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:
November 19th, 2005 at 3:29 am - IP Man-Hash: ac62c77584632
There’s plenty of things you don’t know, Female. We get it. You make it abundantly clear each time you post.
-Dick
November 19th, 2005 at 3:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 637bafa67bded
I don’t believe you can actually separate the chemical physiological level from the affective level Dick. They are one and the same.
Geeza separated LOVE from the Maternal Instinct and asked me if I believed it was LOVE and not an INSTINCT or hormonal reaction. Well Geeza, I believe it’s both. Love is hormonal. Hormonal changes lead to emotional changes.
Have you never bloody heard of PMS?
Is that clear dick?
November 19th, 2005 at 3:56 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
What a stunningly crass choice of words.
Indeed.
November 20th, 2005 at 5:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
For the sex that is supposed to be more in touch with their feelings female has once again proved how clueless women are about their own actions.
Love requires a mental connection. Parents, children, siblings, friends, lovers. Our thoughts plays a role in who we love. We do not just go around falling in love with anyone standing in the vicinity because our ‘love hormones’ are kicking in. First we have thoughts about a person, THEN we fall in love with them. Or someone shows us their love (parents for instance) and we love them in return.
Maternal instinct on the other hand is hormone driven. It is nature forcing females to care for their young. Hence, animals will care for and protect their young as human females do.
November 21st, 2005 at 2:00 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Geeza said “Love requires a mental connection.” & “Our thoughts plays a role in who we love.”
Geeza, what the fuck do you think happens when those hormones kick in you fool? You have no clue, so sorry everyone else if this bores you to tears to read but Geeza never got an edumacation.
Let me put into simple steps for you because I know you find it easier to think that way.
1. Conception
2. Hormones released
3. Emotions commence (woman feels different)
4. Emotions influence thoughts
Ergo, a mental connection is established with the unborn child based on the mother’s thoughts/communications with it prior to it’s birth. This communication is typically all in the mother’s imagination, though sometimes she may actually speak outloud to her belly. This mental connection (based on her thoughts, yes) translates into the emotion we know as love. Der. Anything else you need to know today?
November 21st, 2005 at 2:52 am - IP Man-Hash: ac62c77584632
That’s a typical woman’s definition of “communication”. A completely one fucking sided monologue to another person who doesn’t give a shit.
Way to look stupid, you stupid mule.
-Dick
November 21st, 2005 at 3:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 140d93d99d74d
Well stated Geeza,
“Maternal instinct on the other hand is hormone driven. It is nature forcing females to care for their young. Hence, animals will care for and protect their young as human females do.”
I dont know if this still applies to women today, there is a steadying increase of female abuse of children.
Studies are showing that Males can care much better for children then they can.
More stable environment, no hysterics, no pms, no pmt, no “mother little helper” drug just to get through the day.
A Father is a lot more encouraging, in control and stable than women ever are.
Won’t be long.
That artificial womb is going to make them redundant.
Next plan….
Get them off this planet, we were here first.
November 21st, 2005 at 3:57 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Do you know any other words aside from mule? Such a craaazy obsession you’ve got with that animal. Methinks you’re wishing you were donkey-rigged.
You poor man.
November 21st, 2005 at 4:26 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Woohooo, no all day sickness, no getting fat, no having to wear sack-like maternity wear, no stretch marks, no losing of figure, no pain. Bless.
Mmmkay, are you old enough to even be on this site?
November 21st, 2005 at 6:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 87bfd0aac83af
You know something Female, your arguments have me even more convinced than ever that women are several steps lower than men on the evolutionary ladder.
Putting your feminist pseudo-non science gobledygook aside (only a woman could put nonsense like that forward and think that she has made a point), your argument is that a womans instinct to protect and care for her child is hormone driven. Well that is what I have been saying all along. Jeez.
What I have also been saying is that a womans instinct to protect her child is inherent in every female species of animal on the planet. So if you were to give birth to a child, your desire to hold your child close, to protect it and feed it would be no different than a lab rat or a cat that has given birth to a litter of kittens or a tigress out in the wild.
You also say that a womans love for her child is driven by her hormonal changes…
Female = Behaviour influenced by hormones. Isnt that what I stated earlier?
Now compare this with a fathers love for his child. We dont need to carry a child in our bellies for 9 months and have it suck on our nipples to change our hormones in order to develop a bond. Yet, we will love, cherish and be prepared to die for that child. Why? Because we have the knowlege that the child is ours and we therefore love him or her.
Male = Behavior influenced by intelligence / thoughts.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:13 am - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
Actually, Female, I believe that verbal communication with an unborn child is not simply in the mother’s imagination.
Wood-ducks “speak” to their unhatched eggs. This is how the chicks learn to recognize the sound of their parents’ voices, so that when they have hatched they will recognize and follow their parents to the safety of the water.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:22 am - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
(I admit, I just skimmed the comments on the thread, but based on the gist of what I read I thought I’d offer a few thoughts - feel free to do with them what you will.)
Love is not a feeling, love is an action. Love is not how you feel about someone, it is how well you treat a person aside from how you feel about them.
Women, on the whole, have bought into the deception of ‘romantic love’. While romance is certainly nice, it comes and goes and can be very fleeting at times.
My husband does not often make romantic gestures. I know he would, if I expressed a desire for such things, but I made it clear at the start of our relationship that I did not expect it of him.
Now, my husband very often makes loving gestures. These are not as obvious as romantic gestures, but they are even more precious, as they show how well my husband knows me and cares about me.
I think this is one reason why more women than men initiate divorce. Having bought into the lie that love = romance, they assume that because their relationship lacks romance, it lacks love.
November 21st, 2005 at 8:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
As to women loving their children - well, again, it comes into whether or not love is a feeling.
A woman can be very affectionate towards her child without actually loving that child very much.
Whether or not a woman truly loves her children is going to be expressed in the way she acts towards those children.
A woman that loves her children will discipline them, because she knows that they need to be taught self-control and respectful behavior. She will sacrifice material gain and prestige for them. She will do her best to insure that not only do they make it out of childhood alive, but that they are equipped to be healthy adults that can stand on their own two feet and think for themselves, adults that will be respected by those around them. She will place the welfare of her children above her own and will not whine about what a burden her children are.
Okay, I’m done for the moment. Have at it - I hope it isn’t the usual carrion that women leave on this site.
November 21st, 2005 at 9:08 am - IP Man-Hash: 87bfd0aac83af
Arielle, you are a credit to your sex. Unfortunately, Female is a huge debit to her sex so your sensible contribution still leaves the female sex in the red.
Love is a feeling not an action. You can love someone deeply, without any action whatsoever. I could be married to my wife and make romantic gestures to her, and yet love another woman who does not even know that I love her.
Therefore action does not amount to love. You are right when you say that a mother can be very affectionate without loving her child very much. Which is why I am saying that maternal instinct and love are not the same.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:34 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Geeza, once again you have proved my point that men cannot see even when they look.
The whole point of giving you those steps Geeza was to demonstrate how love evolves. Maybe I should I have put down step 5. Love is born.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:35 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Step 6. Woman collects paycheck.
-Dick
November 21st, 2005 at 1:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Arielle, everything you said is true and I have no qualms with it, love is action. However, surprisingly enough, I also agree with Geeza here, Love is also feeling. You are wrong though Geeza when you fail to acknowledge that this feeling implies there is no action. Feelings/thoughts are expressed behaviourally whether you want them to be or not.
November 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Shouldn’t you be in the laundry? And fuck yeah, you should be paying me to post on this site!!!
November 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Wow. A completely psychotic response. You need counseling, Female.
-Dick
November 21st, 2005 at 4:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6403748110eb7
Female said “that men cannot see even when they look”.
hmmm….
We can see exactly wot we are looking at. We just DONT BUY IT. Its a ruse on our part to lull you into your preconceived stereotyping of men as dolts. You see, its easier to use an opponents own force against them. By playing dumb, we play into your genetically progammed patronising and condascending attitude and thusly, buy ourselves a perpetual pass. And it works a treat… EVERY SINGLE TIME. The lovely thing about the ruse is that after eons of adapting to womens ways men have mastered the power of making like a mirror and reflecting. A (very) few choice words plus ACTIONS that speak louder than words we can keep you just as wrong footed with all that plausible deniability and playing dumb, that you so expertly taught your sons, brothers and husbands thru the ages.
Ordinarily nothing is to be gained by telling the enemy how you play them, but we are dealing with woman after all, so it will take her half a lifetime from hee to figure out how to use this information. Plus its fun watching you squirm at the incredible manly power of our (according to women) largely vacuous empty heads. Imagine, women think we have a peanut for a brain and still we can out think them.