Queer organisations — ordered following gay marriage becoming legal here in the shithole US. You know who they are. You know the organisations I’m talking about. I’ve been to some of their website(s) and seen the rows of corporate logos lined up in columns spread across the page. They have sold out to corporations. They only represent corporate interests and they only care about corporatist Queers of a certain wealthy income bracket similar to their own. They take this heteronormative, omnipotent we-know-what’s-best-for-the-Queer-community, elitist, self-appointed authority approach. Although they wouldn’t say “Queer community.” No, instead they use the cookie-cutter and revisionist history “LGTB(Q)” acronym. They live under some misguided illusion that they know what’s best for the Queer community. I’m talking about the Queer organisations like the corporate trash that threw the transgender community under the bus some years ago. And wealthy Queers worship these organisations, send them dinero/money and show up for their lavish and overpriced Lah-Tee-Dah Gala Dinners, Dahling. Meanwhile, homeless Queers are lying on the cold sidewalk with nothing to eat in the vicinity of this elitist corporate bash. It’s because of this “assimilation” bullshit, with few exceptions, that it has become very difficult (if not impossible) to tell who is Queer and who’s not these days since the overwhelming majority of people “all look and act the same” in their desire to be conformist and heteronormative, regardless of sexual orientation. Conform! Obey! Wear Black and Grey!
Assimilate: Become Conservative; Abandon “Out and Proudly Radical”
Las lesbianas/The lesbians in our little group have repeatedly spoken with frustration that they can’t tell who is a lesbian and who isn’t anymore. This is because (they say), “Lesbians are trying to look like straight women” — and one of the guys in our group piped up and said, “and gay guys are trying to look like straight guys” — since the order for “assimilation” was given. They (lesbians) have long flowing blond hair (out of a bottle?) or brown hair, they wear lingerie Millennial clothing for their often anorexic-looking body, they wear stiletto heels (which are very bad for one’s feet but that’s apparently no longer a concern) and lots of makeup. And some lesbians are going to straight bars to try to pick up females. Then, they get offended/bent out of shape when a breeder guy hits on them in a straight bar! Loca./Crazy. Loca.
The other topic that came up was another recurring theme and that’s the increasing number of Queer guys — according to our extremely reliable Gaydar — holding hands with a female who looks like a lesbian. The “couple” give the impression they are dating. It’s as if they are trying to act like a straight couple. Related: More back to the 1950s: Gay guys marrying females in droves. Sad. That’s the impression we all get. But that image of a breeder couple that they’re trying to send is shattered when one sees what is really a Queer boy holding hands with what looks like a more stereotypical lesbian. Everyone in our group said they had seen this. I’ve seen it too. A sense of resigned frustration and sadness comes over me when I see this because I see a very young somewhat effeminate Queer boy with a young female, and yes, they do put on this act as if they’re “a breeder couple” and dating with their mandatory public hand-holding, just like the in-your-face-with-their-sexuality breeders. One wonders why the now-dead Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement worked for decades when this is what some Queers were going to ultimately do in the end: Desperately want to be like and act like the breeders, and live in the closet.
There is something in the water making people loco, loca and insane. I don’t think there’s any question about that at this point from all I’ve seen. All the plastics and residual pharmaceuticals in our water do have their consequences. Chau.—el barrio rosa
Are You Drinking Prescription Drugs in Your Tap Water?
“There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they’re at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms.”
Hola a todos. Females and their gay husbands. What’s that about? It’s a fairly common occurrence for mi amigo/my friend and I to see a Queer boy — according to our very reliable Gaydar — in a video on YT. Somewhere in the video the Queer boy mentions “my wife” (a female). Or, I’ll be researching the musical background of a musician I’m not that familiar with. My Gaydar tells me he’s Queer. Then down in the personal section of the information I’m reading about him there will be this: “[Gay guy's name] is married to [female's name] and they live in [name of city]. And in some cases it has the additional tag line, “with their son/daughter.” Yet another closeted gay guy married to a female with children.
It’s as common as peanut butter on bread for a gay guy to be married to a female. But why would a female want to be married to a gay guy in the first place?
Some females sense that their partner/husband is gay. Other females say, “I had no idea” when he comes out and wants a divorce. In some cases, the female is in denial. In other cases, it’s a “marriage of convenience” for some reason. In other instances, it’s a matter of a Queer boy being ashamed of his gay sexuality and he’s in the closet. Often his family is prejudiced/bigoted and sadly he stays in the closet “for the family,” which tells me that he feels that his family’s bigoted/prejudiced life is more important than his own life, which speaks to self-worth issues (a lack of self-worth).
My straight neighbour told me that from his experience with women that “on their own time, females operate solely on emotion,” which might explain why they marry gay guys while not being able to see that the guy is gay.
As for the reverse, why do gay guys marry females? I think the answer to that is pretty clear: It’s to try to disguise/hide the fact that he’s gay due to the guy’s gay shame as I’ve written about many times.
And nearly every day in watching online videos, mi amigo/my friend and I see guys who our Gaydar tells us “he’s a Queer boy” even by some of the guy’s mannerisms, yet he’s wearing a wedding ring on the 4th finger of the left hand. From my research, that’s where breeders wear their wedding rings, whereas Queers wear their wedding rings on the 4th finger of the right hand. I’m not sure if that’s the universally accepted “rule.” I suppose there may be some exceptions to that.
I can’t exactly describe the feeling that comes over me the moment I see a Queer boy with a wedding ring on the left hand 4th finger and/or with a wife other than that of resigned sadness, I guess you could call it. I think to myself: Either he’s trying to emulate the breeders, or, after all this time, it’s yet another Queer boy here in 2018 married to a female trying to reject his Queer sexuality. If it’s the latter, it’s a shame really and there are millions more just like him. Chau.—el barrio rosa
Hola a todos. Years ago there was a programme on the corporate media called “Starting Over” produced by Bunim-Murray Productions. It was an excellent programme — very emotionally intense at times due to the nature of the programme — for helping women improve/change their lives to some degree. I missed the first season based in Chicago. For the second season, the Starting Over House was moved to the Hollywood Hills where production rented a beautiful house with a view of the Los Ángeles Basin and downtown. I partly watched SO for the scenery, views and the music they used, including the theme music which was quite nice/tasteful. It was for that season that production brought in a new life coach, Iyanla Vanzant, for the women living in the house. I enjoyed Iyanla very much and looked forward to her segments. She had a down-home jive personality, and one never knew what Iyanla was going to say. She was usually diplomatic but sometimes could be blunt, which was needed at the time. Well, in coaching some of the women assigned to her, she brought up that some of them did not dress “age appropriate.” It’s one thing I disagreed with Iyanla on, because the bottom line was that the conservative “age appropriate” way of thinking makes a woman (or a guy) look more conservative in their dress. The same goes for those make-overs I’ve seen on some corporate media shows when I was watching television. There was never a make-over where a female or a guy turned out more “rad” looking. Never. Ever. That did not happen. A make-over always “dressed them up” and with a very different (conservative) hairstyle. If anything, the person started out “rad”/casual-looking and ended up looking conservative and rather formal. Each time I saw someone’s make-over — including in the SO House before each woman’s graduation from the house — I said to my television (while those on television were gushing over the person’s new look): S/he just looks much more conservative, that’s all. Even females that didn’t wear much or any makeup before their make-over ended up wearing lots of makeup after the make-over. Yes, let’s indoctrinate them with the cosmetics’ industry.
I’m sure some readers have heard some people say, “Should you be wearing that at your age?” I would respond: And why the hell not? What’s it to you? Nothing else going on in your pathetic life than to be concerned about what I’m wearing? Fuck off. You see, I’m of the opinion one should wear what one wants to wear regardless of one’s age. What busy-body, self-appointed authority clothing nazi dreamed up arbitrary “age appropriate” categories? So for example, if you past 30 (or 40) you must look a certain (conformist) way to “fit in” with our conformist society. That’s the mentality. You should wear nothing rad(ical)-looking. Just black, grey and/or white. Well what about if you’re not quite 30? Let’s say you’re 29. Does that gives you a year to be “radical” until you turn 30 according to these arbitrary “age appropriate” age groups? See how silly this shit is? And what about if you don’t look your age as some people don’t? Or, if you’re past 60 you must conform and “look like a senior citizen” (whatever that means) by the clothes you wear and your hair style. Does that mean that a senior citizen should not look like superb classical violinist Nigel Kennedy for example? (Nigel is 62 — he was born in 1956 — as of this writing and he looks superbly “rad” by comparison). But instead, if one is a “senior” one must look like, oh, Jed Clampett, for example, or Granny from The Beverly Hillbillies? Nonsense. Fuck off. I say wear what you goddamn want to wear! Look the way you want to look regardless of your age. Who appointed these conformist conservative idiots as clothing nazis? I won’t have it!
As I’m writing this, I glanced out my window and saw drab Millennials walking by. They always look the same as if they were poured out of a mold in some factory. He was in a black sweater and grey jeans. Anorexic-looking her was in a grey sweater and black jeans. Obviously, they absolutely adore beautiful colours. One wonders whose funeral were they headed to? The third person with them was in tan colours and carrying a tan and orange coat. At least there was some colour with one of them. Chau.—el barrio rosa
Hola a todos. Mi amigo/My friend is interested in buying some new shoes. He was looking online at a local store’s inventory to buy them there. He saw some shoes he liked in a pretty red brick colour with a safety reflective strip all around the shoe so he could easily be seen by motorists and cyclists. But turns out they’re only for females. Guys must buy either black, grey or brown with no reflective strip all around the shoe, only in the back. Guys don’t need to be concerned about their safety on the streets? And what a wonderful colour selection with black, grey or brown. He was rather incensed about this where guys are limited to three drab, dull colours. I told him that when I was monitoring The Q (the major television shopping network) that I heard this bull shit all the time and it annoyed me too. On The Q, they sell clothing/shoes for females, but occasionally sell items for men and women, such as a major league corporate logo sports jacket. The programme host would rattle off this list of colours that an item came in. Then she (it was usually one of the female hosts) would say, “And we have black for the guys.” Black for the guys? Do you mean to be sexist? Suppose a guy doesn’t want black? Why can’t the guys decide what colour they want for themselves rather than the sexist retail industry dictating what guys will buy/wear? With The Q, this was also the case even if the item was not something to wear. Suppose a guy wants the item in pink, orange or yellow? Apparently, the retail industry has this extremely outdated mentality that colours are for a certain gender or have a gender. That’s news to me. Colours are either feminine or masculine, and all colours except black, grey or brown are considered feminine and are only to be worn by females in some sexist way of thinking? Ludicrous thinking.
I’ve seen this nonsense repeatedly myself when looking at guy’s clothing online. Some male shoppers have left comments saying, “Really like this [fill in name of clothing item] but wish you had more colours.” Well, the reason they don’t have more colours is that because you, as a guy, aren’t supposed to like colour. To be a “real man,” “macho,” and “masculine” you’re supposed to be into two or three drab colours (black, grey or brown) and that’s it. The only pretty colour men are allowed to like is blood red, which represents violence (think the US flag). Yet another example of the fucked-up society we live in.
I learned from watching The Q how fucked-up the retail mentality is. And so very prudish at times. It was quite a learning experience for me. Some of it I already knew, but it was as if their audience consisted of conservatives afraid of seeing the human body. The host would say, “Girls, this top gives full coverage” and “Ladies, this covers the tush.” Too often they were selling mostly drab, dull, pastel colours on their dreary-looking mortuary-grey and white studio sets. “The tush?” Who still says that? And this stuff about “this item gives full coverage.” They meant it covered the ass. They could talk about certain female body parts, and their cameras did their best to show them (clothed of course) such as keeping the camera on the model’s boobs, vagina area in tight pants or on her butt, oh excuse me, I meant to say “tush.” (roll eyes) But they wouldn’t dream of doing the same with any guys, if they had any guy models (which they didn’t), except on the odd occasion where they had a couple of guy models for a hair care product. Yes, imagine the hypocrisy if they sold clothing for guys, and had guy models modeling pants/jeans, for example. They would keep their cameras so far back from him so that the viewer wouldn’t “see anything.” Or, the only closeups would be of the guy’s “tush.” The moment he turned around to face the cameras, those cameras would pull away quickly. I have no doubt that would be the case. There’s such a double standard.
But if you’re a guy, expect to see mostly black, grey or brown as your drab colour options, no matter what you’re interested in buying. Chau.—el barrio rosa
Is all that above enough hype for you? I did my best to emulate the trashy corporate media — including the misspelling of Meghan’s name in the title — and thought I’d bring this pressing noticias/news to your attention. This is breath-taking stuff I’m about to report:
Are you seated before you read this? You won’t believe what I read today. Now get this. This is hot stuff. Juicy stuff. I’m just besides myself: Do you know what I read? Well, I read that Meghan Markle is whipping Prince Harry into shape! Yes! It’s true. It seems that the “lovebirds” will tie the knot in May 2018. To begin with, I can’t stand that language. What the fuck is this “knot” that they’re talking about? I would hate to be in a relationship that’s thought of as a “knot.” Where do the sheeple get this nonsense they regurgitate on cue without any thought? And it sounds like they won’t be wasting any time starting a family to start fucking, not that they haven’t already fucked probably hundreds of times by now. A white dress and all, what a joke! Now get this: Meghan has convinced Harry to stop smoking and to cut down on his alcohol consumption so that he can be the healthiest father he can be for their upcoming breeding festival. I didn’t know that Harry or The Aristocracy (Dahling) smoked. How “last year.” That was a bit surprising to read. Not concerned about throat or lung cancer? I didn’t know that any of them smoked. And I take it they haven’t read my article about The British Royal Baby Factory. Why do they have to breed at all? Why can’t they adopt and set a precedent/an example for thousands of other people? The world is already overpopulated. There’s no need to pump out more babies, “Royal” or otherwise. Every second of the day babies are born. Yet some people are still amazed by it for some reason. Humans can out-birth even mosquitoes these days. It’s nothing uncommon. Pregnancies and birthing are as common as rain, or the lack thereof.
Sigh. Every time I get out of Yah** e-mail and am thrown to their tabloid-”news” page, I keep wondering if Yah** is now owned by the British Royal Family because Yah** is absolutely obsessed/addicted with Kate Middleton who is constantly “wowing” and “stunning” in the latest frock/dress she’s put on. Then there’s gods Meghan and Harry that they’re obsessed with. I’m surprised Yah** doesn’t provide us with the latest bowel movement schedule for these people. Or do these “perfect people” have bowel movements? I mean, they’re super-human to hear Yah**’s writers constantly gushing over them, so perhaps not. The only positive thing about this is that Kate is getting a little bit less attention due to their gushing over Meghan and her latest hairstyle and how it broke royal tradition. Who the fuck cares?! Nothing else of importance going on in these shallow people’s world at Yah**, I guess. And then they keep writing this “fake-news” drivel with such authority that the Queen as temporal head of the CofE won’t be at the wedding because of the Church of England’s/Anglican Church’s view on marriage and divorced people (which applies to Meghan). Of course the Queen will be there, but who gives a fuck if she’s not? Chau.—el barrio rosa
Now on to my original article:
Why Don’t William, Kate, and Harry Adopt ?
Hola a todos. Considering the state of el mundo/the world today, only a complete idiot and/or someone in denial would bring a child into this insane world.
Yet she’s pregnant again. For the third time as of this writing. I wrote this article (but didn’t post it) sometime after Kate’s second child, Charlotte, was born because it seemed at the time that the British Royal Baby FactoryTM had suspended operations — with no plans to pump out any more babies — and that specifically the William and Kate Baby FactoryTM had been shut down, perhaps permanently, or at least temporarily. I thought maybe these perfect people discovered birth control, no?
Harry (William’s brother) calls Kate’s third pregnancy “fantastic news,” (why is that fantastic news, or is that just something to say?) although he said he hasn’t seen her in awhile, even though to my knowledge they all (except the Queen) live in the same place, Kensington Palace.
I read yesterday: “Kate Middleton and Sister Pippa Have Reportedly Made a Royal Pregnancy Pact. Could there be more than one royal baby on the way? It’s being reported that Kate Middleton and her younger sister, Pippa, want to be pregnant together.”
Oh good lord. Can this get any more ridiculous? To begin with, Pippa is not part of the Royal Family. Her sister is. So there cannot be more than one royal baby on the way. This reminds me of las chicas and their copy-cat pregnancies here in The Baby Factory known as San Francisco today.
Nearly every time I log out of e-mail, on the “news” page there is some gushing and adoring headline about the two perfect people in el mundo/the world: William and Kate, and most recently Harry and his chica, which that site is waiting with bated breath for his marriage proposal to what’s-her-name. It’s as if the writers of these articles wish The Cesspool/the US were under the British Crown. (Now granted, “God Save Our Gracious Queen,” is a far better and more dignified national anthem than that god-awful thing we have which glorifies war and ugly nationalism.) These three — that would be four with Harry’s chica — are the perfect people in the minds of the people writing these gushing headlines/articles about them. These four can do no wrong!
One headline I saw awhile back was about William talking about running a marathon and how “Kate gave the perfect response.” Well what other kind of response would one expect from a perfect person? (roll eyes).
There have been headlines about Kate’s perfect dress and how she “wow’ed” and “looked stunning.” Isn’t that wonderful. Certainly made my day.
There was a headline that read: “How Kate Middleton subtly switches up her look.” That’s important? Nothing of substance going in anyone’s life of the people who write this shallow crap?
Then there’s these important tidbits:
“Kate Middleton says Princess Charlotte is the boss of the Royal family.”
“The one change Prince William and Kate Middleton Made to Their Wedding Vows”
“Why Kate Middleton And The Royal Family Don’t Say ‘Toilet’ Or ‘Pardon’”
Fascinating, isn’t it? (roll eyes)
This is part of the reason why I can’t stand shallow and superficial US pop culture which seems to worship and adore the British Royal Family.
But it’s not just the British Royal Family, one senses that there are some in the US who want the Obamas to be our Royal Family. There was this headline: “Malia Obama Wore the PERFECT ’90s Minidress for College Move-In Day.”
Really? Does anyone care what dress she wore to move into her Ivy-league, status-symbol school for the super-wealthy.
Is “perfect” the only word that the idiots that write this basura know? They’ve never heard of a thesaurus? Search engine: “thesaurus” It’s free online. Use it.
Since we are led to believe that the Royals are perfect human being in every way and nothing is ever “out of place,” one would think they would make perfect decisions, no? Well, when William and Kate got married, I got the distinct impression from what they said that la mujer/the woman was going to be or desired to be a Baby Factory. It seems that William and Kate want at least 4 children. They already have 2 children and Kate had trouble with the first two pregnancies. Knowing that she had trouble with the first two pregnancies, I think an intelligent and allegedly-perfect person would question whether it wise to have more children, no? From what I had read last year, “they [William and Kate] hoped to be pregnant” by the holidays 2016. Obviously that didn’t happen. But another source said she was already 6 months pregnant and that was sometime ago. That wasn’t true either. I also read that the Queen allegedly doesn’t want another royal baby. Apparently they don’t care what she thinks since one is in the oven.
Of course William and Kate have been “overjoyed” by the news of the first two children. They will be “overjoyed” for all future babies that they pump out. Then comes the perfunctory “congratulations” lavished on them. I know “congratulations” is what is traditionally said by the sheeple to someone who is having a baby, but I don’t know why. Women have babies every day. Mosquitoes can breed. What’s the big deal about getting pregnant? It happens all the time, and in many cases it becomes something to regret, including the expen$e. What’s so special about these two? Oh I know they’re considered “celebrities,” and some sites follow their every move and write, “Kate Middleton wows in dress with sexy slit.” Women wear dresses with sexy slits in them somewhere all the time. A dress that some woman is wearing with a sexy slit is worthy of mention? I would like to say to the writers of these articles: Nothing else going on in your pathetic life, is it?! Why don’t guys start wearing jeans with sexy slits so we can read, “Prince William of the House of Windsor wows in jeans with sexy slit.” I just don’t get into this ridiculous US Celebrity “Culture” Worship. It’s so shallow and superficial.
If William and Kate want a brood of children (is that their goal?), they could adopt as many children as they want. Oh no, not that! Someone will scream: They can’t adopt because it would break “the blood line” of the Royal Family. Oh por favor! The “bloodline” of the Royal Family was broken centuries ago. So why is the “bloodline” important? It seems to me that adopting a child is no different than when Diana Spencer or Kate Middleton were “adopted” into the Royal Family. And isn’t this idea of a “bloodline” rather outdated?
There are many wonderful and loving children out there waiting to be adopted and who would love to be in a stable loving home. One can love an adopted child just as much as if the child were part of one’s own DNA. So if Kate hasn’t already gotten pregnant again, (scratch that) Maybe they will consider adopting in the future — although I’m not holding my breath — to contribute to the busload of children they apparently want.
Harry has made it rather clear that he’s quite bored with this Royal Family stuff, but it’s required of him, so he does what he wants to do focusing more on various social issues. He’s a very laid-back, informal guy. More like his mother, Diana. I read that he said he would prefer to be a tour guide (I believe it was) in Africa than to do this Royal Family stent.
And adoption is a social issue they could all focus on and set an example for to help change society’s thinking regarding adoption. The general public may say, “Well William and Kate adopted, maybe we should too! If it’s good enough for the Royals…” So why don’t William, Kate, and Harry (and Kate’s sister, Pippa) set the example by adopting all future children that they want? Considering who they are, their enormous wealth and their connections, they could probably have several adopted children whenever they want, bypassing the 9-month misery period of pregnancy for each child. Something to consider, although I live under no illusion that this will ever happen. No, I suspect the breeding status-quo to continue. Chau.—el barrio rosa
In the article, I mentioned the British national anthem, “God Save The Queen.” Most arrangements of that are rather uninteresting, including the one by Sir Benjamin Britten. The one exception being the Sir David Willcocks’s arrangement he wrote for the Royal Wedding (Charles and Diana) which comes complete with a descant on the second verse for the trebles/choir boys. Here’s the performance of that from the wedding with St Paul’s Anglican Cathedral Choir, The British State Trumpeters and the cathedral’s Great Organ. It’s a glorious arrangement, although The Queen (to whom the anthem is sung) looks rather utterly bored here even though this was the first time she had heard this arrangement. Perhaps the woman has no ear for music? For those wondering why the Queen is not singing, the Queen does not sing to herself, since the anthem is to the Queen, the sovereign. Nor did the Queen Mother sing the national anthem. That should be self-explanatory. Enjoy: