Thespianism and the “Female Orgasm”
I thought of a brilliant plan to make a Hollywood disaster film last night. And I don’t mean a disaster film like with tornados and an attacking horde of Stay Puf’t Marshmallow Men. I mean a disaster film as in a massive box office failure. A film in which no dollars are recouped. A failure so bad that cash pours out of the bank like someone’s broken the dyke.
Are you ready for it? Here’s the idea.
Have a woman star in the lead role.
Just like the first time they let a woman on the space shuttle, any movie that allows a woman to helm the lead will be a huge fucking catastrophe.
Here’s a list of the top grossing movies of all time:
1. Titanic - male lead
2. Star Wars - male lead
3. Shrek 2 - male ogre lead
4. E.T. - male alien lead
The list goes on and on — so I’ll stop there because this site is not about going on and on, it’s about getting to the point as quickly as is prudent; a manly thing.
Men are better than women at acting. You can go look it up yourself or you can just take my word for it, but nowhere in the top 100 highest grossing films of all time is there fucking one that has a woman as the main character. In fact, the only movie where a woman is important to the story at all is “What Women Want” starring Mel Gibson, and I only say that because I haven’t seen that movie and nothing on the face of the Earth could make me.
Women can’t act, they can’t sing, and they’re not funny — they have as much place in the public forum as a mule at a beauty pageant yet still they stumble in with their sash clamped between their enormous teeth braying for their time in the spotlight. We all already know why; because women will do anything for attention — anything. Good or bad attention, it doesn’t matter. They’re so addicted to it that if prostitution was legal, you wouldn’t even have to pay for it. Women would have no need for money, living the life of luxury and swimming in a life-sustaining, media-maelstrom of attention.
That doesn’t answer the question though. Why does no one give a shit about movies based on the lives of women? And also why can’t women act?
Women can’t act because there’s only one emotion they know. Greed. The one-horned, green-eyed monster. Acting requires familiarity and the ability to display all kinds of emotions. To women, that’s like asking a pile of shit to play darts with you. Good luck.
No one gives a shit about movies based on women because a main character who latches onto everything like a leech, ruins all it touches like an angel of Armageddon, and all the while has absolutely no redeeming qualities; makes for a shitty story. Just describing a woman character ruined this paragraph. Now imagine two and a half hours based on the same shit that ends in a crappy apartment with sixteen cats. Box office disaster.
It’s a good thing Hollywood only gives a shit about equality when it’s on the screen and not behind it. Otherwise 50% of movies wouldn’t even require a poster. They could just go straight into the local video rental discount bin of Who Gives a Shit.
If you want to see how poorly women act just remember the last time one tried to slip a fake orgasm past you. Pitifully amateur, right? Among the myriad of things women will never understand is that there’s a difference between “buying the bullshit” and just not giving a damn. Let me explain.
I’m giving the Trick-Or-Treaters candy next week whether they’re convincing or not. You say you’re a Power Ranger? That’s fine. I don’t really give a shit because I’m a man and dress-up pretend time isn’t in my Man Bag. Your costume is your business.
It’s the same thing.
Related Articles:
October 26th, 2005 at 10:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3604a7f447f6d
On the acting note, I have just one thing to say: of course. Men are better than women at all things and the glaring differences are most notable in undertakings that are, at less skillful levels, known as girly things such as cooking, dancing, figure skating, etc. Watch any olympic competition or even Iron Chef and you’ll see that at the top (or “real”) levels of anything are men and only men.
October 27th, 2005 at 1:13 am - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
Sex and the city. Need i say more about women and acting? The worst piece of shit ever put on television, and Ive never even had to watch it to figure that out. The problem with women actors, is that women are always putting up an act anyway (except when theyre being stupid debutantes), and putting this crap on tv or in movies encourages them. Even if it is only other women who watch it. You would think since all women have a facade that they would be natural born actors. But then you realize, thats like trying to cover a lie with another lie.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 5bc85cdf4bdae
We now have bitch media, that media that knows only lies and incapable of telling the truth and we have the female to thank for it.
Political correctness instigated the lie and feminists promoted it.
Thanks bitches for the lies.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:16 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
philw, it is more than likely true that more males than females are at the top of all fields but here’s a few possible reasons why. You’ll like them.
1. Men have historically been working in industry longer than women & have therefore over time most fields have become boys clubs making it near impossible for a woman to reach the top, especially en masse, even if their smarter than the boys. There’s a couple of things called ‘the glass ceiling’ and male dominated workplaces, you might want to wikipedia these.
2. Women are biologically programmed to prefer to bed more resourceful, successful men. Men are therefore driven to work/complete like mice on a wheel in order to make sure their semen is chosen by the female.
3. Women are typically harder workers than males but don’t “push” themselves ahead of the “men” because they know this would stamp all over most men’s fragile egos, resulting in said men casting dispersions on said woman. An especially foul tactic used by said men is to try and bed the smarter, more successful female work colleague, then to brag about it to all and sundry so that her career reputation becomes tainted, so said man can then get promoted over her head. And they think woman sleep their way to the top, pfft!
October 27th, 2005 at 5:17 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
And Christian, shut your little boy mouth up.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:55 am - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
jeff, that’s a great point. I’ve also never seen an episode of Sex and the City, but the way women talk about it is enough to rule it out. You would think that women would be natural actors, what with all the practice, but acting isn’t about lying. It’s about tapping into experiences and emotions. Women have none of either one.
-Dick
October 27th, 2005 at 9:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 0018e71389e68
In fact, if you want to make a great movie have an insignificant number of actresses playing minimal parts or preferably, none.
1) Godfather
2) Shawshank Redemption
3) The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
4) Dr Strangelove
5) Usual Suspects
6) Road to Perdition
7) Goodfellas
………I could easily go into the hundreds with this list. The formula is: The more mantastic the film, the better.
If you do have to include a female, show em for the manipulative whores they often are:
1) American Beauty
2) Memento
3) Fight Club
October 27th, 2005 at 12:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Good point. In other words: have realistic characters. Am I right, Geeza?
-Dick
October 27th, 2005 at 1:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: 04c1fd760d95b
Master and Commander with Russell Crowe.
Not a bitch in sight.
Excellent movie.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:31 am - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
Most definetely Dick. I forgot to add ‘princess complex’ to manipulative whores as in Shrek (Princess Fiona) and Star Wars (Princess whatshername). ‘If you’re ready to take a bullet in the head for me, I’ll open my legs for you’.
Theres this other Russell Crowe movie that I really liked but I cant remember the title where he blows the whistle on a cigarette manufacturer and his wife rather than supporting him for sticking to his principles, dumps him because she is more concerned with losing the house and car. Another realistic movie. Its on the tip of my tongue.
October 28th, 2005 at 3:55 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
“It’s about tapping into experiences and emotions. Women have none of either one. - Dick”
Some woman sure did a number on you didn’t she Dick?, in fact, every one of you are licking your wounds in public. Nice work fellas, you must feel so proud and manly about that. How mantastic!!
October 28th, 2005 at 4:01 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Okay so I just bothered to read the first 2 paragraphs of your “feature” post Dick and even though some female above has probably already pointed this out to you, I’ll reiterate. The following movies
1. Titanic - male lead
2. Star Wars - male lead
3. Shrek 2 - male ogre lead
4. E.T. - male alien lead
are all romances (blergh) and child-friendly (repeat). Admittedly, #4 was a love affair between an alien and a young boy, but weirder shit has happened.
Anyhow, my point is that this necessitates a female character (assuming the planetary population is hetero), thus the man cannot soley be the lead character. I would have thought this was way more obvious than my IP address (so?!!)
October 28th, 2005 at 5:51 am - IP Man-Hash: 1dd24a32caee0
Since when does stating that women are self-absorbed attention whores equate to licking wounds in public? I’d say that knowing what the majority of women are really like would actually prevent a guy from getting wounded in the first place. Very mantastic indeed.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:01 am - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
So in E.T. the necessary female character was who exactly?
I find it fascinating that the women who post here always disprove their own points in doing so. Women are the prosecutor, the defendant, and the criminal all in one. Who needs a judge! Nobody’s making any sense anyway.
Also, Female, your distaste for romance and family values doesn’t make you cool.
-Dick
October 28th, 2005 at 8:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Notice how there wasn’t any need for a father in E.T?
Let’s deconstruct the others shall we.
Shrek, mmm, well let’s see, the leading male character was a grotesqely ugly, bald, Scottish,bad-tempered green ogre (could he possibly have had any worse character or physical traits? I think not).
The other male was a donkey. Nuff said.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that a beautiful woman is going to fall in love with a McFugly. Call me a cynic but this is like Cinderella for the boys. Secondly, the irony in Shrek only falling in love with the female once she resembled him is just beautiful. Do we have any better proof of the existence of the gigantic male ego? Let’s see….
Star Wars, you have failed to identify exactly which ep you are referring to, but I’m guessing it’s the earlier ones. I’ll focus on Empire here. Story about males and their cocks, sorry, I mean’t light sabres or moral on good/evil. As far as I can remember Leia was the only female character, probably because women alreadly know about good/evil and thus a story about this and us would be largely irrelevant, if not completely ridiculous. Anyhoo, clearly one movie on the one theme is just not enough for men. They need to see lots of themselves, fighting, trying to do manly things in bulk in order to feel satisfied. Let’s move on.
Titanic. Christ. Bad, bad movie. Loved the way the weasly man pushed women and children out of the way in his desire to get the lifeboats. I’m sure most guys here can relate.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
None of that has anything to do with anything. Nice try, Female, but you failed like usual.
Failure is as failure does.
That’s a twist of a famous line from another man lead for those of you playing at home.
-Dick
October 28th, 2005 at 11:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
I didn’t realise it was a test Dick.
What was your article about again? As you jumped all over the shop like a rabbit on heat I found it extremely difficult to actually grasp the point of your article. Oh that’s right. Something about the top grossing movies of all time not having female leads. I didn’t really bother to comment on this because as you made #1 movie Titanic, I kinda figured you had already disproved the whole point of your article. Unless of course I’m missing something here and you have evidence that Kate Winslet is either a bloke or a post-op tranny.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 13d0691aa7797
Geeza.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140352/
It was called The Insider and based on a true story.
So the bitch actually stabbed husband in the back and dumped him for a bunch of perishable goods, f’king typical female.
October 29th, 2005 at 12:11 am - IP Man-Hash: 13d0691aa7797
From the resident troll
“philw, it is more than likely true that more males than females are at the top of all fields but here’s a few possible reasons why. You’ll like them.1. Men have historically been working in industry longer than women & have therefore over time most fields have become boys clubs making it near impossible for a woman to reach the top, especially en masse, even if their smarter than the boys. There’s a couple of things called ‘the glass ceiling’ and male dominated workplaces, you might want to wikipedia these.2. Women are biologically programmed to prefer to bed more resourceful, successful men. Men are therefore driven to work/complete like mice on a wheel in order to make sure their semen is chosen by the female.3. Women are typically harder workers than males but don’t “pushâ€? themselves ahead of the “menâ€? because they know this would stamp all over most men’s fragile egos, resulting in said men casting dispersions on said woman. An especially foul tactic used by said men is to try and bed the smarter, more successful female work colleague, then to brag about it to all and sundry so that her career reputation becomes tainted, so said man can then get promoted over her head. And they think woman sleep their way to the top, pfft!Okay so I just bothered to read the first 2 paragraphs of your “featureâ€? post Dick and even though some female above has probably already pointed this out to you, I’ll reiterate. The following movies1. Titanic - male lead2. Star Wars - male lead3. Shrek 2 - male ogre lead4. E.T. - male alien leadare all romances (blergh) and child-friendly (repeat). Admittedly, #4 was a love affair between an alien and a young boy, but weirder shit has happened.Anyhow, my point is that this necessitates a female character (assuming the planetary population is hetero), thus the man cannot soley be the lead character. I would have thought this was way more obvious than my IP address (so?!!)Notice how there wasn’t any need for a father in E.T?Let’s deconstruct the others shall we.Shrek, mmm, well let’s see, the leading male character was a grotesqely ugly, bald, Scottish,bad-tempered green ogre (could he possibly have had any worse character or physical traits? I think not).The other male was a donkey. Nuff said.
Somehow we are supposed to believe that a beautiful woman is going to fall in love with a McFugly. Call me a cynic but this is like Cinderella for the boys. Secondly, the irony in Shrek only falling in love with the female once she resembled him is just beautiful. Do we have any better proof of the existence of the gigantic male ego? Let’s see….Star Wars, you have failed to identify exactly which ep you are referring to, but I’m guessing it’s the earlier ones. I’ll focus on Empire here. Story about males and their cocks, sorry, I mean’t light sabres or moral on good/evil. As far as I can remember Leia was the only female character, probably because women alreadly know about good/evil and thus a story about this and us would be largely irrelevant, if not completely ridiculous. Anyhoo, clearly one movie on the one theme is just not enough for men. They need to see lots of themselves, fighting, trying to do manly things in bulk in order to feel satisfied. Let’s move on.Titanic. Christ. Bad, bad movie. Loved the way the weasly man pushed women and children out of the way in his desire to get the lifeboats. I’m sure most guys here can relate.I didn’t realise it was a test Dick. What was your article about again? As you jumped all over the shop like a rabbit on heat I found it extremely difficult to actually grasp the point of your article. Oh that’s right. Something about the top grossing movies of all time not having female leads. I didn’t really bother to comment on this because as you made #1 movie Titanic, I kinda figured you had already disproved the whole point of your article. Unless of course I’m missing something here and you have evidence that Kate Winslet is either a bloke or a post-op tranny.”
Fine example of verbal diarrhoea.
October 29th, 2005 at 12:15 am - IP Man-Hash: 0224fa72dd0ef
i hate movies, waste of money considering most of the world lives in poverty
October 29th, 2005 at 2:13 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Wow Christian, you’ve saved me days of trolling, thanks for reposting my comments. Keep it up.
October 29th, 2005 at 4:07 am - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
Dick, I used to question your wisdom in allowing women to post in here and I still think it is a double edge sword.
On the one hand we get affirmation (as if we needed any) of how stupid and self-absorbed women are by their meaningless gibberish. On the other hand it is getting tiring and needlessly time consuming reading the female generated drivel. Just one piece of trash out of a 40ft containerload full of trash:
“Notice how there wasn’t any need for a father in E.T?”
What a fucking meaningless question that proved nothing whatsoever delivered as if something deep and meaningful was being said.
October 29th, 2005 at 4:17 am - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
Thanks Christian, thats the one. I need to buy that one to add to my mantastic movie collection.
October 29th, 2005 at 4:59 am - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
Excuse me Geeza - nice name you’ve got there btw - but I made the point because previous male bigot poseur posters, such as yourself, were harping on about the best movies not having any females in them, and, because Dick needed to point out to me that he was confused by who exactly the lead female character in E.T was (Drew). I therefore felt it quite appropriate to respond to his question by pointing out that there also was not a dominant male (stereotype) in the movie. You should be able to take something from that, I’m sure.
However, if you are still confused. Who the fuck cares.
October 29th, 2005 at 9:00 am - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
Drew Barrymore was the lead character in ET? That’s a lark. Titanic had nothing to do with Kate Winslett. She was just the prize for the two main male characters. Just like every woman has been in history: a prize for men.
sera, you hate movies? Jesus. Call the Goth Squad, we’ve got an escaped Emo kid on the loose!
-Dick
October 29th, 2005 at 4:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
Female, for someone who spends more time in here than alot of the guys, you really should bother to read what we post before commenting.
You said:
“but I made the point because previous male bigot poseur posters, such as yourself, were harping on about the best movies not having any females in them”
My exact words were:
“In fact, if you want to make a great movie have an insignificant number of actresses playing minimal parts or preferably, none.”
Go to any list of all time great movies, such as the IMDB top 250 http://www.imdb.com/chart/top. From 250 movies you will struggle to even reach double figures where a female has the lead role. In fact you will find far more movies where women have no starring roles at all (such as the movies I listed above).. The reason is simple. Stories that revolve around male characters are more complex and interesting. Watching a movie about a woman is like watching a cat step on its own tail and then hiss and spit for half an hour. So in actual fact, Dick was right all along.
Surely by now you must be gagging on your toes, or maybe you are just used to shoving your foot up your mouth all the time.
October 29th, 2005 at 5:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
No Geeza, who cares what the stats say. I’ve studied stats and I know they can be twisted, turned, interpreted this way or that ET FUCKING CETERA to not bother with them. You men love to quote numbers, especially BIG numbers (hmmm) but you always, always fail to consider the qualitative element or other contributing factors. Take, for instance, the fact that most movies are Hollywood Blockbuster pieces of shit and the only reason they do well (Titanic, for instance) is due to mass marketing, whereby the major stakeholders (SONY etc) coerce their distributers to stock their products or lose rebates etc. The world of man is smoke and mirrors, bullshit in a tie, if you will. The only reason Titanic didn’t tank this time is because of Celine Dion’s voice. Owned by a woman. Distributed by men and women.
October 29th, 2005 at 6:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
The IMDB 250 list is not even based on sales. It is based on viewers tastes the world over and does not even feature ‘Titanic’ in the top 250, but it does include many Japanese and European movies. In fact, there are 5 non-english movies in the top 30.
The only one around here with smoke and mirrors and a truckload of bullshit is you. The only reason why ‘Titanic’ was such a crock of shit is because instead of the story revolving around one of the biggest tragedies of the early industrial era, it revolved around another stupid romantic woman in a love triangle. Otherwise the director, special effects etc were fine.
Therefore:
A female lead or storyline centred around a female = A shit piece of cinematography.
If you want to argue movies do a little research instead of clinging on to your nosediving arguments the way you are clinging on to the Titanic.
October 29th, 2005 at 7:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: dd25bee8154fe
I should read comments before posting? perhaps you should read the posted article before dribbling your shite. To save you precious man time *cough* I’ll save you the trouble. Refer dick’s statement below
“Here’s a list of the top grossing movies of all time:
1. Titanic - male lead”
So Geeza, you say this movie revolved around a romantic woman? Dick, you should be taking notes here.
You also say this movie was a crock of shit, yet Dick holds it up as the top grossing movie of all time. You men need to get your stories straight.
October 30th, 2005 at 10:22 am - IP Man-Hash: f75c92aeb197e
You drowned with your pathetic arguments a couple of posts back already as you cling desperately to the Titanic. Now you’re hiding behind Dicks statements to make a point.
Top grossing movie means it outsold other movies in ticket sales.
A movie can only be judged good AFTER people have seen it. You therefore cannot rely on ticket sales to say that a movie is good.
So was Titanic the top grossing movie? : yes
Does that mean it is a good movie? : no
Following so far?
I agree with Dicks conclusion that having a woman in the lead role leads to a roll of celluloid shit?
But I didnt agree with using gross sales as the yardstick. Hence I said:
“In fact, if you want to make a great movie have an insignificant number of actresses playing minimal parts or preferably, none.”
And proceeded to give a list of movies and did not include the Titanic.
Therefore:
A female lead or storyline centred around a female = A shit piece of cinematography.
Now why dont you post another paragraph of drivel and embarass your gender abit more.
October 30th, 2005 at 12:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7ad528100ed4f
Funny, Dick, that you said, and I quote, “I find it fascinating that the women who post here always disprove their own points in doing so. Women are the prosecutor, the defendant, and the criminal all in one. Who needs a judge! Nobody’s making any sense anyway.” Seems to me that you guys do a damn good job proving yourselves to be ignorant assholes. Take, for example, this little quote from jeff, “sex and the city. Need i say more about women and acting? The worst piece of shit ever put on television, and Ive never even had to watch it to figure that out.” Hmm, you’ve never had to even watch it to figure it out? That seems a little funny to me, Jeff. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that you kind of HAVE to see something to be able to even speak about it. Your bullshit opinions hold no validity if you admit yourself that they’re based on absolutely fucking nothing.
October 30th, 2005 at 12:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7ad528100ed4f
And, by the way, if that doesn’t make sense to you, DICK (as you are so appropriately named), then you are a lot dumber than you pretend to be.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:00 am - IP Man-Hash: a0c7c73d83830
Female and Chelsea, you’re completely wrong. I would be worried about the state of the future with ignorant maniacs like you two running around, but then I remember. You’re women. You can’t make a difference.
-Dick
October 31st, 2005 at 12:46 am - IP Man-Hash: dd1b911ab43ac
Geeza, you’re the one who is confused. The whole point of Dick’s article was that the top grossing movies of all time DO NOT have a female lead, but you yourself disputed that point with the following,
“The only reason why ‘Titanic’ was such a crock of shit is because instead of the story revolving around one of the biggest tragedies of the early industrial era, it revolved around another stupid romantic woman in a love triangle.”
Shall I repeat your own words third time lucky for you?, “titanic…..revolved around another stupid romantic woman in a love triangle.” Thus I win. Clearly if you are a lawyer, you are a fucking bad one.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:14 am - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
You’re wrong like usual, Female. The point of the article is that women make lousy lead characters. In Titanic the woman played the role of a trophy fought over for purposes of ego and power and never in any kind of danger.
Obviously you didn’t understand the diamond metaphor. How pedestrian.
-Dick
October 31st, 2005 at 10:34 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Chelsea wrote: “Unless I’m mistaken… “.
You are. Now please kindly be quiet.
You betray a stunning lack of comprehension in your recent posts here. For an exercise, try distinguishing between the phrases “I’ve never even had to watch it to figure that out.” and “I’ve never watched it”. In the world of men, one forms a hypothesis, tests it in a variety of ways, and confirms, alters, or discards the hypothesis based on the evidence. Jeff’s sentence neatly summed up that process for any man reading. For a woman, I can see how that would be as incomprehensible.
“I believe that you kind of HAVE to see something to be able to even speak about it.” Wrong again. I don’t need to see a hammer falling on my foot to know that it would hurt. I don’t need to see my house burn down to speak about the dangers of fire. I don’t need to watch a woman trying to reason to know that she’s inferior to a man at deductive reasoning.
You’ve stormed onto these boards, uninvited, and explicitly forbidden, spouting inane babble, cursing people, and using some of the foulest language I’ve seen outside of a longshoreman’s guild meeting or a women’s coffee klatch. You’ve been treated with remarkable courtesy, considering.
To educate you, I suggest a thought experiment (that’s along the lines of not having to see something to learn about it, a process you might find useful someday). Try and pretend a man has popped onto one of your Lactating Lesbian Lawyers against Logic boards. He’s roundly cursed you all out, says he hopes you are screwed and disbarred, betrayed an utter lack of knowledge of illogic, lesbians, lesbian law, and lactation. Would he be welcome?
October 31st, 2005 at 10:36 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Female, Dick is correct about Titanic. Women again are in the role of reactor rather than actor. To borrow an old analogy from Dick, E.T was improved because it had candy in it. Titanic was improved because it had women in it. Neither mean that you should attempt to make a great film featuring only candy or women.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:58 am - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Absolutely true, wolfe. I can’t seem to find any information on the internet about it, but did Reese’s Pieces win any supporting actor awards for their role in E.T.? Did that happen? I don’t remember anything about it at the time, but while we’re on the subject of acting did Reese’s Pieces the candies win awards for their role in E.T.?
Fuck off of my site women.
-Dick
October 31st, 2005 at 12:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7ad528100ed4f
Women can and have made a difference. And they will continue to in the future. I’ll pray for you boys, because I truly believe you need it. Good luck…
October 31st, 2005 at 12:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Usually that kind of “good luck” is spoken as a farewell. I can only hope we’re that lucky.
-Dick
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:06 am - IP Man-Hash: f005b33224683
Female, congratulations on your win. I herby declare you winner of the ‘I’ll keep posting even though I dont have a clue what the fuck I am talking about’ award.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 am - IP Man-Hash: c45a5d2bc2203
I have seen several episodes of Sex and the City, and can confirm that it is utter shite.
Interesting how it was designed for women, yet several of the episodes featured female nudity.
November 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 am - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
They probably wanted to cater to the demographic of television households that have a man in control of the remote. You know, 100%.
-Dick
November 3rd, 2005 at 8:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 433d5a2b31ab6
Schleps in the Shitty City pretty much speaks for itself.
4 fuck rats, banging their way thru NYC whilst obsessing over their $1000 pairs of shoes whilst crying they dont even own a home at age 38. Typical. This sort of story just would not fly if it were 4 male sluts banging their way thru NYC. Dont know or even care why… just a gut feeling that tells me men wouldnt watch it.
How hehehehelarious that a woman should ridicule the allegedly fragile egoes of men. Women who, dont have the basic balls to risk the challenge to their ego by asking a man out and who waste time rationalising their gutless natures by saying its mens fault because its an affront to the male ego to be approached by a woman. ahahahahhahahahahha. Women, who wear padded bras, high heels, girdles, 2 inches of make up, colour their hair, cant face the world without their makeup, pluck and wax… blah blah. And of course, default defense is… thats wot men want, we are doing ot for you, its your fault, we are not responsible… wah wah wah. Do you ladies realise just how much harm you do to yourselves when you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions, behaviours, motovations. Men just cannot respect scapegoating copouts.
Frankly l dont know how the average modern women can walk, having blown away both her feet with the double barelled shot gun of unaccountability and scapegoating. Have you gals learnt NOTHING from your feminasty bretheren… there is no liberation without accountability. There is no power without responsibility. Complain and blame are the most disempowering things you can do to yourselves.
Dont you get whats going on here ladies. Men are winding you up because we crave a responsible woman. We are trying to embarass, hassle and ridicule you OUT of YOUR COMPALCENCY. Plus its funny watcing you all squirm at the patently obvious. Cheap larfs.
If you dont get that, you are wasting your time in this place.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: b80985ab28e28
It’s true. From the very start, women aren’t raised to accept accountability or responsibility in the same way men are — or at all. It’s obvious even at the youngest ages. Girls (and thereby women) just aren’t meant to wield the kind of power that men do. It’s simple really. All too simple.
-Dick
November 4th, 2005 at 4:06 am - IP Man-Hash: 80b0e5f44308d
“there is no liberation without accountability.
There is no power without responsibility.”
This hits it right on the head, Vanity.
This is the summation of anti-feminism.
This states it all.
Women do not want to hear it, feminists have tried their hardest to ensure that women are not accountable for their actions. For reference see the law courts for comparisons on male to female sentencing for similar or exact crimes.
For the same crime 1 female to 19 males will go to jail.
Interesting.
Women always have excuses, this was covered in previous topics.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:40 am - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
Good points, Christian and Vanity.
To expand on your point, Christian, it’s instructive to examine the case of Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.
Before they met, he was a serial rapist. A thoroughly depraved and disgusting individual; however, his victims were never injured beyond the rape, not that that was much consolation to them. However, no one died.
After they married, Homolka guided Bernardo into a world of death. They became a pair of serial killers, with Homolka selecting the victims (which included her own sister). Every single new victim died, including the sister.
Bernardo got life (not counting the previous rapes); she got a light 12 year sentence that could have gotten her out in just a few years with parole.
How do we know (apart from the odd fact he never killed anyone until he hooked up with her) that she was the instigator?
Videotape evidence. This loathsome pair taped their sickening activities, and her comments, her urging him on, and her alone with the victims are plain to see.
She of course claimed to be a “battered wife” and most felt sorry for her. Until the videotapes were found that is.
Even after that most feminists still felt sorry for her.
So much for female accountability and responsibility.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: e138b69be1d1c
hey Dick are you gay? or something like that.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 19968a06a2a3c
How the fuck do you girls come up with this shit?! Is he gay? Wow, the originality, the brilliance, this is motherfucking amazing, bitch!
And what is something like gay? You mean he ignores you cunt’s vagina passes and that makes him homosexual? I love the way you shamelessly promote yourself in a realm where you don’t belong. There’s a name for that: prostitution.
Ne so horey, ne no like when you ignore fantazie worrld!
Fantasy worlds are cute and all, but watching a short little Japanese schoolgirl cry at the realization of the futility of her life is much cuter.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 191242b12610c
Top 10 reasons why women orgasm is a myth.
1.Women have a vagina
2.Women have a clit
3.Women don’t have a penis
4.Women don’t have balls
5.Women have periods
6.Women fake orgasm
7.Women don’t know what they want
8.Women get penetrated
9.Women don’t even agree on how to define orgasm ,yet they turn around to say that they’ve experience multiple orgasm
10.Faking orgasm is the closest women will ever get to knowing orgasm.
11.Only the orgasm ridden gender will think that there is actuallya number 11 after I’ve clearly stated only 10 reason and only the orgasm monopolizing gender will find number 1 through 11 funny
August 9th, 2007 at 7:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: a41caf4a68abe
It’s not a myth.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: f68191fe56ea6
I used to know a guy that thought that, then he got a girlfriend and when I asked him again and he said, “no, it’s real I found out this cool thing I can do…” I cut him off after that.
Do guys actually think it doesn’t exist or do they say it to be shit stirrers.
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: 844bc4f871fb2
That doesn’t mean its a good one.