I sometimes wonder how things are going for those who were put into the union with me called Look At All Those Women Having Babies. I truly don't mind if a man forms a union with another one out of protest for any number of things which women might choose to do, such as treating their feeders as decorative.
I do not believe in frugalness to the degree of making a request that can only be made with the justification of saving a bit of money for that which I add to my coffee or have with my breakfast cereal (some of us just don't know how to ask for something without preparing for an argument).
Which is to say I enjoy steak, for example; but I don't think the ownership of sticks and balls is a prerequisite to the enjoyment of beef.
Some people's double entendre is so slip-shod and down at heel that they will use the word udder to refer to a pair of udders. Laughter ensuing by everyone but the ones who know that this is not double entendre, an explanation then follows, which involves people holding onto other people's udders and asking you if you wouldn't like to do the same (without reference to sexual harrassment laws, naturally).
Naturally if one suggests that the people with such appendages don't know tits from feeders, one will receive disciplinary action. While the means of your comfortable life is at stake, and during the farce of an interview, there will nonetheless be talk about disciplinary action with reference to the behaviour of married couples.
By abusing the status of marriage some people will demand that a man is attracted to a pair of feeders because they're the toys he can't buy; which he must admit, or else!
Old soldiers believe in the equality of men, first and foremost. Don't talk to me about your brave husband: I don't want to see your gwat or his sweaty balls. 'Don't hit girls' is past its prime; i.e. just try to fucking provoke me.