Now You’re Talking Double Team
I was sitting in my favorite chair yesterday evening drinking a glass of Black Label and ruminating on the myths in our society. One struck me as being especially ridiculous.
Marriage.
‘Marriage,’ I scoffed — or at least I’m sure that I did. And any man will do exactly the same if he’s not afraid of having his balls ripped off by someone who has just finished a grueling 20 hour work week. I’m talking about women. Millionaires aren’t in the habbit of ripping balls off when people say the most obvious goddamn thing in the world.
Women do not age discriminate when it comes to their precious 20 hour work weeks either. After all, what does a 40 year old woman need with more “me time” than a 20 year old. It’s not like she’s done anything more with her life than nothing. It’s not like she needs time to think about anything. It’s like giving baseball players with odd numbers more strikes than the ones with evens. You have an 11? You get six strikes. It makes no fucking sense and it would be exactly the way baseball was played if women were in charge.
Women have no sense of hierarchy. They don’t have to work their way up the benefits ladder as we men do. As soon as women are mobile, they’re looking for somewhere to sit down — or lay down. Because they’re whores.
Back to marriage.
Marriage is a waste of money and a ticket to unhappiness and No Sex Town. Here’s another reason why.
No one woman can ever possibly fully please a man. None. Not one. Ever.
In the immortally misquoted words of the Queen of Swine herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton, “It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it takes a village to keep a husband.”
Women just aren’t up to the three-fold tasks of pleasing a man, intellectually stimulating a man, and giving a man the precious emotional support that he doesn’t need at all and which I just said as a joke.
A classic joke.
Women can’t even do one of those three. Look at the smartest woman on Earth. What’s her name? The girl with the advice column. Dear Abbey? She’s a genius and her column is so boring that I can barely remember who she is and I also don’t read it. And how about pleasing a man? Forget about it. That’s a two woman job at minimum.
You know I’m right too. Last time you were having sex, who were you thinking about?
Exactly. That was practically two women at the same time. And that’s a thousand damn Man Points.
As far as I’m concerned bigamy is the only way to go. Yes, it’s “illegal”. Yes, it’s “frowned upon”. But reread your history books and you’ll be in for a surprise. The men of the past found ways around that shit. I think it’s high time we turn back the clocks.
The sex clocks.
Related Articles:
June 14th, 2007 at 9:55 am - IP Man-Hash: c46011aeb3b2a
Even though that’s intended as a flip and disrespectful remark, there’s a lot of truth behind it. Women have very little power in politics. Yeah, there are a few in notable offices, but I have no doubt they paid their dues on their knees. For the most part, that’s how the game works and it’s NOT going to change no matter how much anyone wants it to. Idealism has no place in politics.
As for four prominent women politicians (Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Pelosi), I personally think these horrible bitches would be more effective if they spent more time practicing their fellating skills. If that’s the best the Democrats can do, it’s no wonder they’re gutless and no one respects them any longer. (In case you’re wondering, I’m a gun-owning, radical left-winger.)
June 14th, 2007 at 10:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
@ Alex - I’m not in the US, so I doubt there is much interest for you here. I live in a third-world country, and a small one at that. Everyone knows everyone else, so everything you’ve ever done since birth is in everyone’s memory. Such is political life in a nation with a population less than 100k.
@ Dick - Once again your comments are putting my job in jeopardy. These sudden violent outbursts of laughter are not very becoming at the office.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 926a1904cecf2
That sentence wasn’t redundant wasn’t redundant.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:46 am - IP Man-Hash: c46011aeb3b2a
Diamatik, this might interest you. Nick Hornby, the author of “High Fidelity”, reads his short story “Small Country”.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=295
June 15th, 2007 at 1:37 am - IP Man-Hash: 8a19e3bee3d89
Thanks but my unanswered question was to Dick, specifically asking how nuns can be whores.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:51 am - IP Man-Hash: ff4893678328d
Really, do we need to answer that question?
I will admit that was a bit over the top but my problem with whatever your saying is that … you only bother about freudian slips?
Every argument, every debate, you have lost. Dont deny it. You lose ALL your arguments, seen for yourself how the men just slice through your “verbal walls” then run and hide and refuse to admit defeat.
It is these kinda feminist attitudes, that which reeks of hypocrisy, which disgusts so many of us. Go get a life and stop hanging yourself under Dick’s crotch.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 8a19e3bee3d89
Yes, answer the question, why are you so worried about doing so? Perhaps because you realise that it is logically impossible for all women to be whores because nuns don’t fit the definition of what a whore is. I guess that means I win. Of course, everytime that happens, rather than admit that a woman has demonstrated superior logic, you men atttempt to convince me or another woman here that has shown superior logic, that we are in fact the stupid ones. It’s lame.
Your other tactic to avoid admitting a female has won a point or argument over a man is to change the topic and start talking about sex or making crass, abusive remarks to her. This may work to sidetrack or end the discussion if the female disappears and doesn’t respond, but it doesn’t change the fact that she has defeated you intellectually. And anyone following the thread, with a modicum of intelligence, will realise this. They will also clearly perceive your lame attempt to avoid acknowledging that she is your intellectual superior and that you got owned.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue what a Freudian slip is, because I didn’t use one, nor did I refer to one. Why don’t you give me a laugh and provide me with your definition of what one is.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:06 am - IP Man-Hash: e36376410e1aa
It was brought up in the forums that Female obsessively comments here because she enjoys the sexual gratification of being dominated by men — even if it’s only a domination of logic and argument.
It explains everything.
-Dick
June 15th, 2007 at 3:38 am - IP Man-Hash: 8a19e3bee3d89
lol, yeah. So, just as I make a comment that you men are in fact not intellectually owning me, you then say that the reason I am here is because I like the fact that I’m intellectually owned (even though I’m not). Nice attempt to provide a distraction for mansvoice but I am still interested to hear his definition of a Freudian slip.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am - IP Man-Hash: 82017df8ad3f0
Its my opinion that not all women are whores. That may be Dick’s opinion but it is certainly mine. I believe it to be a freudian slip because I believe it is exaggerated but Dick may have his own rationale in saying it.
We are intellectually owning you. Like a dog. Worst than a dog. Lets face the facts. In every argument say Wimbledon, Date Rape, Alimony etc, you have refused to admit you are wrong and here you are … being the perfect hypocrite by demanding that Dick and all men bow down to a “freudian slip”.. was that the key of the article? Was that the main point delivered? No, and no.
I am not afraid to admit when things cross the line. I believe there is date rape. I believe that there are women victimized in society but I also believe that men are superior. Its ambivalent but rational.
Likewise, since you clamor so much on “distraction”, why not point out why you fled from *ALL* the discussions you lost? Dont lie and point to crude and crass comments. Most of the debates you had were with men like Wolfe, Sonyad and Dakota(If I am not mistaken). Having lost them and all your points, you try to gun for freudian slips then run to the next topic. Again, whats your point in this freudian slip? To save your face?
I need not hide or cower behind Dick, the same reason you shouldnt hide behind fallacies and lies of feminism but you are a woman.. and then again, Men are better than women.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 am - IP Man-Hash: 82017df8ad3f0
typo: That may be Dick’s opinion *NOT* but it is certainly mine
June 15th, 2007 at 7:01 am - IP Man-Hash: a7a16be1327f0
Ok, typo corrected(pressed enter too quickly): That may be Dick’s opinion but it is *NOT* certainly mine
*My bad, loss of man points.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8a19e3bee3d89
Mansvoice, didn’t it tip you off that if I was so keen to hear your understanding of a Freudian slip, that you therefore should have looked it up? Why do you think that an exaggeration (obviously) makes it a Freudian slilp?
No actually, you and the others here are not intellectually owning me. You may think you are, but that is because it amuses me to see you all think you are so great when you think you have morally and intellectually defeated a woman’s argument.
I should admit that there is something I didn’t know. I wasn’t aware that people routinely engaged in argumentative debates with their dogs, but then again, I’m all for equal rights and I wouldn’t try and stop anyone from debating their views with who or whatever they see fit.
Well hon, maybe that is because I don’t believe I was wrong. It doesn’t matter to me whether people perceive me to have lost just because I fail to make a point or leave a discussion, for I know why I say what I say and do what I do.
In most cases, when I realise that smacking my head against the wall would proivde more pleasure than trying to make people here perceive another point of view, I discontinue the discusssion. I am not obligated to provide this information when I leave and in any case, you can and will interpret a non-response in whichever way you please to suit your own view of me.
June 15th, 2007 at 3:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 926a1904cecf2
June 16th, 2007 at 3:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 2638dc0e6430a
Exactly!
June 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am - IP Man-Hash: 9604615ec560b
[blockquote
Instead of diving head on into the argument by proving your points against those that I have mentioned, you sought to go on a lengthy cowardly rant which in turn … proves nothing. way to go to prove that you are a feminist bitch.
no go smack your head against the wall then instead of acting all high and mighty and posting repeatedly to get the last word, bitch.
November 16th, 2007 at 11:41 am - IP Man-Hash: d4e8a55fada4e
If you support this, than why are you so annoyed by the fact that women are whores? It just proves the thing goes both ways I guess. And it touches the area with women are considered whores, while for men it’s ok to have more than a girl.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: e0f131a688f70
Marriage is not saying the other person must fulfill all the needs of the other. It is merely a formal contract, a foundation to build a family on, a societal mechanism that evolved as a measure of stability and longevity for a monogamous relationship. It is more of a business deal with the incentives being laid out in economic and societal rewards with the criteria being love or whatever both parties feel is important
If you want to be fulfilled, it is true no woman or man can ever fulfill all your needs.
It just means you, yourself are lacking and must fulfill your own needs and desires. If there is a gap in your soul, it is up to you to try and fill it.
No one else has responsibility for yourself except yourself. It is not anyone else’s burden to make sure you are happy.
If you are unhappy, it is probably your fault.
Grow up.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9b7dd265381ab
Wall of text that means nothing. Leave it to women to type a huge wall of text with words looked up in thesaurus.reference.com just to drag out what they always say - which is nothing.
There is nothing in your huge wall of text that is even remotely interesting, besides the fact that it’s redundant as FUCK.
FFS, everyone knows nuns are whores. All of those faggots in there got a ton of issues. If nuns weren’t sucking the Pope’s cock 24/7, what’d stop him from rounding up the little boys?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: d653cff06dec4
Christiandom is a gaggle of beta male pedophiles enabling harlotry because all they want is the little boys from broken homes via feminism.
The Romans didn’t feed them to lions for fun.