Archive for April, 2010|Monthly archive page
If every state had its own laws, we wouldn’t be one country; we’d be 50 different countries.
-Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
This morning I heard my first unborn child’s heartbeat for the first time. My wife and I are about to embark on the adventure of parenting and I’m looking forward to it.
We are also both lurk the interwebz for the lulz. We frequently discuss this monstrosity, also known as the perpetually NSFW Chris-Chan.
Chris-Chan is a classic example of how not to parent. There is an endless amount of material on this kid and I’m not going to rehash it - look if you dare – but the long and short of it is that the kid’s a little on the slow side. Supposedly “high functioning autistic” – which I believe is a BS diagnosis for what in the good old days people would just aptly shorthand as “retarded”. Chris-Chan, through years of neglect, has become a 28-year-old man-child who you are paying for via social security, because he’s “disabled.” I’m sure you’ve met an actual retarded person at the bagging lanes in the grocery store who is far less functional than Chris but nevertheless has something Chris never had, and at this point likely never will – a job.
Needless to say, Chris has a lot of problems and all of them stem from his parents – Bob and Barbara Chandler. Barbara was in her mid-to-late 40′s when she conceived. Ladies, listen up: don’t wait. This might be the result. Bob on the other hand was already in his late 50′s.
This guy sums up some of the basic observations one would make about Bob and Barb after seeing the disaster that is Chris-Chan: they haven’t prepared him for the real world, etc.
Part of me wants to condemn them both to the darkest level of hell for letting their son turn into such a waster. But consider this.
Both of Chris’s parents had adult children by their previous spouses already. Their child-rearing was behind them, or so they thought. Imagine poor Bob. He’s looking forward to enjoying his retirement with his new wife – by his standards a spring chicken – back in 1982. Instead he gets saddled with an embarassing retarded baby who didn’t speak his first words until he was 7. A baby should be a positive thing. I guarantee you that Bob has never seen it that way, even before he knew what was on its way out. I often wonder whether or not Bob, a religious Christian, thinks about whether he would have pushed Barb to abort the baby if he would have known what Chris would become. Then I often wonder whether they should have. With Chris it’s a tough call but hindsight is 20/20.
Barb, she just totally screwed up. She treated Chris like her special little snowflake and constantly babied him about his autism. This is evident by the way Chris talks about his disorder – even going so far as to blame his babysitter’s “mistreatment” of Chris as a cause of his autism – a pleasant fantasy very obviously planted in his head by his dumb mother, desperate to cope with the fact that she spawned an idiot. Always careful to call it “high functioning autism” – i.e., diet retard. At the same time, she put the idea in his mind that he was handsome and a real catch, and that normal girls would ever in a billion years be attracted to Chris. That was her biggest crime and I think a major cause for Chris’s current situation. Instead of being honest with the kid about his condition and helping him make the best out of a bad situation, instead they kept pushing the “you’re perfectly normal” routine on him to the point where he started to believe it, only to hit a wall of total frustration when he simply cannot do the things that other people can do, namely make meaningful social interactions with other human beings.
The above linked YouTube critic is unnecessarily harsh on both of them. Barb is a mother. Most mothers, except for the really smart, strong ones, would screw up the Chris-chan parenting experience because I suspect most mothers, in the interest of protecting their child from harm, would not have it in their hearts to basically hold up a mirror to Chris and tell him how it is. That’s the man’s job. Bob…
Well, two things could have happened. First, Barb might have been a total bitch about the situation and refused to let her husband raise the kid right. It wouldn’t be the first time. “Don’t hurt his feelings!” Right. We’ve all seen how far “protecting his feelings” has gotten him. The other thing that could have happened is that Bob just didn’t give a crap. For a man his age he might have just written Chris off as a lost cause, having neither the energy or motivation to really give Chris the kind of upbringing he needed. However based on what fragmented pieces of history and intervention we’ve seen of Bob, I get the impression it is likely the former and not the latter. Bob went as far as moving his household to a different county just for the sake of getting Chris into better schools, and a few times Bob has appeared on camera attempting to parent his son. Too little too late perhaps. But I think Barb is the culprit here, but Bob should have had the strength to take control and do it right.
That’s all, sports fans. Sonichu zaps the lightning… haaay mellow color.
This is a blurb from a corporate memo:
Research firm, TRU polled more than 1,000 young adults between the ages of 18-24 regarding their online behavior and security precautions, and found that more than seven out of ten admit that they are not always as careful as they should be when posting and accessing information online. The research also reveals that young adults regularly make risky choices when engaging in activities such as file sharing and social networking that can lead to long-lasting negative consequences and result in damage to an individual’s reputation both online and off.
Only someone from generations gone by could think for a second that file sharing matters to people or that anyone takes Facebook seriously. Come on.
The survey also polled young adults regarding their online behavior and how it may affect job searches, finding that while 76% indicate they are currently or soon plan to begin searching for a job, and 67% have posted inappropriate content, photos, and/or videos involving cigarettes, drugs, alcohol and sex online, which could potentially limit employment opportunities.
…. are these people serious?
News flash, gramps: everybody posts pictures of themselves drinking and smoking online because everybody in this country does both of those things. A smaller percentage of people post pictures and/or videos of having sex online, but who gives a shit. The human race propogates itself by having sex.
The kind of person who would say with a straight face that standard Facebook crap is going to inhibit someone’s career is obviously someone who doesn’t also participate in Facebook crap, mainly the 35+ crowd. That’s not to say that it’s not important because a great proportion of hiring decisions are made by that same crowd, but honestly, this entire thing is the 21st century equivalent of a bunch of old people whining about those darn kids and their new-fangled music.
In 10 years nobody is going to give a shit about your Facebook profile because it will be a given that we human beings are not going to waste our time santizing the reality of their lives for the “professional” world. What does that mean, anyway, the “professional” world? We’re just a bunch of human beings trying to get things done and build a civilization. If I don’t communicate with you professionally through my Facebook account then who cares?
What I like about the internet is that it’s the great equalizer. It exposes in living color the dark underbelly of civilization and breaks down all of the bullshit. Those of us who are growing up with the internet are going to go through life with far fewer pretenses and far fewer inclinations to ever write something as stupid as to suggest that an employer can get away with choosing not to hire somebody because their online profiles are full of albums of them at house parties. Employers don’t care what you do outside of work, they care what you do while you’re at work. Are you producing? Great. Have fun online.
DoD report fuels charges that Tehran is building its nuke capability, and there’s little the White House can do about it
… because Obama is in it. I hate being right all the time.
Regulators reportedly planning to cut salt intake, saying it would reduce heart and hypertension-related deaths
For every grain of salt the FDA tells me not to eat, I’m going to eat three. Fuck you, nanny state.
No shit? If you aren’t married in Texas you can’t be divorced in Texas. The world is so simple. Why make it so complicated?
“Making Title IX as strong as possible is a no-brainer,” Biden said in the statement. “What we’re doing here today will better ensure equal opportunity in athletics, and allow women to realize their potential — so this nation can realize its potential.”
Please, let’s waste more time and money on women’s sports, which nobody cares about and for which there’s no market after college by comparison to men’s athletics. Hey, while we’re at it, let’s throw some money at high school JV. Why stop there? What about T-ball? Let’s realize our national potential.
No shit? Next time vote for somebody who has something to offer other than a pleasing speaking voice, black skin, and the novelty of being the first-of-something president.
And please stop electing Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. Christ almighty, the big one can’t come soon enough.
Finally, from the lowest common denominator of cable news, MSNBC, we have these genius, ground-breaking revelations into your world today:
There’s a reason nobody tunes in, guys.
A few years ago I wrote this piece about a family who had the misfortune to adopt a little Romanian kid who had all sorts of problems probably because his mother drank while pregnant. I was disgusted by their ineptitude.
But after reading this headline about Tony Hansen, an independent woman who exercised her right to choose motherhood without the unnecessary help of an inferior man, the parents of that little Romanian shit are my new heroes.
Even if they were inept at solving their child’s behavioral problems, at least they sought help, probably at great financial burden. They probably lost years of their lives from the stress of having a delinquent monster in their homes. But they certainly did not conclude that they could tape a post-it note to him and send him back to Romania.
Tony Hansen disgusts me, as she probably disgusts most people. This is a prime example of the selfishness of the single mother by choice: she wants her baby and she doesn’t care how she gets it! It’s one thing to artificially inseminate herself and pop the baby out – namely, it’s biologically hers which activates a whole congressional library of instinctual programming in her brain that will make her love it despite its flaws, and for another, if anything goes wrong with it – like it grows up into a little pyromaniac who wants to burn the house down with her in it – she has only herself to blame. It’s another to adopt someone else’s because she claims to want to be a parent and then decide that it’s too hard and subsequently send it back to the store. You can’t return a child like it’s a piece of furniture that doesn’t fit in your living room.
Well folks, when I’m wrong I say I’m wrong. I predicted that Taurus would remain a virgin with rage well into his 30′s. I can’t comment on the status of his virginity – far be it for me to slander the virtues of his lady friend – but it would appear that Taurus has finally scored a boyfriend-free sweetheart from the ground up.
Apparently I help keep the suicide rate alive. (Nice play on words, by the way). I think that’s an unfair assessment. While I may have been harsh, my intentions were only to help the infamous Taurus555 improve his profile by illustrating everything that is wrong with it. You see, I don’t know Taurus in real life. I don’t know anything about him. The only thing I know is the persona he puts up on the internet in the form of a profile designed to attract women. And that persona was sorely lacking, as you can see by reading my posts.
It may seem like I’ve unfairly singled him out, but that’s not true at all – everybody who visits my blog has the opportunity to receive my sage wisdom. The internet is littered with badly written online profiles. Such as, for example, one such written by anonymous commentor purple4k.
I debated whether or not I should use my internet ninja skills to dig into this matter further, but the line which compelled me was this:
…I am proud to say that I am the lucky woman.
Good. Then you surely won’t mind if I link your profile here too.
In case you folks were wondering what type of woman would be attracted to Taurus555, there’s your answer.
I’d dissect her profile in the same way but frankly it’s not even remotely interesting. It’s about as uninteresting as they come:
I can be shy at first, but I usually warm up quickly. Typically I enjoy conversations over a meal/coffee or sitting/lying somewhere outside, reading (all kinds of books), listening to music (usually country or pop/rock), watching movies at home or in the theater (all kinds except horror/gore), going hiking or camping, fishing, swimming, and bowling.
Fat girl angle shot? Check. Anime emoticons? Check. Phrase “down to earth” used at least once? Check. Vague catch-all description of interests? Check. Generic walk-on-the-beach-cuddle-by-the-fireplace allusion? Check. Updates on profile indicating dating status without changing substance of profile such as what you’re looking for in a man? Check.
The most interesting statement that purple4k made was in her “stop the hate” comment:
It takes the right person to see the ‘real you’ through the societal mask that we all put up as a psychological defense mechanism.
Yeah yeah, beauty is on the inside, not on the outside… it’s who you really are that counts… blah blah.
I would rephrase it this way:
It takes someone just as desperate with as few mating options to settle for the ‘real Taurus555′ which he fails miserably to disguise with his pandering online dating profile.
She also had this to add:
I truly feel sorry for you, and for your wife who has to put up with your ego. Since it has been about six months since this was originally published, perhaps you have changed. If that is the case, then I shall say congratulations on finally growing up.
Have I changed? Nope! Sorry. Try again next year.
A kid I went to college with has been plugging this total BS all over his Facebook wall over the past couple of days.
The abstract alone is enough to make me want to hurl.
- Bike 4,000 miles, sharing local food ideas in 12 community potlucks
- Engage 500 individuals in discussion and action around local food
- Inspire 50 people to positively change their approach to food
This is a classic example of two douchebags who want to use some hairbrained notion of charity as a premise to get other people to fund a 3 month vacation to scratch their own selfish itches. Who wants to bet me that at least one of these idiots will write a book about his life-changing experience while on the road wasting your money?
I’m shocked and amazed that somebody could take one look at this scheme and not realize that all these guys want to do is ride their bikes across the United States but they can’t afford it on their own dime. Or maybe they can, but if they just decided to ride their bikes across the country, hitting Lance Armstrong fad at the height of its popularity, they’d get only a tepid response out of the idiots they talk to at parties about their amazing experience, but if they can legitimately drop the “for charity” caveat then their douchebaggery might be absolved. Riding an overly expensive two-wheeled contraption made of titanium while wearing a totally gay latex speed suit to cut down on your wind resistance is not even remotely interesting anymore since you can’t get in your car and drive 5 minutes in any suburb in the country without seeing some asshole doing exactly that.
I take enormous amounts of pleasure driving these idiots out of traffic lanes and honking loudly and abruptly as I blow past them in my vastly superior form of travel which we invented to replace inefficient bicycles, velocipedes, and other antiquated modes of transportation. I like to let the bikers who decide to go 20 miles per hour in a car lane on a 45 mile per hour road at rush hour know in living color that they are not appreciated and that I will not hesitate to make them extremely uncomfortable and fear for their lives. I like hobbies as much as the next person but mine do not interfere with the lives of the thousands of people you delay by taking up space on roads designated for automobile traffic. Go find a foot path at a local park and bike there, jack ass.
Even if you excuse the fact that it’s clear these assholes just want to ride across the great plains on bicycles, the premise they came up with is so pathetically lame that it’s pitiful. Potluck dinners? Is that the best you can do?
Does anyone actually buy this crap? Is there anyone out there who thinks, “well, gee, community potlucks are truly wortwhile!” Or takes it a step further and actually gives these d-bags money? They came in 6th, so clearly they must exist.
“Engage 500 individuals in discussion” i.e. conversational masturbation.
“Inspire 50 people to positively change their approach to food. i.e. find 50 suckers to believe whatever bullshit we tell them about food.
And what bullshit are they going to tell about food? Let’s read more:
For a long time I thought the food I was eating was making me sick, and in the process of trying to figure out why, I discovered how our industrialized food system works and over time realized that good food is the greatest healer of all.
For a long time I thought the Easter Bunny was real too, but then I turned 10 and realized it was just in my head, akin to your hypochondriatic belief that perservatives are the bane of your existence. No, it’s probably your own total lack of human worth that is making you sick. Looking into the mirror every morning must be extremely painful when your greatest idea for the contribution of good to the country is a self-serving transcoastal ride on your bike. It also might be AIDS – I’m not a statistician but I bet the correlation to hairbrained concoctions like this and AIDS infection is significant. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.
This retarded quote was in response to this question:
Why are you riding across the country to hear stories about local food?
The other half of this monument to stupidity had this to say:
My Friends and I make family dinner every Tuesday night – usually about 10-15 of us. I appreciate the community, love the food, and am happy to know where it’s coming from.
That doesn’t even answer the question!
Since neither of these buffoons want to be honest with their donors, let me answer this question on behalf of both of them:
We want to ride across the country to hear stories about local food because we both work for unfulfilling non-profits that barely pay the rent and we are unable to impress anyone with our day jobs anymore because nobody cares about the corrupt charities we parasite from or the littany of inane causes they supposedly serve. We are both uncreative assholes who jumped on the fantasy-pro-biker bandwagon with both feet because we’re incapable of setting our own trends and just chase them instead. If we can claim that we biked a whopping 4,000 miles, someone out there might actually listen to the rest of our story before making a weak excuse for a hasty retreat from the conversation which happens all the time because as you can tell, we’re unoriginal. We want to hear stories about local food because it beats doing anything productive like for example growing some food and feeding the poor. No, we’d rather bike around and listen to other idiots like us validate our beliefs about our imagined superiority over organic food despite the absence of any real proof done by actual science.
Won’t you give us money?
It’s really, really hard to get lamer than this. Really, really hard.
I hope these toolboxes get run over by a grain combine in Iowa and turned into animal feed. At least then we can look back on their time here and say that they at least contributed something.
I’m supposed to drink your “sex positive” Koolaid but instead I can’t shake the feeling that I’m a dirty slut and I should be ashamed. I’m being shunned in my community despite the fact that I’m an independent sex-expressive grrl feminist. HALP!
Dear Sexually Active in Vermont,
Slut. What a word. It simultaneously describes and dominates, classifies and corrodes its subject. Its most basic use is to describe someone who is sexually promiscuous, but it has come to entail so much more these days–worthlessness, dirtiness, even the very state of being a woman.
In a world without unwanted pregnancy or diseases, sluts would be celebrated. In a world with unwanted pregnancy and (fatal) diseases, dipping one’s stick in a slut is like drinking the water in a 3rd world country. You might be fine or you might develop flesh-eating parasites. It’s a dice roll.
The word “slut” does not entail the very state of being a woman. It entails the very state of being a woman who spreads her legs for many partners with questionable discretion.
Who is it used by? It’s used by men to justify their insecurity about the power they see in women’s sexuality.
Really. How fascinating. Lori, the author of this drivel, apparently believes that she understands the big secret in play when a man such as myself calls a woman such as self-proclaimed harlot “Sexually Active in Vermont” a slut. So, Lori, am I, a fellow armchair psyhcologist, also at liberty to pontificate about your insecurities? Should I indulge you with a campfire story about the comforting lies women tell themselves and each other about their own sexuality?
No, thank you; I’m content to simply refute this wildly absurd claim. This is just one man speaking here, but I am not insecure in the infintesimal about the power of a woman’s sexuality. In fact I think the very concept of the “power” of a woman’s sexuality to be a laughing stock. This, from a woman who, when she isn’t writing pro-slut advice columns is probably hopping from one liberal arts college to the next attending rallies and giving talks about ending violence against women.
Women’s sexuality has power only equal to what men give it. The fact that we as a civilized society have decided to artificially place pussy on a pedestal and refrain from raping it at our leisure is a testament to our restraint, a restraint that based on what I’ve seem from feminists would not be extended were our positions reversed – just look at divorce courts. In the one arena where women can rape a man, they do – again, and again, and again to excess.
The only thing your pro-sex advice does is give we men unfettered access to your sisters’ pussies then leave them to write sob story advice requests to douchers such as yourself, Lori, begging for an answer as to why after taking your first dose of advice they find themselves in a worse state, psychologically and socially, then they would be had they kept their legs closed like good society advocates.
It’s used by women to establish their own superiority over other women.
And rightfully so. A non-slut’s value to a man is unilaterally higher than a slut’s. How fascinating that women’s judgments of each other merely reflect the value we men place upon them. Yet again, men make all the rules. How does that make you feel, Lori?
It’s used by rich people to hold onto and exercise their privilege.
This is totally irrelevant and doesn’t make any sense. You’re mixing up your vitcimologies here, Lori. Wealth and sexual promiscuity have absolutely no useful correlation in this discussion.
It’s used by poor people to grasp at having value in a society that often makes them feel invisible.
Because a poor virgin from Thailand has more societal value (thanks to male perception) than a hyper-educated SWPL grad student who works at a DC non-profit and speaks about liberal agendas at college campuses and they know it. She might not have an M.S. but she’s not a slut. She’s more marriageable than you are.
By the way, the implication that sluttiness would have anything to do with wealth at all is just an indication that you are exactly the kind of stupid twat that perpetuates class warfare by drawing attention to it. The fact that it would even cross your mind that societal value for poor people can only be attained by abstaining from an activity that you consider the luxury of the privileged is a reflection your true thinking, Lori. Sleep tight tonight.
In other words, it’s used by people with an agenda. A self-serving agenda.
You don’t say. An agenda such as, for example, the assembly of an overwrought intellecual ethos constructed to justify the innate desire of you, and women like you, to behave like sluts?
You know, that thing they’re accusing you of having by being such a slutty slut?
The only agenda that a slut is executing, to my knowledge, is to get banged. Could you possibly be overthinking this?
In the real world, the “dirtiest”, “easiest” thing anyone can do is degrade another person by feeding into the social and cultural oppression that already exists against them.
Incorrect. Social and cultural “oppression” of behaviors like promiscuity is a civlization survival mechanism to prevent the spread of veneral disease and bastard children. As painful as it is to be rebuked as the town whore, an untreatable syphilis infection or a child she can’t feed will be significantly more painful. Simply because we have techniques to reduce the risk of either negative outcome that results in promiscuity doesn’t mean we’ve eliminated them, nor will it knock down what is potentially thousands of years of ingrained instinctual aversion to slutty behavior in females.
So their intentions aren’t exactly “pure”, but…are they right? Let me set the record straight, right here, right now, for good: People who call other people “sluts” are always, inherently, insufferably wrong. No matter the sexual history of the person they are addressing.
Says who? You? Who the hell are you, Lori? You’re nobody more than anyone else who can find a keyboard and an internet connection and post some crap on a blog.
A girl who bangs a lot of guys is a slut. That’s what the word means. How can you be so dumb, Lori?
Because people who buy into the concept of a slut- that someone who has more sex is worse than someone who has less sex- are fundamentally, logically, morally, spiritually erroneous.
I disagree. I value a girl who has fewer sexual partners significantly higher than a girl who has many sexual partners, and I’m allowed to make my own value determination because I’m a free thinking member of society and you are bound by your commitment to celebrating diversity to respect my opinion and not judge me. You don’t get to tell me who I should value or why.
Having sex doesn’t make you a bad person. Having sex doesn’t make you a bad person. Having sex doesn’t make you a bad person. (Yes, I’m going for a Good Will Hunting moment here!) Having sex doesn’t make you anything other than a person who has sex. The end. I promise!
Having sex with a reasonable number of partners in the context of socially acceptable relationships makes you nothing more than a person who has sex. Having sex with a lot of people makes you a slut. That’s what the word means. How can you be so dumb, Lori?
In reality, purity is a myth. You are not weaker, or stupider, or less important, for each time you choose to have sex with someone.
Possibly not, but you are more likely to have an STD. That’s how something called math – specifically, probability – works. You probably didn’t do so well in objective courses like math and science in school, did you, Lori?
That’s not to say there aren’t universal social truths about good and bad behavior that you should be accountable to- there are.
But these “positives” and “negatives” don’t correspond with numbers of sexual partners- that would be ridiculous and meaningless.
To you, perhaps. Lori, let me explain something to you: acknowledging the fact that there are universal social truths about good and bad behavior isn’t enough to grant you the authority to decide what those are.
Did it ever occur to you that since virtually every human society on the planet earth places a high value on female sexual purity, they might be on to something? Do you suppose that a statement about what is and isn’t “good” that holds true for the vast majority of human culture might be considered “universal”? Do you need a vocabulary lesson, Lori?
They revolve around things like kindness, intelligence, compassion, and wellness.
And sexual purity. That way, a man can bang you without catching a disease or discovering that you have a brood of bastard children that you’ll no doubt look to him to feed in exchange for access to your well-heeled black hole vagina.
These things matter inside and outside the bedroom. Having sex does not define who you are or what you do in any arena other than your sex life! There is no simple dichotomy where more sex equals bad and less sex equals good. There is only you. Your state of mind, your experiences, your health and well being, your contribution to this world. It is a more complicated, more nuanced, more evolved system of valuing people. Which should tell you right there it is probably right.
And sunshines and rainbows and flowers, too! Lori, you are presenting a dangerous and fictitious view to this person, a view in which we are all free to invent our own criteria for which we feel we ought to be judged as good or bad and, despite having no good reason to believe that it would be the case, expecting the rest of the world to not only know these arbitrary, personal criteria but to respect them.
In shorter English, Lori: I don’t give a damn whether or not you believe that your own purity has no bearing on your social value. I do believe in the social value of purity in females and since I will be the one to judge you, only my views matter.
You need to convince me that sexual purity is a bogus metric, not simply repeat it like a mantra again and again, which is what you’re doing here. I’ve given two basic reasons why it’s valuable to me as a man. Your total lack of understanding of what it is like to be a man is probably the reason why you didn’t even broach either of those subjects in your defense of promiscuity. It frightens me that genital diseases and bastard children aren’t even on your radar when it comes to sex. Maybe this is why you’re so vehemently pro-choice – you don’t consider these things until after they’ve happened. How can you be so dumb, Lori?
But that voice. That voice inside and outside your head is saying “I know what you’re saying is right, but deep down inside I don’t believe you. Why would the whole world keep telling me I’m worth less because of my sexual history if it weren’t even a little bit true?
Because the whole world might be on to something, you stupid bitch. It’s pretty damn rare that the entire planet says one thing and yet a very small dissenting enclave who says the other turns out to be right.
That is a good question. Why do people call other people sluts? In my experience, I have found that it is because they are scared.
Keep telling yourself that, Lori. It isn’t true, but it doesn’t have to be: as long as you believe it, right?
They are scared that they won’t be able to find a partner that they love who will love them back, and they would like to be able to have someone else to shoulder that terrifying responsibility.
When I call a slut a slut, it has nothing to do with whether or not I’m afraid I’ll find a partner – particularly when you consider that I already have: I’m married.
They are scared of their own sexual desires, and what those desires say about their true selves.
Judging on intent (or desire) is ridiculous. Everybody has intentions and desires that are counterproductive to a healthy society. Well-adapted, healthy, valuable people are able to curb desires that are ultimately negative and unhealthy both for themselves and for society. In this context, the girls who are incapable of curbing their desire to screw like rabbits have a name, and that name is slut. How can you be so dumb, Lori?
They are scared of living a life based on a value system that will be proven by time to be false, cruel, and unjust, so they work even harder and more ferociously to justify and reinforce it, to prove to themselves that they, their parents, their grandparents, are on the right side of history (they are not).
Again, according to who? You know, Lori, if you’re so good at predicting the future, why aren’t you a stock mogul? Does your crystal ball only extend to predicting cultural evolution – which, by the way, from a systems analysis perspective, is infinitely more complex than finance markets.
Since all of humanity throughout time has valued modesty over promiscuity, I suppose it only makes sense that all of humanity throughout time must have been wrong.
There was a time and place once where people agreed with you Lori, and it was called Rome. We all saw how well that ended.
They are scared of women who are free, because it reminds them of the ways that they themselves are not. And of course, they are scared of their own mortality, and so they grasp at anything that could guarantee them immunity, moral superiority, or holy benevolence in the face of the ultimate terror- death.
All people are free to behave like sluts; we choose not to. I guess you could say we’re pro-choice. You are right, however, that I am scared of mortality. I’d prefer not to die a premature death at the hands of AIDS only to indulge in hedonistic sexual pleasures or have to deal with festering cold sores on my balls periodically. Or raise a baby I don’t want. Since I believe in owning up to my mistakes, I’d raise it, not kill it.
This fear drives them to great extremes. Fear is powerful, and many people’s lives are completely dominated by it. Women, in particular, are an easy target for people who are very scared, because there are already social checks in place to make women less threatening, less powerful, less scary.
Social aspects? Don’t you mean biological ones? Here’s a term for you: sexual dimorphism. Go look it up. Girls are less threatening, less powerful, and less “scary” because men are bigger, stronger, and faster. And smarter.
So they latch onto this, and contribute to it, and perpetuate it. They actively degrade women. They take satisfaction from putting them in their place, and from taking away their power. They remind them over and over that their bodies, their sexuality, their autonomy, their choices, and their power, are not their own. They exert control- over their own lives, and over the behavior of others, as well as they know how- by perpetuating fear and pain.
I am always infinitely perplexed why it is that women can make arguments like this with a straight face. If women were really all they were cracked up to be then how did this male-female power imbalance develop to begin with? Why isn’t it we men who bitch on our blogs that women are oppressing us and controlling our sexuality and perpetuating an environment of fear and control?
Gender evolution did not happen by chance, darling. I apologize if you wish you were a man and did not have to deal with the biological oppression of your vagina, but there’s not much any of us could have done about that. Well, except in places like China where they just kill all their girl babies to spare them your hardships.
I have been called a slut many times in my life…
… which is why you write in defense of slutdom. Rather than change your socially maladaptive behaviors, you just seek to reform society to excuse your behaviors so that you don’t have to do anything differently. What a shallow, selfish, stupid thing to do.
Ok, you are saying, even if I am convinced of this myself, it still hurts to operate in a world in which not everyone is on the same page as this. Being viewed as a slut by others still hurts, and still has real negative ramifications for me in this world. How can one find comfort, truth, and transcendence in such an unjust system?
Don’t be a slut.
Love yourself [even when nobody else does], love others [with or without condoms - your body, your choice!], find feminism [the opiate of the masses]. In that order!
Thank you for writing.
How can you be so dumb, Lori?
I think a big part of my poltiical philosophical comes from my unbiased observation that people are just inherently bad.
I think if you believe that people are inherently good, it’s easy for you to want to do things like give them healthcare even if it costs you a little extra money every year. For people like me who believe the reverse, I can’t fathom wanting to help people because each person has a far better than 50/50 chance of being a person that in my view doesn’t deserve my help.
How did I become so jaded? Unbiased observation, I guess. Most of the time that I put my faith in someone to act like a mature, responsible, compassionate, ethical person, they disappoint me.
I don’t think I’m alone here. Let’s look at two major tenets of Christian philosophy: we are born with original sin and it is better to forgive. The first tenet acknowledges what I’ve spent my life observing and the second tenet is the hardest thing in the world so much of the time.
I’m sure this is troll bait but I don’t care: I don’t have many friends, and the reason that I don’t is by choice. My friendships are usually one-sided and my friends disappoint me and then I stop being friends with them. The friendships of mine that have lasted more than a few months are the people who don’t disappoint me, and they’re so rare that it is not surprising that I don’t have many.