Old Men Are Saviors, Cougars Are Gross
A manpiphany is a jolt of genius that starts at the balls and proceeds directly to the brain. Whenever I experience this phenomenon, I open my mouth and speak as quickly as I can. What comes out may offend loads of women, but fuck women. The truth needs to be spoken.
Female anger is the weather vane of truth.
Truth is the enemy of women.
If a woman ever gets pissed off at anything you say, science will prove you right.
Old guys hooking up with young women is fucking awesome.
See? If any women were allowed to read that, it would offend the shit out of them. That means it must be the truth.
Old guys hooking up with young women is awesome and every guy in the world hopes to do it one day — tomorrow preferably. During our twenties, men realize that all women our age stopped emotionally maturing long ago. Puberty for women should actually be called retirement — a retirement of emotional growth, a retirement of critical thinking, and a retirement of whatever makes women not behave like frigid cunts.
Men are better than women.
You don’t buy a new car with a bunch of fucking dings in it, do you? Dings don’t fix themselves. Cars don’t “grow out of” a bunch of dings. God I fucking hate dings.
Women’s egos are like trees. You can tell their age by counting the number of un-fixable fucking dings all over them. Dings like getting offered $300 for a blowjob by one of her boyfriend’s poker buddies because everyone was drunk and she can’t take a joke or a hint. Here comes the sobbing MySpace journal!
Here comes the science.
Old men who hook up with younger women are propelling our species into the next millennium in a big way — big like an ACME rocket. A new study brought to you by the letters M, E, N, says old men are dumping genes that make them live longer into the E-Z Bake oven that is a young woman every time they cross the May/December divide.
An E-Z Bake oven is a cheap and over-hyped toy that produces a consistent supply of shit.
Think about it like this. Biologically speaking, women expire somewhere around 50; even though we know their actual expiration date is 23. Biologically speaking, men can reproduce into their 70’s. In order to pass on that “long life” gene, these older men must sleep with younger women. And by “younger”, I mean women in their 20’s. Do the math, 70 minus 50 is 20. It makes sense.
Older men who hook up with young girls are also doing you and I a favor. Girls who would date older men have father issues that border on psychotic. They’ll key your car if you piss them off. They’ll stalk you. The last thing you want is a relationship with one of these broads without a good twenty years on her. You’ll never hear the end of it, and if she wasn’t too stupid to figure it out, she would do something really horrible like wreck your credit.
A long living man needs to pass on his long living genetic code to a woman before she turns 50. 50 is when menopause rains down on women like the glacier of hormones it is. And that’s exactly what the study found: something I already knew.
Here’s something else I already knew: cougars are gross.
Everything you think is right.
Related Articles:
October 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
People can get a lighter sentence if the judge declares they were unable to be in a rationale state of mind.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Didn’t agree with the whole thing. Were not talking about throughout history or third world countries. Right now women are the prime perpetrators. This is the case in any civilized country.
Their will always be war no matter which gender is in charge. Women manipulating men throughout history? No Clair they were told to shut the hell up and go to the kitchen before they got a black eye.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
Ok, so the men in other countries that are the ‘prime perpetrators’ don’t count? Everything counts. I mentioned history because it’s already happened and it’s a good learning experience.
See, you just admitted that men did get what they wanted through brute force. If you study history though, women seemed to hold a lot of power over men with out them realizing it. The play “Macbeth” is a good example of what I’m talking about. However, I’m not down playing the power imbalance that occurred between men and women, men being on top of course.
As for the war thing, I agree. Though, I think if both sexes were in charge, I’m pretty sure the type of war and how much it occurred would be different.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Your using war lords or war in general as DV? Get real. That’s like saying Bush is guilty of DV. The damn point you’ve failed to understand is your gender is guilty more than ours.
Women can’t even get along at work. How do you think they would fare as leaders of competing countries? Do some research on European history and find out how many men died for the queen.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6d3bb32787b07
@ Mike: Agreed.
@ Clair: Do understand that though there were far fewer woman leaders throughout the course of history, almost all embarked on wars. It says alot, really.
Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Wu ZeTian, Cleopatra, Cixi.
It seems that these women subscribed to the use of force just as much as men. Extrapolate women’s leaders on a large scale: What do/will you get? Total war.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
No… I don’t recall saying that war lords or war was equivelant to DV. Perhaps you misunderstood.
No, I never missed out the point that “my gender is more guilty then yours’, in America.
“Women can’t even get along at work.”
And all men do?
“Do some research on European history and find out how many men died for the queen.”
How many people died for any of the kings? How many soldiers have died because of the orders from the male superior?
Yes, people have died under the orders of men. Yes people have died under the orders of women. I said I think it would be different if men AND women were in charge with equal authority.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1ac5c1024cd8f
Yes, Clair: You really should be backing up what you have said with facts. Feminists tend to lie to their subjects.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1ac5c1024cd8f
In comparison to women, definitely more so.
Fuck, no. Putting women in command will kill us all. But lets think about it for a moment. How is “equal authority” exactly going to work out? Someone HAS to be the leader, someone HAS to make the decisions… who is going to have the key thrust of power?
I say have women diplomats … but leaders? Men, for sure.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
If I were to analyse them, I would say that they, having lived in a male dominated society, developed inferiority complexes associated with their gender. Once they assumed power, in order to combat this complex, they embarked on a journey that was seen to be traditionally male. By accomplishing something that was seen to be only something males could/should do, it elevated the shame they had over being female. The more masculine the act, (in this case violent) the better they felt, because equality or even perhaps superiority was being achieved, in their eyes.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: 41f6de747e750
Yes but that does not deride the fact they have resorted to the use of force/violence, no? It also shows the terrible people women have become when they are in power by being so emotionally insecured that they have to resort to acts like these.
So, if public pressure was to declare war on Iran… I think we can bet our last dollar that Hiliary Clinton will allow it. Thats called bowing to public pressure, things which women often do to safeguard themselves even though it might lead to disasterous outcomes.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Say it with me Clair. Your gender is just as guilty in any civilized country.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
I know, I agree with you. They shouldn’t have done what they done. Don’t you wonder though, if the men of their time men weren’t like that in the first place, would the women done what they had done?
I’m pretty sure men have done the very same thing.
Why does everything keep coming down to sex. Wouldn’t it be much easier to say, “She’s insecure (or insert random other trait here) because …” instead of “she’s insecure (or insert random other trait here) because she’s a woman”? Not only is it insulting to the women that aren’t like this, but what about when it comes down to a man? Is he insecure because he’s to much of a woman? Or does he have a special reason?
October 12th, 2007 at 10:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
I can say it with you, but I’m no sure what your definition of “guilty” is. So if you give me your definition of “guilty” and make sure not to leave a gender bias, then if I see it as appropriate, I will agree with you.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5acb8d5dc39dd
So women are insecured and we should pander to them? I am fine with that, really. But have you women pandered to male insecurities like I talked about on another blog like : The male pride? Have you ever thought about that? Have you even cared about that in your quest for ‘equality’?
This site discusses gender issues. Sure, those are alot of fair comments but lets look at what the feminized media has portrayed men. “Domestic abusers”, “pigs”, “rapists”, “Murders” - See what kind of tags men are wearing?
Plus, we are still all here on the belief that men are better than women. Who you rather sit around in a living room? A group of men or women? If you pick the women, you are lying. Men are the greatest entertainers, friends and people you want to be with when compared to women.
Who you rather pick to defend you? A man or a woman?
Who you rather pick to lead? A man who makes valued based judgements or a woman who makes emotional based decisions?
In my country, over 70% of the women said they want a man in charge because men were typically more ‘fair’, ‘rational’ and were not the type to hold grudges.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:48 am - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
“So women are insecured and we should pander to them? I am fine with that, really. But have you women pandered to male insecurities like I talked about on another blog like : The male pride? Have you ever thought about that? Have you even cared about that in your quest for ‘equality’?”
Could you expand on this please? I would like to know what you definition of “equality” is, and how the male pride should have been pandered to during the quest of ‘equality’, and why you feel that it is ok to pander to womens insecurities if men are better than them.
“Who you rather sit around in a living room?”
-Guys. Most of my mates are guys. I find that they’re more easy going than the girls around me. Although I do have some very close female friends.
“Who you rather pick to defend you? ”
-Depends, some women can be pretty vicious… so are some men. So, I’m gonna have to go with…I dunno. It all depends.
“Who you rather pick to lead? A man who makes valued based judgements or a woman who makes emotional based decisions?”
-Out of those two, I would pick the man (Although I’m assuming you mean a political leader).
“In my country, over 70% of the women said they want a man in charge because men were typically more ‘fair’, ‘rational’ and were not the type to hold grudges.”
Thats very interesting. What country do you live in?
October 13th, 2007 at 1:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 7b55501cead9a
It means roughly along the lines of being treated equal, the same. I didnt check a dictionary’s definition so bear with me there. I think on many occasions, the male pride has been slighted in the quest of equality. Feminists do not seem intent on achieving equality but hegemony over men. They are only concerned with achieving things for women but what about men? Arent they part of “humanity”? I see men feeling insecure because women are generally becoming more educated. Men are prideful creatures, most would not want a more “domineering” mate prefering instead to lead themselves. So my issue here is that women are not being sensitive to the concerns of men and often, feminists or otherwise, neglect their pride. In the same way, men would thus respond viciously.
Its a vicious cycle which perpetuates. As a man, I want respect and I demand it.
The funny thing is, I actually receive lots of it. Myself, I am respected by numerous people both men and women for my academic achievements and leadership capabilities. However, I work to improve the lot of my gender. Their loss of pride, is my loss of pride. All for one and one for all.
Singapore. I am Asian. Most people on this site are westerners and I guess I am an exception. Perhaps, this explains my rather orthodox views.
Btw, your responds to my questions are very fair. I commend you on that. Thanks.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:21 am - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
Yes feminism is about equality. Bear in mind that it surfaced with the intent to make sure women were no longer seen as subordinates to men based on their gender, there-fore females are the greatest element of the movement. I am a feminist, and I would also consider myself a “manist”, but above all I am a humanist.
I don’t see how a man, and in some cases even women, can be intimidated or weary of this. It can only make us progress further as a species. It opens new doors for everyone.
See the thing is, men should be PROUD! Thats their mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces and grand-daughters out there. They’re now able to make a different positive impact on the world that they once were not able to do! They can now fulfill dreams that previous generations of women thought impossible for themselves.
It needn’t be.
Why does it have to be “as a man”? All people deserve respect until they’ve forfeited it.
That is the mentality of feminism. You said, “They are only concerned with achieving things for women but what about men? Aren’t they part of “humanity”?”, replace women with men in that sentence, and you have the same concept. There is nothing wrong with this mentality, however it becomes a problem when one side gains a power imbalance and then the other side becomes neglected. This is why I maintain that being an egalitarian or a humanist is the best option.
Thank you, your welcome.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:07 am - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Their was no equality problem. Your gender was to stupid to get out of the home. You had the right to work, go to school, and everything else.
Men didn’t hold women back, women did. Being equal is no problem. Being given special treatment under law is. Feminist had men to fight for their rights, but won’t do the same for men.
You never responded to those things earlier. The government does meet quotas to give women jobs over more qualified men. Not to mention divorce laws always heavily slanted in womens favor. This is an imbalance.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:21 am - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
Yet again, your talking about your country. Women in China still count. Women in Afghanistan still count. Women the WORLD OVER count.
Your not a history student are you?
Agreed.
You’d be surprised. I think a liberal feminist would have something to say about that. Especially considering the men that fought for feminism were liberal feminists.
Sorry, I don’t recall them. And yes, I do see these things as an injustice, not to mention dangerous.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:40 am - IP Man-Hash: eeb32e3dc6874
Those countries still count. But as noted earlier I said countries that didn’t act like they were third world. In civilized countries women have been treated special for decades. A woman being treated like dirt in Afghanistan, doesn’t mean women deserve special rights in civilized nations.
Men in civilized countries could not hold women back. They might not have been able to vote at first here, but that’s about it. No one could keep you from going to school or anything else. It was female choice. So your not the history scholar.
I can assure you that I’m a good deal older than you. I have never heard a feminsit of any sort say “End quotas, ban alimony, give men reproductive rights, or punish women equally under law”. Sure you could probably find some half assed attempt here and there but nothing serious.