Women Are So Anti-Gay It’s Not Even Funny
True story. I was walking to the store yesterday and smoking a giant Cuban cigar — as I like to do on Tuesday’s. On the way, I passed a woman who was shouting at her dog. The dog had wandered away and was ferreting through someone’s trash.
Being the helpful man that I am, I tried to explain to the woman that the dog was probably not understanding her position on the matter and that this is one of the reasons the city magistrate considers it in everyone’s best interests for dogs to be kept on leashes — to deter that kind of chaos. Everyone got together and agreed it would make the city better.
The woman made an overly-crass comment that I’m not going to repeat here because of its hateful subject matter and stormed away. I found myself asking one question as she did.
Why do all women hate gay people so much?
Women sling insults of the homosexual variety at men with greater fervor and intensity than a rabid wolf. They practically spit all over themselves when they get a chance to snarl some anti-gay epithet at a man. It’s disgusting.
Also, when I say “gay people”, I obviously mean gay men. Gay women, or “lesbians” are not gay. They’re faking it. You can tell because they’re as loud as possible about their sexual proclivities at all times.
Just like the mischievous school boy who insists he doesn’t cheat at Monopoly is a liar and a cheater (good man-reasoning in Monopoly — a sure way to win!), “lesbians” are not actually gay. They just want attention, some way to define themselves that isn’t “failure”, or to get back at their parents for clothing and sheltering them for twenty-four years (usually more). I don’t know when these “lesbian’s” decided that proper parenting was a crime, but they did and we men have to deal with it.
Women claim that gay people are the greatest things since sliced bread. But listen to their reasons: because they shop and because they listen.
Listen? Women know as much about listening as an ass knows about playing a flute.
What women actually want to do with gay people (when they’re not shaming them behind their backs with radically anachronistic slanders) is use them as a dart board for an endless tirade of nonsense blubbering about men in general, and without ever having to return any kind of favor for this service — any kind.
That is monkey shit.
Related Articles:
September 24th, 2006 at 7:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
That’s what.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
So what is it that frightens you? Be specific.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Bush and Blair sitting in a tree.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@Dakota On abortion. I agree with much of your analysis, save that I see the left/pro-choice as also trying to impose its views by government force, even imposing them on shutting down free speech.
I too would return it as an issue to the states. Roe v Wade was poorly founded constitutionally.
Leaving aside religious and philosophical objections (which we agree are essentially unprovable), I would consider the practical issue of abortion being homicide as ‘proven’ when a fetus is viable — even with extensive life support — outside the mother’s womb. There are those who’d disagree; I’d be interested to know their views on infanticide, killing the stupid, and terminating those in reversible comas.
On drugs? Certainly agreed as far as marijuana goes. As you say, the Mary Jane store owners aren’t going to be getting into gunfights with one another. GHB/Rohypnol - no, these can be used in pretty nasty ways to hurt other people. Crystal meth/Heroin/Cocaine? Not sure.
I’d not define my brand of conservatism this way, though I’d agree it describes most Republicans.
-wolfe.
September 24th, 2006 at 8:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
Oh, I don’t disagree for a moment that the pro-choice crowd is just as morally reprehensible in terms of trying to impose their philosophy on others. If I came off as being anything other, it wasn’t my intent. They’re both a set of hypocritical reprobates.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
@Dakota: Understand that it is very difficult for me to post, considering the ugliness that has come my way in the past via the persons on this site, but I feel a need to be clear. I do not, and will not, try to change anyone’s mind on the issue of abortion. And I most certainly do not feel that it is my place to speak for an entire group of people, even though I do identify with them - that group being women.
Your father said that most women use abortion as a form of birth control. I don’t know if that’s true or false; I don’t know that anyone can prove it one way or another. I can, however, tell you that I have utilized more than one form of birth control, and I have also undergone a surgical procedure equivalent to a second trimester abortion - though not by choice.
All I can tell you, and no man can tell me otherwise, is that a D&C is physically painful beyond what any person would choose, were there another viable option.
I hope, but do not expect, that those reading this post will respect the fact that this has been an emotionally painful and personal revelation. I don’t want to change anyone’s mind - but not every issue is black and white.
~Z~
September 24th, 2006 at 9:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
Here’s where I make the distinction:
Does owning Rohypnol, meth, heroine, or cocaine hurt anyone? No — it just sits there all by itself, a set of chemicals, nothing more.
Does selling these drugs hurt anyone? No, divorced from the criminal element introduced by prohibition, it’s not harmful to sell them. It’s just another purchase like any other.
Does using these drugs inherently hurt people? No, there are clinical uses for all of them. I myself have taken a cocaine-based anesthetic when undergoing sinus probes. Actually, having also had the same probes without anesthetic, I’d argue that that the level of cocaine used is basically useless. If I have such probes again, I’ll tell the doctor not to bother and just get in and get it done.
What’s harmful is the abuse of these drugs.
Now, when an individual decides to abuse these drugs, they’re only harming themselves. While tragic and I would certainly do everything in my power to convince a loved one to stop using, I cannot in good conscience see using government to force them to quit. If a person is truly master of their own destiny, then they should be free to harm themselves if that’s what they desire.
The harm occurs when an individual uses the drug on someone else without their consent or informed use. The question then is: what do you do about it?
If government is necessary at all, it is in a case like that. And its power should be limited solely to punishing the person who used caused the other person to use the drug and seeing to it that the perpetrator provides restitution to the victim.
Government should not concern itself with trying to prevent potential harm, because that way lies … well, what we have or worse. It should concern itself with punishing the perpetrator and seeing to it that restitution is made.
However, after looking at over three thousand years of human history, I don’t think it’s possible to limit government in this way. Government simply grows: that’s it’s nature. The American Constitution, for example, was a noble but abject failure in its attempt to limit government. If a Constitutional Republic as specified in that document can collapse in just 250 years, clearly it’s not possible to limit government that way.
When it comes time to try again (and it will), I think we might be wise to institute something along the lines of that outlined by H. Beam Piper in his novella Lone Star Planet:
Make it entirely legal to kill politicians at any time. The only thing to be at issue is if the killing was out of proportion to the offense.
In the novella, a politician was basically hacked to death for trying to institute and income tax. The perpetrator was put on trial for excessive violence. The court found that given the severity of the politician’s lapse, hacking him up was too good for him.
Explicitly giving any individual the right to kill any politician at any time would, I think, go a long way toward limiting government.
Then I would argue that you’re not a conservative as the term is presently used. Much like “liberal,” which once meant more or less what “libertarian” does today, “conservative” in recent years has come to mean pretty much what I described.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 05bdcb82f843a
I want to be clear as well: I’ve not followed your initial posts, but I can’t see anything you’ve posted lately that’s worthy of derision.
Fellas, please, can we save that for the real nutjobs? You know the kind I’m talking about.
I have no objection to people trying to change other peoples’ minds. My only problem is when they use force to impose their personal views on others.
I don’t either, but his general statement about female patients who’ve had abortions jives with my personal experience. The only women I’ve known who had abortions did so very early in the pregnancy as a method of birth control. I wish that this wasn’t the case, but it is. I’ve an old friend, in fact, that has had three — each because neither she nor her boyfriend were using contraception, and in the heat of the moment he neglected to perform coitus interruptus.
I’m sorry for the pain and no doubt the psychological trauma that you had to go through. Again, my experience is that most women I know who’ve gotten abortions do so fairly early in the pregnancy. I don’t know if the procedure is any easier at that point than later, but regardless, I’ve seen it used primarily as birth control.
Again, my position is that someone in a government office with a fancy title is in no position to tell a person what’s best for them.
In fact, given that an overwhelming majority of people with especially fancy government titles are themselves amoral beyond what would be tolerated in polite society were it not for their fancy title, they are the least qualified people to make decisions for you.
The thing that always astounds me about the Right-Wing Statists in the US is their short memory. Ten years ago, they were screaming about how Bill Clinton was an amoral, power-abusing scumbag, and I totally agree. Yet the moment they’re in power, they forget that the reason they found themselves in that position was because of the power of the office.
Rather than strip the office of power so that the next amoral scumbag to get elected can’t cause as much damage, they’re eager to add power to that office.
I mean, you’d think they’d remember the damage that can be caused. Do they actually think that another Nixon or Clinton won’t be elected in the future?
September 24th, 2006 at 10:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7e9f483ab328c
The toughest part about posting that was anticipating the only thing worse than being accused of seeking pity - actually receiving it.
Just the facts, man. Just the facts. Your experience/my experience. We all gain if we share, we gain more if we listen, too.
And that’s all (this) she wrote.
~Z~
September 24th, 2006 at 11:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 304bc5804cc76
Has anyone been keeping count on this chunky monkey? Let’s just go with five fake goodbye’s.
-Dick
September 26th, 2006 at 11:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 21afb798fc0fa
Its not the fact that power corrupts or that absolute power corrupts absolutely, its the fact that Power attracts the Corruptable.
-Ben Franklin-
-Strength and Honor-
September 27th, 2006 at 6:47 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
Of course we’ll respect your personal stuff, zogmama. We’re men.
It’s not as if we’d go and publish it on the Internet or something.
-Big Al
September 27th, 2006 at 8:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 175a7bdaced84
http://www.americanwomensuck.com/images/vampireemail.jpg
September 27th, 2006 at 7:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
“It is indeed a woman’s issue.”
Bull crap. That’s like saying neonaticide is a women’s issue. You act as if the woman is the only one involved with abortions. I shouldn’t be surprised.
“Ultimately, the entire issue boils down to a religious one, asking a question that simply cannot be objectively answered: is a human foetus a human being and therefore deserving of the rights of a human being?”
This can be objectively answered.
A human being has always been defined as a creature of the species homo sapiens. What you are driving at is ‘personhood’, - at what point a human being is considered a ‘life worthy of life’ or in the case of abortion ‘a life worthy of protection’. That’s why all this philosophy nonsense is going away from human rights being inhered to the individual, and instead acquired along incidental lines of human development (like viability - which is self-contradicting, but I won’t go there - or when people think the child has brain waves or consciousness of whatever - even some newborns are on the chopping block in certain countries. In Canada, women can get away with infanticide if they claim ‘mental instability’ as a result of child labour and lactation). This is why even some animals are thought of as having some rights, because the West doesn’t really believe in human rights anymore.
“The point is that it’s unprovable one way or another. Your position entirely rests on philosophical beliefs that vary from person to person, regardless of your position.”
Yes and no. It is a biological fact that a human being is killed during abortions. All you have to do is look up the word reproduction and study a little bit on the subject of human growth and development throughout our lifespan. A new distinct human individual is created at conception (more exactly, when the genetic material of both gametes are merged creating another individual of the species homo sapiens which grows and develops until it reaches adulthood).
Of course, it is a philosophical belief that every human being has the right to life and liberty. It is demonstrably correct that most people don’t believe in this, hence the support for gun control and babykilling (infanticide of disabled newborns, live birth abortions, and other forms of abortion). So, strictly speaking, yes, philosophical beliefs underpin a lot of the argument.
“I don’t think any of the weasels in government at any level are in a position to know what’s best for you better than you do yourself.”
In the case of abortion, another human being is being harmed. So, it’s not about about ‘knowing what’s better for you’ - it’s about protecting a child from being aggressed against by its own mother. After all, the mother is the one who put that child in that position of vulnerability. I’m libertarian through and through, Dakota. I don’t like government being involved in any issue except to punish people for harming others. Abortion is just that situation, and you don’t have to be religious to believe that…Doris Gordon is one semi- famous example.
“What bothers me is that those who believe that is a human being are so eager to use government force to make those who disagree bend to their will.”
Government is all about coercion across the board. Laws against stealing, rape, child abuse - all of it is about about somebody using their personal philosophy to make those who disagree bend to their will. The only difference is that society overwhelmingly approves those laws.
“And sadly, the home-grown pro-lifers can’t see the dark hypocrisy of the situation. They don’t want Muslims telling them what to believe, but they’re perfectly content to tell pro-choice advocates what to believe.”
I couldn’t give a fuck what babykilling supporters believe. I just don’t believe that people should have a right to kill their own offspring. That’s why I also support laws against post-natal child abuse, neonaticide, infanticide, etc.
Individual rights begins when a human being exists, not when any group believes that that individual is worth protecting.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 897b290c9c693
I hope women become independant. I hope they become as shallow as us men. That way some nice doctor woman will sex me because I have nice strong arms. She will also take care of me and buy me everything I need because I have nice arms. All I will have to do is let her have sex with me, and have nice strong arms.
Then I can cry that I am oppressed in a matriachal society and demand special treatment to become an engineer or w/e else the fuck takes my fancy. I will need special help because I am stupid and spent too much time making my arms look nice and strong.
It must have been so hard for all you attractive young career women back in the day. The horrors of inequality.
September 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9becbf5c48698
You gays my me sick, you should all die! If you got a problem with my views then go f@@k yourselfs. I’m a religous person and think you people are wrong and will go to hell.
September 15th, 2007 at 5:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9becbf5c48698
You gays my me sick, you should all die! If you got a problem with my views then go f@@k yourselfs. I’m a religous person and think you people are wrong and will go to hell. I’m not scared of you gays, i’d kill you if i see you in my face. karyadelitoys@yahoo.com
September 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 201af405354bb
I’m sorry you have that attitude. If you are really a religious person, you would not want to kill anyone. I came on this site because I do have a disdain for women in general, but I wouldn’t say I hate all women or would want to kill one.
Signed: A proud gay man!
September 25th, 2007 at 5:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5556903c41ed8
MANifestly funny. Reversing gender exposes Feminist hypocrisy so well.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 810fb0642fe24
Fuck lesbos or the so called bi girls. Every time I see two girls making out a party, I feel like vomiting.
P Coderch