She also mentioned she's been texting with JJ too.
slave: "What's he been saying?"
Mistress: "Oh you know 'are you ready to be fucked? ' stuff like that.
slave: "I think he misses you, Mistress.
Mistress: "I think he does".
But in the absence of any real action to discuss here (other than self abuse), let's consider the implications of an article that appeared in the Times over the weekend: "It's Not Just Mike Pence. Americans are Wary of Being Alone With the Opposite Sex". Recall that recent article, in which the new VP stated that he will not dine alone with a female staff member? There was a lot of tut tutting over the implicit discrimination in such a policy. Some suggested that it was an anachronistic quirk of some former radio talk show host who calls his wife "mother". But it turns out it is an attitude more widely shared than one might expect.
As the article reports, a recent poll shows that Americans have doubts about interactions between a married person and a member of the opposite sex, whether or not at work. And the surprise is that women are more more suspect of such interactions as men.
When it comes to having a drink with a member of the opposite sex not your spouse, 60% of the ladies think it's inappropriate. 48% of men think it's inappropriate.
What about lunch with someone not your spouse, including a work colleague? 44% of women say "no". And 36% of men take the Mike Pence position of never dining alone with a member of the opposite sex. (If they asked the question, "Is it appropriate to provide oral sexual pleasure to your female boss", they did not report the results).
Some argue that this disinclination to socialize with work colleagues is necessary to avoid false allegations of sexual harassment. The article quotes men who fear even meeting with a female colleague privately unless in a glass walled conference room, or with the door open. (A rule that Roger Ailes clearly did not follow!) On the other hand, working women can fairly argue that such policies inherently discriminate against them, by eliminating opportunities for the types of interactions with their bosses that men in the workplace enjoy.
But there's a solution!
If more men wore cock cages to work, then the risk that an innocent business lunch, dinner, or one-on-one conference would deteriorate into a sexual interaction on would be eliminated!
And being able to demonstrate that you were caged at work would automatically become an "affirmative defense" for a boss falsely accused of sexual harassment. Example: If Bill O'Reilly had documentary evidence that he always left the house in a cock cage, no one would believe the stories about him inviting blonde female correspondents to his hotel room. He'd probably still be bloviating nightly on Fox News. What a loss!There would not be a cloud hanging over Justice Clarence Thomas if he had been able to demonstrate that he was caged when he described that pubic hair on the coke can to Anita Hill in his office at the EEOC.
And if "mother" snapped a photo of Mike Pence in his cage every morning before he leaves for his office in the West Wing, he'd feel more comfortable lunching privately with his female staffers (if he has any). Or even Kelly Ann Conway!
As the policy of men wearing cages to work gains more popularity, it would encourage entrepreneurs to design and manufacture new and improved cock cage designs. Comfort would likely improve for folks like Terri and me. And prices would go down! It's the American way!
Of course, it would't be fair to limit this remedy to inherent sexual discrimination in the workplace to male supervisors, would it? Should lady bosses be required to wear a shield that would prevent them from demanding sexual favors from their male subordinates?
Let's not get carried away.
