Miracle Cure for ED
I heard about something called ED last night. Apparently that stands for Erectile Dysfunction and it’s a problem for some fabricated percentage of men.
It should be called SW not ED. That stands for Shitty Wife because if you have ED, there’s a 100% chance that you also have an SW or perhaps an ESW.
Performance problems have never been the man’s fault. Let me ask some man questions; if your house falls apart because the builder forgot to put nails in, whose fault is that? If you don’t know, there’s a bus full of lawyers somewhere willing to help you figure it out. If you go to a work related picnic and you remembered to bring the cups, but everyone else forgot to bring all the food whose fault is that? It’s not fucking yours. You did everything you were supposed to. You showed up with the stack of cups. Now people don’t have to drink out of their hands like fucking monkies.
ED is entirely women’s fault. I can prove it because there has never been a happily married man with ED.
That’s a trick man-question though isn’t it? There has never been a happily married man period so that doesn’t prove shit. Marriage is a stupid and silly thing and the man mind rejects it on general principle.
Women are the missing nails in a house that’s falling apart. Women are the lack of pastrami at an otherwise pleasant work related picnic. In the bedroom, women are the problem.
With that in mind, I’ve developed a miracle cure for Erectile Dysfunction. I call it:
Cheat On Your Wife or Girlfriend: Dick’s Miracle Cure for Erectile Dysfunction
If something inside your man-gut tells you that’s wrong, it’s merely your mighty man-conscious trying to fix something that’s broken in the world by fixing it in you. That’s how men do it. We lead by example. Fuck everything and everyone else. Have you ever heard of Ghandi? No woman can even understand what he did.
The truth is there’s no such thing as Cheating. It’s not a vice. It’s a natural thing. In fact it’s Father Nature’s way of telling you you have the debilitating syndrome of SW — a Shitty Wife.
If you’ve got SW, it’s because your wife is cheating on you anyway. All women are cheating whores and she’s no exception. She might not be cheating on you with another guy, but she’s probably cheating on you with her career; or she’s cheating on you with her stupid friends who hate the fuck out of her; or she’s cheating on you with her precious fucking television shows and gabbing on the phone with her mother for two hours a night. Whatever it is, it’s fucked.
Women aren’t courageous enough or smart enough (or at all) to go against their inner nature — which is a sorry, passive, and animalistic one. Men are. That’s why we see cheating in all these different forms as bad.
It’s the Miracle Cure for ED though. I put a 30-Day Guarantee on that motherfucker.
Related Articles:
July 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 160e0041dcad8
I fully support a man embracing his inner caveman and smacking a hooter’s waitress on the ass when she’s fetching him his charred animal flesh and ale.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 5fd634f6ed1ed
What are you living in, the 50s? :P
July 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 160e0041dcad8
No.. I just respect a woman choosing to be paid for her to be a sex object.
Isn’t that the dream and goal of every woman? To be sexually attractive to as many men as possible and recognized for it?
Women may say they are not sex objects.. but their actions and clothes speak otherwise.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 369bfee4084ad
Well that right there is the difficult part to explain. I’ve struggled with it myself quite a lot, and I think it’s largely an individual thing. I think it’s basically to be able to accept yourself as you really are, completely. Not just the politically correct parts.
It’s very subjective, and I can only speak from my own experience, but because of some experiences I had growing up, combined with growing up in a feminist society, I tried to completely deny my feminine side. I avoided makeup, wore men’s shoes except when I absolutely had to wear a dress, had no use for flowers, did no decorating in my home, etc. When I was finally able to get past that block, it was only the beginning. I had to learn who I was. And I happen to be very feminine. I haven’t really changed much – I still don’t wear makeup, have no use for flowers, and do not decorate. I guess maybe it’s in how I present myself.
Obviously, I’m still outspoken, and in fact I’m far more assertive now than I ever was. It’s really very difficult to explain, Alex. I don’t know if that helped at all.
@Necroswordsman: I don’t think any of us are 100% masculine or 100% feminine. If your friend has acknowledged his feminine side, that’s great. The problem would be if he denied his masculine side.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
What a wonderful cause indeed.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm - IP Man-Hash: 314451d258558
To be fair, I think that pressures as far as appearing feminine are concerned are slightly different for younger generations, Kelly. Although feminism is still an influence, I think that influence is less clear now than it used to be. Now there seems to be more of a pull towards this raunch culture as an expression of female liberation and sexual freedom.
Now I see a lot more women (as evileddy observed) dressing themselves like sexual objects and see that as the ONLY epitome of femininity - which I think is misguided. It is one thing to be sexy, another to be slutty and to be honest very few women of Alex and my generation seem to understand that. I’m not saying that women should cover themselves from head to toe, but they don’t need to have boobs and bum hanging out at every item of clothing either.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3c8b05bf321cc
Earlier you said that Female was just that, a female, rather than a woman. If what a “woman” is is so subjective, and you have a great amount of trouble defining it yourself, how can you accuse her or anyone else of not earning the title “woman”?
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to demand that men and women live or act a certain way according to whatever is defined to be masculine or feminine. You claim that denying gender tendencies is unnatural, but what you speak of is unnatural: demanding that men and women act certain ways according to their gender. As you said, no one is 100% stereotypically masculine of feminine. People should be able to be true to who they are, not worry about to what extent their personality matches their genitals, and fight against any aspects that don’t. A man is no less of a man if he cries, a woman is no less of a woman if she’s assertive. I find it odd that you say you’ve become more assertive since embracing your femininity, since that is traditionally and stereotypically a male trait.
You say that one should be true to who they are, yet, you look down on those women who are “female” rather than “women”. If what it means to be a woman is subjective and hard to define, how can you make such judgements? How do you know if Female is denying her feminine traits? She may very well just naturally have some male traits, as most women do. And if you do indeed have an objective standard, how can you believe people should be true to who they are, and yet condemn them for it at the same time if who they truly are does not match this standard?
July 13th, 2007 at 4:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: d24dd61108133
I guess what I’m saying is that just having female sex organs does not make a person a woman, any more than giving birth makes a woman a mother.
I never demanded anyone live in any certain way, according to their gender. I was implying that our genders cause us to act in a certain way, because we have evolved to act in that way. It’s in our genetics. We can no more control it than we can control the color of our eyes.
I know that Female is denying her natural traits, and that they are probably her feminine traits given our culture, because she is so full of loathing for at least half of the human race. Surely you’re not saying that’s a natural state? It’s a learned response. By its very definition, a learned response is not a natural response.
I stressed that I had become more assertive by way of illustrating that who we are is who we are, stereotypes really having nothing to do with it. It’s just that our culture teaches us to deny those parts of ourselves that are stereotypical. And so, I don’t see women like Female as true women, any more than I see men denying their stereotypical masculine side as being true men. They are not being true to themselves.
It isn’t that they don’t have the potential, but they are actively denying it. Just as when I was all caught up in the feminist lie, I was not a true woman.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3c8b05bf321cc
“I never demanded anyone live in any certain way, according to their gender. I was implying that our genders cause us to act in a certain way, because we have evolved to act in that way. It’s in our genetics. We can no more control it than we can control the color of our eyes.”
So one who does not act in this supposed predisposed way is not a true “man” or “woman”? That’s what I inferred from previous comments.
“I know that Female is denying her natural traits, and that they are probably her feminine traits given our culture, because she is so full of loathing for at least half of the human race.”
I don’t believe that Female hates men. One who does hate the opposite gender would be denying natural tendencies, I suppose, and if a person hates the opposite gender it’s usually fairly obvious, but what if one doesn’t hate the opposite gender? How can you tell whether the traits a person displays are a denial of who they are? Again, if a man cries, how can you tell whether he’s “denying his masculinity” or displaying a more feminine side he truly has? By your definition of what a real man or woman is, you can not make such a judgement because you can not discern whether people’s behavior is genuine or due to a learned response in contradiction to their nature.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
I find this discussion quite interesting, even if it is conducted by a bunch of female human beings, some women.
So I beg for a little tolerance from those here and from Dick for this terms of service violation.
I don’t think that Female hates men, per se, but I do believe she frequently acts in a way on the net that could lead reasonable people to that conclusion.
Kellymac talks about “It’s in our genetics. We can no more control it than we can control the color of our eyes.””
I have spoken repeatedly about the differences between men and women. I believe them to be ‘bred in the bone’. This is much the same thing.
I also find the concept of distinguishing between males and men (and females and women) a useful one, personally.
Kellymac talks about things like makeup and things that are feminine. Personally, that’s not remotely how I distinguish between females/women or males/men.
Nothing effeminate with crying at a movie (unless you do it more than once in your life or where people can see you) or masculine about killing deer and eating raw venison.
But the idea of adult behaviors is useful.
-wolfe
July 13th, 2007 at 11:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: e36376410e1aa
Why don’t you infer a “fuck off” and then actually fuck off. No women allowed.
-Dick
July 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: b6f97ac8a94a7
Bullshit.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:32 am - IP Man-Hash: 3e4fe6a7e6d7d
KellyMac, I know you think you are always right, but I can assure you, you have no idea. I love men. Men roXORZ!!1!!!
I don’t like misogynists or women that dislike other women. Women that have no female friends have a deep problem with trust - with their mothers, themselves and their own gender.
July 14th, 2007 at 1:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 3e4fe6a7e6d7d
btw, this site brings out my inner child hahahaha
July 14th, 2007 at 1:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 3e4fe6a7e6d7d
I think that’s a real shame, for flowers are beautiful and are to be appreciated for their smell, colour and structure, make up is amazing (though it does clog the pores) and art and furnishings are one of life’s finer pleasures, they take the rough edges off life.
http://www.flg.com.au/Images/Artists_large/ArtistsLArge06/Sparks_View- to-Paradise3.jpg
July 14th, 2007 at 2:14 am - IP Man-Hash: 3e4fe6a7e6d7d
Okay, now that I’ve made the time to actually read the last ten or so posts, I think this discussion is a confusion of what is an inherent trait based on personality disposition vs what is a social construct. Femininity and masculinity are social constructs. Personality dispositions, such as assertiveness etc are a combination of the influence of nature and nurture. Not every man is as masculine as Conan the Barbarian and not every women is demure and softly spoken, that however, does not mean that if someone is not like that, that they are denying what you assume are inborn traits.
A few hundred years ago in Victorian England, the upper class of men were considered the gentility. The mannerisms they would have displayed would have been exaggerated, theatrical and with flourish. That was the masculinity of that era. Today the same mannerisms would be considered effiminate, and the man’s masculinity would be called into question, you might even question whether the person was heterosexual or not. Would you then still consider the person to be denying their assumed inborn traits if they behaved this way, because I would go the other way and say they are expressing exactly who they are.
And that is the wonderful thing about the world today, you can express exactly who you are because we are now more informed, and able to accept greater differences. We no longer have to conform to one or only a few ways of expressing our genders our ourselves. I therefore think, KellyMac, that your pigeonholing of what is or what isn’t femininity shows a somewhat limited view of humanity in general.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:52 am - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
That’s your opinion, and I see no evidence for it. It’s a popular opinion amongst some academics, but then so was (and is) Marxism.
But that, especially the former, is manifestly is not an innate nature pertaining to either gender. You might well be right to say that is a learned behavior for many (except perhaps the shy), but to conflate that with femininity and then declare the result a social construct is to engage in circular reasoning of the simplest kind.
Queen Victoria ruled from 1837 to 1901. You can do the math.
The example that you cite, of upper-class men engaging in theatrical, exaggerated flourishing behavior was engaged in by fops. You can look it up. It was not regarded as highly masculine behavior.
No, you can’t. No, we aren’t. No, we’re not.
Consider an extremely promiscuous (hetero or homo, male or female, doesn’t matter) rock star who moves to a small evangelical community. He or she will not be welcomed with open arms, particularly if previous reputed behaviors continue.
Consider a well-spoken, intelligent and persuasive Republican at any American (or Australian) sociological conference. Again. No welcoming with open arms.
-wolfe
July 14th, 2007 at 4:38 am - IP Man-Hash: c406e944e31e4
Wolfe, you may well be right. I don’t have the energy to think or argue today, k?
July 14th, 2007 at 4:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 26bb6f4e29583
That’s one of the less graceful ways to admit defeat. You almost - almost had a good parting line (for a girl.) Nonetheless, I know social skills are lost on all girls, and even some women. Just look at some of the posts here - talking about their sex life and all just to look in. Sorry, having a vagina does not elevate you above everyone else here. You can enjoy your slow descent into melancholy insanity elsewhere.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 26bb6f4e29583
In quite graphic detail, might I add.