Edit 2020-11-12: Added anchor tag. No substantive changes.
The narrative connecting the top photo to the bottom photo is a delusional fantasy of the modern democratic-capitalist-egalitarian worldview.Money does not buy happiness, much less marital harmony—much less manhood! It does not change who you are—what
you are. Life is not a formula in which you are equal to the happy people, except for the external factor of liquid capital.If you are the lachrymose anthropoid in the top photo, then if you get rich, her reaction will probably be to take the money, and leave you broken and bleeding at the kerb. As well she should. You worthless wretch. She does not have a man
—and she needs you
like a fish needs a bicycle! Please do womankind a favour, and consider the health benefits of homosexuality.What the fuck kind of dick-wielding doormat lets a woman stomp on him that way? Or lets
anyone?Seriously, if that were normal, expected, or acceptable relationship behaviour for me, then I would go queer. Because I would have much more self-respect pulling a train with a cock in my mouth and another up my arse. Why be an effeminate bitch for someone who can’t actually fuck you? For mental health: That weepy creature in the photo needs a good hard one, as a cure for hysteria!
Of course, if you
are and accept being an irresponsible schoolboy who needs domme-mommy to spank you to keep you on the straight and narrow, then the woman will treat you accordingly. As well she should! You don’t deserve her respect.
Respect is earned. Have merit—get respect. Be a disgusting exemplar of arrested development—no respect. Throughout all of history until the Nineteenth Century, women were
irresistibly impressed by men. That changed when weakling modern males invented modern democracy, capitalism, communism, egalitarianism, and feminism—and
because men were no longer impressive, women just needed to go where they were led.
This is what a feminist looks like:
John Stuart Mill By the way, just who the fuck voted for feminist politicians who gave women votes, when women could not vote and were not holders of political offices? That was the
women’s fault, right? Can men do logic? No wonder I oftentimes prefer the social company of women: When
they behave like stereotypical females, it is cute and endearing!
Anyway... Ahem, where was I with that insult-comic routine.
Hah, hah—only serious.I feel sorry for the vicious raging harridan in that photo. Men are so hard to find nowadays! She has a difficult life, with no
man in the house, and it is all that twerp’s fault. My condolences, honey. If you need to calm down, relax, get some release of all that tension which is clearly driving you insane, then you know where to find me. I don’t kiss and tell. Get the
easy-to-use Protonmail app, and nobody will ever even know that we were in contact.
(Crypto protip, speaking from experience: Women love having ways to keep secrets.)I have zero sympathy for her pet mental-eunuch-with-attached-flesh-dildo. I hope that he serves her well. If he’s a good boy, maybe she will even let him wank thinking about what sex was like—way back when she deigned to allow him to penetrate her, oh goddammit, what a mistake... She could get pregnant that way; and with such a superannuated crying baby in the house, her every natural instinct is repulsed by the prospect of growing the spawn thereof inside her body! Ick. I need a bath, on her behalf.
No heirs for him!
Irony Day, Part II: Now more more ironical!
This is not some kind of an anti-woman “eww, girls, go away” rant; I dislike those. Rather, it is an observation that I again find myself in the wrong century.
For a nutshell historical illustration of what I mean, consider that the American Prohibition of alcohol was in large part an attack by women’s clubs on de facto men’s clubs.
Whereas if married women (and today we must consider, single mothers) are ordinarily present in pubs, then you cannot reasonably expect to disallow children. Children come with the women. It is a part of a package deal; anyone who doesn’t understand that, does not know the first thing about women. Have cake—no eat, too. And if non-professional single, childless women go to pubs, then you cannot reasonably expect for them to suddenly stop doing that when they get married and/or have kids. Life doesn’t work that way. Eat cake—no have, too.
It seems that what you really want is an exclusive men’s space.
I'm not sure what caused
you to go off on a
feminist tangent - I love
the company of women, especially in pubs after a few drinks. The children in pubs here are usually accompanied by
both parents. If
fathers or mothers want to go and drink alcohol in a pub,
I must pause to contemplate the confusion of a man whose whole worldview is so deeply premised on unexamined feminist assumptions, that he just accidentally used feminist arguments to accuse me of feminism for my having made what is probably one of the strongest antifeminist statements that this forum has ever seen. Triggered much by my “exclusionary” suggestion?
Your basic premise is that men and women are equal. In this particular context (which is distinct from others), I don’t mean that in a sense of value-judgment: Of course, males and females have equal
value for any species that does not desire prompt extinction. I mean that on a very deep level, you see men and women as basically equivalent, fungible, and interchangeable units.
Women do anything that men do, such as go to pubs. Men do anything that women do, such as primary childcare—and bringing children to pubs—no doubt together with their equal partners in parenting. See?
Equal—and you bristle at the suggestion that they aren’t.
You most certainly can (and should) expect people (men and women) who have kids to change their behaviour. They're meant to have grown up and become responsible, not continue to get drunk in bars, but now with a child in tow.
No, people do not suddenly “change their behaviour” and “become responsible” when they have children. That is the type of modern fantasy indulged by people who want to rationalize irresponsible behaviour—as indeed you are doing right here. And it is childish thinking on the level of, “Now that I have reached my X birthday (or other milestone), I am ‘grown up’!”
If a woman habitually engages in behaviour incompatible with wise motherhood before she has kids, that will not change when she has kids. She is still the same person. She still wants the same things, which she is accustomed to enjoy. It is
unreasonable to expect otherwise.
Contra your implication that I advocate irresponsibility, I argue rather the opposite: Women who behave in a manner consistent with responsible motherhood
before they have kids will make responsible mothers. Those who don’t—won’t. Have cake, no eat too—eat cake, no have too.
Really. Whyever would you expect for a woman who habitually gets drunk in bars to become a responsible mother?
(And whyever would I expect for someone who thinks this way to be sufficiently responsible to... oh, never mind. Something about heirs, no doubt.)
The third logical part of this post was cut for length. Yes. Eh, sometime...
Poll
