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:
February 15th, 2006 at 7:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Excuse me, but I need to amerliorate an untruth here. Environmental factors play a predominant part in sociopathic behaviour. They definately have not yet mapped a gene for it.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:35 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Just because I do not respect you oldone, does not mean I do not respect other men. I simply prefer to be realistic and respect those who respect me, and frankly, neither your, nor Grump with her jabberwocky or whatever comment, deserve my respect.
Ever heard of situational awareness? I know she is a female, I also understand, as apparently you don’t, that this is a website for men and she has adopted their position against women. Who knows why. Quite sad really. She could spend her time far better by either attacking their overbroad generalizations or by joining an anti-feminist movement. That is, if she truly believed in what she apparently pupports to by the stance she is taking here.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
lol@female
I have never talked like a man. I have talked like myself. Sweet cheeks, I have had the radiance of good ‘manly’ influences to strike aside any previously foolish ideologies that I once held onto.
Jess’s post was ignorant spittle, yakking for the sake of yakking- sort of like most of yours.
You, jabbermonkey, you. *squeezes your chubby cheeks*
February 15th, 2006 at 7:50 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
“I simply prefer to be realistic and respect those who respect me”
Respect does not necessarily have to be mutual. I may respect a great scientist, even if he does not respect me and vice versa.
If respect were always mutual, then nobody would respect anybody. It all has to start somewhere, but typically for you - you don’t take the high road, you wallow in the mud with the rest of the lowlifes.
Your attitude strikes me as very selfish, even more selfish than I am. You continue to prove Dick Masterson’s point over and over again.
“she has adopted their position against women.”
Even if I always agreed with them (which I don’t), my position is not ‘against’ women. It is against feminism. Feminism is an inherently self-destructive philosophy that defies
“She could spend her time far better by either attacking their overbroad generalizations or by joining an anti-feminist movement. That is, if she truly believed in what she apparently pupports to by the stance she is taking here.”
You’re being a hypocrite.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
Feminism is an inherently self-destructive philosophy that defies reality.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Pot. Kettle. Black. 2 sugars. Cheers.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
When you talk about behavior (or even a diagnosis) as opposed to a condition, you are talking about two different things. Of course a particular form of behavior may not have a genetic basis; we aren’t that deterministic. True enough, a gene hasn’t been mapped. So what? In 1950, no one had mapped a gene for red hair; that didn’t mean red hair wasn’t genetically determined.
That said, you refer to my statement as an untruth. Wrong. While there is contention over to what degree the condition is genetically determined, (so I will agree it may well not be solely genetically forced) there is overwhelming evidence for a physical neurological basis [1] [2] that would almost certainly be genetically based. Mealey [3] presents an interesting evolutionary biology analysis; even Mealey’s critics acknowledge evidence for a genetic basis as (for example) was earlier posited in [4], noting very significant correlation in heritability with environmental factors neutralized.
I will note, ladies and gentlemen, a fundamental difference between men and women here. A man writes a post, being polite to a woman newly arrived on the boards; another woman zooms in on a tiny piece of it and flatly declares it an “untruth”. The man responds politely with citations and a strong scientific argument.
Apologies for the detail of my argument above, and the extent to which I allowed Female to distract me from the topic of the thread, but I am underwhelmed to have what I write labeled as an “untruth”.
-wolfe
For Female’s benefit:
[1] Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., et al (2001) Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 677 -684
[2] Tiihonen, J., Hodgins, S., Vaurio, O., et al (2000) Amygdaloid volume loss in psychopathy. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 2017
[3] Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (3): 523-599.
[4] Wahlsten, D. (1990) Insensitivity of the analysis of variance to heredity-environment interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:109-161.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
I am similiarly underwhelmed by your pedantic nitpicking of my spelling and your point blank refusal to acknowledge your own massive generalization in your original post, which I kindly felt needed to be made less point blank through mention of environmental factors.
wolfe said:
; they
true empathy (amongst other things).
Of course there is a neurological basis but failing to mention external factors tends to remove social responsibility and lay it all on the individual and we all know how much I don’t like one to forget social factors, unlike yourself.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Slightly back on topic.
Why would she want to? What purpose would it serve? Oh, to be sure, if Grump were particularly bothered by something, I for one would listen to her since she’s proved she deserves at the very least a modicum of respect. She’s consistently been rational and reasonably polite. At times she’s been very funny (as, in fact, have you), and that is something that can allow one to forgive a multitude of sins.
For whatever it’s worth, we [most of the men here, probably Arielle, possibly Grump; I can't speak for her] see at least some value in most of Dick’s overly broad generalizations. I will readily admit there are a few with which I’m uncomfortable and one or two with which I disagree. I see no point in arguing with Dick about them since he’d most likely politely respond “You’re a man, as such you have a total right to post whatever your opinion is here.”
Most of the rest are at least amusing, with more than a kernel of truth.
Grump wrote:
And my position is not against women either. I think women are (or at least can be) the bee’s knees. Feminism is definitely some other part of the bee’s anatomy. I think probably the stinger.
-wolfe
February 15th, 2006 at 8:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Here’s a tip. When I pedantically nitpick your spelling, you will know it. Putting in [sic] after an error of thought or spelling in quoted text of someone who has just flatly stated you’ve told an “untruth” is being pretty laidback on the matter; it’s simply conforming to academic style guidelines. By ludicrously misreading my post and accusing me of telling an “untruth” on a scientific matter, you moved the debate to that plane, like it or not.
“massive generalization in [my] original post”? In your mind, maybe. You read into my post things that were never there. You seem to believe I stated: “Sociopathy is caused by genetic damage, and only by genetic damage”. What I said was quite different; simply that a sociopath had genetic damage. It’s perfectly true that, had I been writing a scientific paper, I might have gone on to qualify the environmental factors, and note the scientific debate on the matter of heredity and evolutionary biology. But, guess what, I wasn’t, until you decided to read in what wasn’t there and flatly accuse me of an “untruth”.
That “unlike yourself” is a rather gratuitous insult, and one I won’t let pass without note.
A lot of women in the world seem to like to think that playing “gotcha” games like this is fun. It isn’t, especially when they are played so badly.
Contrast the debate Arielle and I had somewhere else on these boards over da Vinci vs. Michelangelo. We both disagreed with one another, we remained polite, I somewhat convinced her (but only somewhat) and she similarly convinced me that I had somewhat discounted Michelangelo. I don’t think either of us changed our minds; but we both learned, and it was enjoyable doing so.
The prickly feminist gotcha stuff gets tiring awfully fast, and makes me want to just act like Christian.
-wolfe
February 15th, 2006 at 9:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
If you think this is tiring, them I am already in a coma. You are the one who makes seriously under specific comments, and when someone corrects you on them, you turn around and say but I didn’t mean that, I actually meant this. You will avoid me picking you up on being unclear as soon as you get clearer.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: c7e902c11c9fb
You know what gentlemen (and I mean that loosely), I must agree with you: I should not have written in to this site. And please, pardon MY aggressive language, since it obviously goes against the overall tolerant and objective tone of the site. I must have imagined those references to women as whores and prostitutes and bitches, how right you are. I am so sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
And pardon me, as well, because I did not realize that I was writing into site, that was mastered by individuals who were able to be both man and woman, to compare both experiences and arrive at the completely unbiased and objectively true conclusion that men are “better” than women.
I am not exactly sure where you are getting your information from on the history of western society but if you really believe that society has been entirely reconstructed in the space of 50 years to suit women entirely, you are sadly, deluded on so many levels. Again I realize that this will fall on deaf ears, but, hey, it’s my own fault for writing in.
As for your criticism of my comment of society being constructed on a male perspective - you say that this is self-evident because it is the most logical. If you think about that for a few minutes, you will realize that this is exactly what I am trying to prove: you have defined the terms for “best/better” etc, based on purely masculine qualities, something which women, by virtue of the fact that they ARE NOT men can never 100% achieve. Of course you will come across as being “better” but it doesn’t mean you’re right. In your own heads you “win” but if you can create that kind of standard, I can say that by virtue of the fact that we are not men, and it is obviously better (for entirely female reasons) to be a woman, women must logically be better than men. Doesn’t mean I’m right. In your heads your premise makes sense, but that has nothing to do with me because I don’t accept your standard and since you are not God (unless I am wildly mistaken) or some other divine/all-powerful source of authority, you can’t make me accept it. So really, it is just seems to be rabid ravings of some very angry people (sound familiar?) that are unbased on any reality outside of your own heads and as such have no effect whatsoever on anything that is based on the real and the tangible. Seems like kind of a waste of time, but hey, I’m the one on trial here and I am sure you can find scores of historians, philosphers, theologians, academics etc of both GENDERS (pardon my misguided reference to sex which I OBVIOUSLY hate) to support your theories.
Thankfully, you are have no control over me or any woman, despite your rants and rages and I feel no obligation whatsoever to prove to anyone my worth as a human being which is why I was so wrong to have written in the first place. Silly me, I was exercising that wonderful ideal that your founding FATHERS created (although I’m sure it was their wives’ idea, silly manatees) of freedom of speech - the same freedom that allows you to create a website like this in the first place. I will leave you to your druthers, you donkey-like creatures you.
Respectfull, apologetically,
Jess
February 15th, 2006 at 10:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Jess, hopefully you will read this, I completely understand your perspective. The problem with many of the posters here is a lack of patience and the fact that much of what might have a grain of truth to it, gets inflated, purely for entertainment purposes. Most also just like to take the piss, especially out of women, such as yourself, who take things to heart. My advice is to not waste your time, and please hold the door for me.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8c78dc5304b3b
Female, your time isn’t worth anything. How could something worthless be wasted? It’s like throwing away garbage.
-Dick
February 16th, 2006 at 3:27 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
wolfe’s Laws of Women include:
“Thus, when arguing with a man, a woman will inevitably bring up at least one of a man’s putative: a) homosexuality b) small penis size…”
Looks like they do it to women too, wolfe.
It’s only a matter of time before Female criticizes Grump’s tiny penis.
-Big Al
February 16th, 2006 at 3:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 940381cd14237
Oh, fuck. Another one………
When are they evr going to be different or original.
It’s trying to be facetious, indifferent, Comical, and almost outraged.
All we get is another load of female verbal diarrhoea. Full of cliches and retorts like it’s opinion actually matters.
Wrong, not only are we totally uninterested but I suggest you read the entry qualification for this site.
February 16th, 2006 at 7:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
“Pot. Kettle. Black. 2 sugars. Cheers.”
Jabber means “To talk rapidly, unintelligibly, or idly.”
Difference between you and me, female: I make sense.
“see at least some value in most of Dick’s overly broad generalizations”
Yes, I do, wolfe.
I read the first two paragraphs of Jess’s post. As my eyes glazed over at her useless rant, I skimmed down to see the last paragraph, noted the glaring error in logic, and was even more affirmed in my prior evaluation of her.
You gotta love the way she signs off. The irony is dripping: ‘prayerfully? respectfully? apologetically?’ I bet she thought that it would be an effective sign off, but it only makes her look cliched and retarded.
“My advice is to not waste your time, and please hold the door for me. ”
I won’t hold my breath.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Jess: your sarcasm and rudeness are all too exemplary of what passes as normal behaviour for many women today.
Female: The truth points to itself. Once again, I’m afraid you prove Law One.
Big Al: Well spotted, sir.
Grump: When I first read some of what you wrote in this thread, I have to confess I thought “Isn’t she being very slightly bit catty and unlike the Grump I’ve seen before?”. [I apologize, but it is a thought that crept in]. I didn’t have to see much more from Female or Jess to conclude that you had in fact the most lucid and concise response to them from anyone on this site, barring possibly Dick. They failed to trap you in their game. Well played, ma’am.
-wolfe
February 16th, 2006 at 3:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: e2d025f19e31f
Female said: “neither your, nor Grump with her jabberwocky or whatever comment, deserve my respect.”
You assume too much, as I do not believe Grump nor I were trying to obtain your respect.
Female said: “Just because I do not respect you oldone, does not mean I do not respect other men. I simply prefer to be realistic and respect those who respect me….”
From your postings throughout this site it is clear that you, in fact, do not respect men. You verbally bash those whose opinions differ from yours, choosing rather to be willfully ignorant of the “other side of the coin.” In addition it has become increasingly clear that any man you would “grace” with your respect; must first be like minded and have no opinion other than yours. Further, these men must bow to your every whim. That is not respect Female, that is subjugation. You do not desire equality but rather superiority. You are the poster child for feminism, a “movementâ€? that cries for equality, desires superiority and whines when they prove themselves incapable of either. “Movementâ€? is the perfect term for feminists, for they are the vile excrement of society.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: c7e902c11c9fb
At the risk of being ridiculed and insulted for writing in once again, I just wanted to say to Female that you are so right - I should not be taking this stuff to heart. Obviously these men cannot actually accept the things that they are saying because it is glaringly obvious that they do not make sense. They must be, of course, taking the piss. Good luck to you in here, Female
Jess