Do Men Need Rape Culture to Get it Up?
Hyerdahl
College men offered sex on a plate are reportedly having trouble
getting hard. Do men really need to chase women down to get it up?
By Rebecca Traister
Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++
May 11, 2006 | There was a story in the Washington Post on Sunday about
a problem apparently facing a lot of men on college campuses: They're
having a hard time getting hard. This isn't the first time I've heard
reports of this in recent years, mostly from young women who assume, as
I have assumed, that it's one of the costs of living in a world with
antidepressants. Those sexual side effects are no joke. Then, of
course, there is the rise in campus binge drinking, which has, since
time began, sometimes resulted in a condition popularly known as "beer
dick."
It's a really valid and compelling issue. The fact that young guys are
having a rough time with erectile dysfunction is well worth
investigating and I was happy to see a long reported piece about it in
the Post. But imagine my surprise at learning that antidepressants,
alcohol and stress aren't the real story here. (They get mentioned
several paragraphs into the piece, along with explanations like
anxiety, recreational drug use and overconsumption of Red Bull, so as
not to rob the piece of its backlash-y punch.) No, according to the
Washington Post, the factor that's making boys go limp is ... (drum
roll) ... women who want to have sex with them! That's right, folks.
Apparently nothing can make a dude lose a stiffie like the feeling that
a girl is horny. You following? No, me neither. But here's how the
story, by Laura Sessions Stepp, lays it out.
First, she writes about Adam Skrodzki, a senior at the University of
Maryland who, along with his fellow on-the-record interviewees, gets a
big medal for bravery in the service of ethical journalism for allowing
his name to be used in this piece. Anyway, Adam "bench-presses a
respectable 280 pounds. He fights fires in Howard County as a volunteer
and plans to join the Secret Service in the fall. In short, he's a
man's man." And therefore, we are supposed to infer, he's used to
getting man's-man-quality boners. (Guys who, say, play first viola in
the university orchestra and volunteer at the local ASPCA wouldn't be
interesting in a story about hard-ons because they probably don't get
them anyway.)
In any case, Adam continued to think of himself as a "man's man" until
last fall when he "hooked up with a sophomore -- at her urging." Cue
"Psycho" music: Eeek! Eeek! Eeek! See, the sophomore wanted him, he
wasn't into her, so she offered to be his "friend with benefits," which
is cool because that means sex with no emotional responsibility and he
really didn't see anything wrong with that. But then, the first time
they tried to do it, he couldn't get it up.
Now, I read Adam's story and I think: Hey, maybe Adam is just a really
great guy! The kind of guy who actually wants to have sex with someone
he really likes and is attracted to. Clearly he wasn't so interested in
this sophomore, and so his body didn't respond to her. I don't see this
as a disaster so much as a positive indicator of a healthy attitude
about sex. I get that men and women often enjoy sex with people they
despise or are indifferent to, but wouldn't the world be a generally
more cheerful place if our bodies nudged us toward those we found
physically and emotionally alluring to begin with?
But the Washington Post sees it differently. It turns out that Adam is
"far from alone." In fact, Stepp continues, "for a sizable number of
young men, the fact that they can get sex whenever they want may have
created a situation where, in fact, they're unable to have sex." That's
right. "According to surveys, young women are now as likely as young
men to have sex and by countless reports are also as likely to initiate
sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase."
Countless reports! Sizable numbers! Call the police! Vague and
unquantifiable numbers of women want biggish amounts of sex!
Perhaps (and I realize this is pie-in-the-sky thinking here) the
leveling of the sexual marketplace Stepp writes about, in which women
and men enjoy and pursue sex with comparable vigor, could be good for
both sexes. First, it could deflate some of the frequently unearned but
long-held stereotypes about guys who'll have sex with anything that
moves, who consider each conquest a notch on their bedpost, who are
more turned on by the pursuit than by the physical pleasure of union.
Perhaps, if sex with women is something that they didn't have to
finagle and tease and chase their way into, if it was just a fun
activity that two people who liked each other chose to engage in and
that often felt really great, everyone would have a better time.
Bzzzzz! Apparently that answer was incorrect. According to Stepp, we're
not looking at the maturation and increasing sophistication of the
socio-sexual dynamic here. We're looking at the loss of manhood in its
purest form. Guys who can't get woodies for any old girl on the block
are a poignant representation of the crumbling power of the erect
phallus, which is, after all, as Stepp writes, "in the minds of many
males, the sign of authority and dominance, perhaps the last such
symbol in a society slogging its way toward gender equality." Wow.
Stepp isn't doing the men she's writing about any favors in treating
their condition not as a treatable health problem related to stress or
their recreational habits, but as an actual loss of their masculinity,
the ultimate cost of gender equality.
The Post does go on to chronicle a whole batch of other reasons for why
the tools might not work. In addition to the antidepressants and drug
use and heavy drinking and anxiety and caffeine consumption, there's
also the fact that once it happens once (due to nervousness or a bad
mood or beer dick or whatever) the anxiety about it happening again can
naturally become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of Stepp's subjects, George Washington University sophomore Peter
Schneider, had an arousal problem with a girlfriend he'd been sleeping
with for several weeks. Turns out, he'd been "smoking cigarettes and
marijuana, popping Adderall in order to work through the night to
finish his econ papers. He was drinking a lot and not getting any
regular exercise." Hey, Scooby, I think we may have gotten to the
bottom of that particular mystery! Another kid, G.W. senior James
Daley, was with a girl who gave him a hard time the first time he
couldn't perform. Understandably, he then experienced a couple of
repeat non-performances. Now, he tells Stepp, he's worried that he's
just headed downhill, that he's used up all his manly mojo.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that massive consumption of alcohol,
cigarettes, drugs and caffeine takes a toll on a human body. And this
is a generation of kids that has been pushed to achieve -- through
hyper-scheduled play dates and after-school activities and college-prep
courses -- to the point where "performance anxiety" is a whole new
ballgame. And I'm perfectly willing to believe that a sexual economy
where female desire is allowed to match male desire could lead to a
changed playing field on which the boys were less motivated by the
sense that sex is the equivalent of a touchdown, scored by pushing your
way through the opposing team's defense.
But why, when there are all these perfectly reasonable explanations --
explanations that, not for nothing, could turn out to be productive if
we reacted to them by educating boys about the effects of recreational
substance use, or developing and prescribing pills with fewer sexual
side effects, or encouraging guys to get used to a sex life in which
they're on equal footing with their partners -- do we have to
immediately start in on the ghoulish, desire-sapping, sexless succubus
of women's liberation?
Stepp writes, "One can argue that a young woman speaking her mind is a
sign of equality" -- um, yes, one can argue that. But human sexuality
prof Sawyer, the father of four daughters, says that, "for some guys,
it has come at a price. It's turned into ED in men you normally
wouldn't think would have ED." Are we straight on that? Women speak
their minds; men don't want to have sex with them anymore.
It all falls into the John Tierney school of thought that says that all
these overachieving college girls are going to end up single. All the
libidinous ones are going to go sexless as well. Why don't we just
buckle up our chastity belts and give those boys something to focus on
unlocking already? Because lord knows, our eager, aroused bodies are
totally harshing their hard-ons!
Salon Media Group, Inc
101 Spear Street, Suite 203
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone 415 645-9200
Fax 415 645-9204
Copyright ©2006 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material from
any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
SALON® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a
trademark of Salon Media Group Inc.
rdu...@pdq.net
Hyerdahl wrote:
> College men offered sex on a plate are reportedly having trouble
> getting hard. Do men really need to chase women down to get it up?
>
> By Rebecca Traister
>
> Print EmailFont: S / S+ / S++
>
> May 11, 2006 | There was a story in the Washington Post on Sunday about
> a problem apparently facing a lot of men on college campuses: They're
> having a hard time getting hard.
Other than pointing out the appearance of yet more proof of your
endless fascination with mens genitals, it could be pointed out that
the article - for those who may have read it - said nothing about a
culture of rape.
ED is almost always due to something entirely physical like
drug/alcohol effects. It is a myth that it is a psycholoical problem in
more than very rare cases. Despite the pleasure some might take in the
taunting, for the vast majority of guys in college getting sober and
off certain drugs(especially antidepressants) the party is back on
tomorrow. So all the crap about insecurity, etc. is as usual silly.
Deborah Terreson
should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
one?
Deb.
deld...@yahoo.com
interesting in a story about hard-ons because they probably don't get
them anyway.
First of all, fuck you, I volunteer at my local ASPCA. I can attest
that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with my ability to become Dick
Steel, Private Eye, should the situation call for it.
>> But then, the first time they tried to do it, he couldn't get it up.
I noticed that the article said NOTHING about how the sophomore looked.
Let's face it, I don't care if the girl is down on her knees begging
for it, if she looks like the Pilsbury Dough Girl, if you can't tell
where her tits end and the rest of her stomach begins, or if you need
flour to find the wet spot, I ain't fucking it. Call Andre Lieven, I
hear that's his type.
Same goes with body jewelry. Pierced ears, ok, 1 or 2 piercings, fine.
But if you take her sailing and you can't navigate because Iron Girl is
fucking up the compass, well then she's not getting anything more than
half mast out of me.
And that's not even mentioning whether or not she's the Dorm Slut. I
mean, really, would you want to stick your dick into something that 30
other guys have just gang banged into? No fucking thanks, I'd rather
lend out my toothbrush. Jesus wrapped in 2 condoms, I didn't even want
to talk to the guys on my floor, never mind take sloppy seconds from
them.
/Roy
retardsman
far more western females fixate on rape fantasies (PC="ravishment") to
get lit than men
substance use on campus plays a role in ED, but a psychological
etiology is NOT rare in ET -- especially in our feminist nation, and
especially amongst young men, who have known nothing except the
matriarchy
this article has the usual mocking feminist overtones -- but what else
is new, it's the American Medea
many guys don't like agressive females, and that indeed plays a role in
ED, but the root [oopz!] of the problem is, of course, something Mz.
Traitor [oopz again, meant Traister!] can't/won't write about, that
huge Pink Elephant in the broomcloset: the fact that america is an
emasculated nation, become more radically feminized each day
america subjugates its males to its females, then angry females write
articles about why men's dicks don't get hard (or why boys hate
gradeschool, or why men won't enroll in college, or refuse marriage ad
infinitum)
women can either have power over men, or they can be loved (and made
love to) by men, but they can't Have It All
apparently we're gonna play Denial until no male will even go near a
female again -- at which point, undoubtedly, the matriarchy will pass
laws (with mandatory sentencing guidelines for The Perpetrators!)
FORCING men to interact with women
women Just Don't Get It, literally in this case, and the more they
empower themselves at the expense of boys and men, the more frustrated
they'll become, and a million more bullshit essays won't change that
only american women could be so selfish, so cruel, and so dense, as to
castrate their men, then expect (demand!) sex
LOL!!!!
you won, girls, you Got Your Way, enjoy the empty bed you made
Hyerdahl
Deborah Terreson wrote:
Well, if the women are willing....you can't rape the willing, Deb. And
that may be why some men have trouble....no rape, no erection. :-)>
> Deb.
Hyerdahl
retardsman wrote:
> (edit)
> many guys don't like agressive females, and that indeed plays a role in
> ED, but the root [oopz!] of the problem is, of course, something Mz.
> Traitor [oopz again, meant Traister!] can't/won't write about, that
> huge Pink Elephant in the broomcloset: the fact that america is an
> emasculated nation, become more radically feminized each day
> america subjugates its males to its females, then angry females write
> articles about why men's dicks don't get hard (or why boys hate
> gradeschool, or why men won't enroll in college, or refuse marriage ad
> infinitum)
It sounds to me like you don't like it much when women question your
behavior. It serves a purpose to suggest that men don't like sex quite
as much when women are their equals. If women are aggressive about
sex, and men engage in rape culture ideals, it stands (no pun intended)
to reason that men who are insecure would not be able to have erections
without somehow intimidating the woman. I find this very interesting.
> women can either have power over men, or they can be loved (and made
> love to) by men, but they can't Have It All
Women who are free and equal don't NEED power over men, nor do they
insist on giving up their equal status in order to be "loved". As to
having it all, no one can, not even you.
>
> apparently we're gonna play Denial until no male will even go near a
> female again -- at which point, undoubtedly, the matriarchy will pass
> laws (with mandatory sentencing guidelines for The Perpetrators!)
> FORCING men to interact with women
Nah. As far as women are concerned, they are so dissalusioned with
sexist men and their attitudes, they might just want you all to return
to Mars.
> women Just Don't Get It, literally in this case, and the more they
> empower themselves at the expense of boys and men, the more frustrated
> they'll become, and a million more bullshit essays won't change that
> > only american women could be so selfish, so cruel, and so dense, as to
> castrate their men, then expect (demand!) sex
Women don't care what men think about the equal rights of women.
Western women already have those rights and if men are so insecure they
can't accept that, it's really a man's problem. I always wonder what
it is exactly about free and equal women that ends up making these
idiots so insecure. Imagine, not being able to have a hard on because
the woman you're trying to fuck is your equal. How pathetic is THAT?
vkar...@yahoo.com
Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
any man's "boner" up.
A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
Batroc Z. Leaper
rdu...@pdq.net (rdu...@pdq.net) says...
> Other than pointing out the appearance of yet more proof of your
> endless fascination with mens genitals, it could be pointed out that
> the article - for those who may have read it - said nothing about a
> culture of rape.
The article reads like a work of fiction, and it comes out of San
Francisco. I bet it was written by someone who doesn't engage in
heterosexual contact, and knows nothing of the subject matter.
--
She told me her new boyfriend is a prince, which is the
same thing she said about the last six. I told her to
keep kissing, there has to be a frog under there somewhere.
Hyerdahl
At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
feminist? :-)
Darling Regan
Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
cranial adjustment in response to...
Yeah, they seem to forget about the attractive ones, like Salma Hyack.
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
vkar...@yahoo.com
What do you mean by "feminist"? A pretty and compassionate woman who
beleives that a woman has a right to have a career if she wants to?
Sure. I may even marry her. Heck, my first wife is a Silicon Valley
high tech tycoon, who is worth some $300 million and who's on all kinds
of boards and committees.
A pretty woman who beleives that women should have careers but that
men should still pay alimony to career women, and that in divorce a
drunk drug addict woman should get the children instead of the sober
and responsible husband, and that men are always at fault and women are
always right? No, I wouldn't want to sleep with her.
Ken Chaddock
Remember Parg, "pretty is as pretty does" but ignoring the oxymoron of
"pretty feminist"...aren't you all dykes by definition anyway ?
...Ken
weather...@yahoo.com
turn off when women are too aggressive. This is instinctive.
This has nothing to do with "equality." It has to do with the social
etiquette of young women. Say what you will, but most men are put off
by women who throw themselves at guys. The amount of doctors that
marry other doctors and lawyers who marry lawyers shoudl be some
evidence that this is not a "being threatened by intelligence" issue.
Rather guys get the same feeling about aggressive women that women get
about slacker guys.
Ken Chaddock
> On 13 May 2006 10:30:41 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
> cranial adjustment in response to...
>
>>vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>>
>>>>More importantly, given the number of men losing their boners, the question
>>>>should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
>>>>one?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
>>>any man's "boner" up.
>>>
>>>A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
>>
>>At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
>>feminist? :-)
>
>
> Yeah, they seem to forget about the attractive ones, like Salma Hyack.
Hahahahah...Selma Hyack isn't a feminist, at least in the anglo North
American sense. I recall seeing her interviewed after playing along side
Antonio Bandaras and she was commenting on his "machismo" and saying
that she considers herself to be a "feminista" or "hembra woman" which
are Spanish terms that long pre-dates "feminism".
She is a woman from a culture where women are both assertive AND
respectful and supportive of their men. The terms "feminista and hembra"
are the rough female equivalents of macho and machismo in men and far
from portraying a the current angle "feminism" are actually
diametrically opposed and extol the virtues of femininity and masculinity...
...Ken
Darling Regan
(weather...@yahoo.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
Thanks for the blanket statements, asshole.
I must say that, based on *MY* observations, you are WRONG on all counts.
Once again, the individual is disparaged in favor of the so-called
majority.
Fuck your "facts"... it's just more of the same shit that gets cranked
out by the media, and consumed by the gullible public, on a daily basis.
weather...@yahoo.com
countless other men have proved to me the above is true. Sorry if you
don't believe it. This is what men talk about when you're not around.
And sometimes blanket statements are true. Men do talk about
aggressive women as creepy.
The fact that you resorted to insults rather than an argument proves
you have no argument. Anyone can call someone an idiot. Try making a
point. Why not just go straight to racial insults or shouts of "kike"
-- I mean, if you're gonna insult, go all the way!!!
Darling Regan
cranial adjustment in response to...
> countless other men have proved to me the above is true. Sorry if you
> don't believe it. This is what men talk about when you're not around.
> And sometimes blanket statements are true. Men do talk about
> aggressive women as creepy.
Men lie to each other, for fear of being judged. Peer pressure.
Are you telling me that, if a women whom you found physically attractive,
came up to you, and said "May I touch your cock?", you would abruptly
tell her that she is creepy, and ignore her from that point forward???
HAHAHAHA! Tell me another joke, ass-clown.
> The fact that you resorted to insults rather than an argument proves
> you have no argument. Anyone can call someone an idiot. Try making a
> point. Why not just go straight to racial insults or shouts of "kike"
> -- I mean, if you're gonna insult, go all the way!!!
I say what I want. Don't like? Log off.
Hyerdahl
children. But feel free to go with the generalizations; it does, after
all, characterize your entire platform.
> ...Ken
Hyerdahl
weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The same way that women turn off when men are too non-aggressive, men
> turn off when women are too aggressive. This is instinctive.
That's just insecurity, dear. Men who are that insecure will never
know the joys of sex with a woman who is assertive. Your loss, hon.
>
> This has nothing to do with "equality." It has to do with the social
> etiquette of young women.
Women don't really care what you think of their manners today. They
just want what they want, just like men.
Say what you will, but most men are put of by women who throw
themselves at guys.
Well, sure. Most women are put off by men who throw themselves at
gals. Now what?
The amount of doctors that> marry other doctors and lawyers who marry
lawyers shoudl be some evidence that this is not a "being threatened by
intelligence" issue.
Well, it's a good bet that a male lawyer married to a female lawyer is
ALSO married to a feminist. No, I'm not talking polygamy. :-)
>
> Rather guys get the same feeling about aggressive women that women get
> about slacker guys.
Again, insecure men certainly won't feel good with a woman who is his
social equal.
Hyerdahl
weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Say what you will, several decades of being a guy and taking with
> countless other men have proved to me the above is true. Sorry if you
> don't believe it. This is what men talk about when you're not around.
> And sometimes blanket statements are true. Men do talk about
> aggressive women as creepy.
Aggressive people are always "creepy", but equal and assertive
individuals are not. BTW, do you really think women _care_ about what
sexist men "talk" about? Not really.
They find all those sexist barbs pretty boring. And, women today are
going for the brass ring, whether or not you insecure bitter boys find
it attractive.
retardsman
deld...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Guys who [snippity] at the local ASPCA wouldn't be
> interesting in a story about hard-ons because they probably don't get
> them anyway.
>
> First of all, fuck you, I volunteer at my local ASPCA. I can attest
> that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with my ability to become Dick
> Steel, Private Eye, should the situation call for it.
right on, and good for you
the year i spent doing vol stuf for the s.p.c.a. was one of the most
rewarding times of my life, an everybody-wins gig
don't let the Professional Haters distract you, keep on keepin on
weather...@yahoo.com
jobs, go for it. But if you think women can be as sexually aggressive
as men towards men without some repercussions, you're kidding or don't
know human nature.
weather...@yahoo.com
I'm aggressively propositioned I get suspicious -- and never take up
the offer.
It's funny how you argue in defense of women, but are the stereotype of
the illogical, hysterial female, as if you're out of "The Crucible."
Hyerdahl
weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I would not trust a sexually aggressive woman for one second. Anytime
> I'm aggressively propositioned I get suspicious -- and never take up
> the offer.
Do you think women should "trust" sexually aggressive men, then?
>
> It's funny how you argue in defense of women, but are the stereotype of
> the illogical, hysterial female, as if you're out of "The Crucible."
I don't think we need the Spanish Inquisition to foster a rape culture.
All we need to do is make it acceptable to use force or coercion in
matters of sex. If men think that good sex involves ' storming the
bastille', they are behind the times.
Hyerdahl
weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think women today are much more sexual than they were a few years
back, whether or not you classify that as aggression. Today's women
are not afraid to ask men out, or tell men what they want, sexually.
You may call that aggression; I simply think women are more sexually
expressive today and men who always have to lead are missing the boat,
and the sex.
Darling Regan
cranial adjustment in response to...
Who is this asshat responding to?
Oh, clueless one... you must quote the source you are replying to.
Stupid Google noob.
Darling Regan
Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
>
I think this clown is one of those rare ones. According to AskMen.com,
most guys LOVE the idea of a sexually bold female. They're tired of
playing guessing games with insecure women who are incapable of
expressing their desires. In the past, men rarely got the chance to
experience that wonderful feeling of being *desperatly wanted* by a
woman... and I think that's a shame. That's what is so great about this
*revolution*... for once, and rightly so, men can feel sexy & desirable
in a way that, up till now, only women had the privilege of experiancing.
I think it's fabulous for BOTH female & male liberation. Guys have stood
in the shadows for far too long; it's time for them to get a little sexy
attention.
Hyerdahl
Darling Regan wrote:
> On 14 May 2006 07:05:52 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
> cranial adjustment in response to...
> >
> > weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I have no idea what you mean by "Brass ring." If you mean high powered
> > > jobs, go for it. But if you think women can be as sexually aggressive
> > > as men towards men without some repercussions, you're kidding or don't
> > > know human nature.
> >
> > I think women today are much more sexual than they were a few years
> > back, whether or not you classify that as aggression. Today's women
> > are not afraid to ask men out, or tell men what they want, sexually.
> > You may call that aggression; I simply think women are more sexually
> > expressive today and men who always have to lead are missing the boat,
> > and the sex.
>
> I think this clown is one of those rare ones. According to AskMen.com,
> most guys LOVE the idea of a sexually bold female.
Sure. That makes sense.
They're tired of playing guessing games with insecure women who are
incapable of
> expressing their desires. In the past, men rarely got the chance to
> experience that wonderful feeling of being *desperatly wanted* by a
> woman... and I think that's a shame. That's what is so great about this
> *revolution*... for once, and rightly so, men can feel sexy & desirable
> in a way that, up till now, only women had the privilege of experiancing.
> I think it's fabulous for BOTH female & male liberation. Guys have stood
> in the shadows for far too long; it's time for them to get a little sexy
> attention.
Amen to that, sister. Secure men ACTIVELY SEEK sexually expressive
women.
Hyerdahl
Darling Regan wrote:
> On 14 May 2006 07:05:52 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
> cranial adjustment in response to...
> >
> > weather...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > I have no idea what you mean by "Brass ring." If you mean high powered
> > > jobs, go for it. But if you think women can be as sexually aggressive
> > > as men towards men without some repercussions, you're kidding or don't
> > > know human nature.
> >
> > I think women today are much more sexual than they were a few years
> > back, whether or not you classify that as aggression. Today's women
> > are not afraid to ask men out, or tell men what they want, sexually.
> > You may call that aggression; I simply think women are more sexually
> > expressive today and men who always have to lead are missing the boat,
> > and the sex.
>
> I think this clown is one of those rare ones. According to AskMen.com,
> most guys LOVE the idea of a sexually bold female.
Sure. That makes sense.
They're tired of playing guessing games with insecure women who are
incapable of
> expressing their desires. In the past, men rarely got the chance to
> experience that wonderful feeling of being *desperatly wanted* by a
> woman... and I think that's a shame. That's what is so great about this
> *revolution*... for once, and rightly so, men can feel sexy & desirable
> in a way that, up till now, only women had the privilege of experiancing.
> I think it's fabulous for BOTH female & male liberation. Guys have stood
> in the shadows for far too long; it's time for them to get a little sexy
> attention.
Amen to that, sister. Secure men ACTIVELY SEEK sexually expressive
women.
>
rdu...@pdq.net
Well, yes. But it is bad news for the average hate filled middle
aged feminazi when they notice the type of sexually expressive women
that "secure" men look for. See, it makes no difference to guys if a
woman is sexually expressive, or even totally eager if HE DOES NOT WANT
TO BE AROUND HER. Because she is neurotic, conflicted about guys, or
scary-fat. Or just if she is not his type.
Darling Regan
(rdu...@pdq.net), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a cranial
I think that would apply to BOTH genders, not just men. Women don't want
freaks, either.
Ken Chaddock
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>More importantly, given the number of men losing their boners, the question
>>>>>should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
>>>>>one?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
>>>>any man's "boner" up.
>>>>
>>>>A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
>>>
>>>
>>>At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
>>>feminist? :-)
>>
>> Remember Parg, "pretty is as pretty does" but ignoring the oxymoron of
>>"pretty feminist"...aren't you all dykes by definition anyway ?
>>
>
> Gee, last time they had a poll most NOW members were married with
> children.
What all 12 of them ?
...Ken
Darling Regan
of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
Ken "Lardbucket" Chaddock is certainly NOT pretty. Wonder why he is
partaking in this conversation? When was the last time you even received
a hand-job, fat-pants???
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
> > (edit)
>
> > apparently we're gonna play Denial until no male will even go near a
> > female again -- at which point, undoubtedly, the matriarchy will pass
> > laws (with mandatory sentencing guidelines for The Perpetrators!)
> > FORCING men to interact with women
>
Nah. All men want is for women to perform their equal share of the life
and lifestyle depriving everyday burdens in return for their unearned
rights. Men rightly hate on women because women got their rights by
merely walking a few streets.
> Nah. As far as women are concerned, they are so dissalusioned with
> sexist men and their attitudes, they might just want you all to return
> to Mars.
Most women DON'T think with a victim feminist attitude on the brain.
Instead, they're getting phat cocks up their asses AND leaving
feminists like hyerdahl to fuck their garden gnomes. ;_0
> Women don't care what men think about the equal rights of women.
Women stole their rights off the everyday blood, sweat and tears of men
so its only natural that men rightly want to harm women.
> Western women already have those rights and if men are so insecure they
> can't accept that, it's really a man's problem.
Western women STOLE their rights rather than earned them and that is
why women still lag, lag, lag despite having every imaginable cunt only
perk thrown at them!
> I always wonder what
> it is exactly about free and equal women that ends up making these
> idiots so insecure.
So called "equal" women not sharing the burdens makes men enraged to
the point of wanting to 'take out' every woman they see. ;-)
> Imagine, not being able to have a hard on because
> the woman you're trying to fuck is your equal. How pathetic is THAT?
Feminist gals better use it or loose it Hyerdahl... I dated a feminist
gal recently, she worked night N day at the university campus, but when
it came to fucking she'd 'lost it' her cunny hole. ;-)
Darling Regan
conn...@hotmail.com (conn...@hotmail.com), attempted to drive me out,
>
Why would a HOMOSEXUAL date a woman?
Hyerdahl
He gets one every day, I'm guessing. After all, he has a probably has
vacuum cleaner. :-)
I'm assuming he has hands. :-)
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > (edit)
> >
> > > apparently we're gonna play Denial until no male will even go near a
> > > female again -- at which point, undoubtedly, the matriarchy will pass
> > > laws (with mandatory sentencing guidelines for The Perpetrators!)
> > > FORCING men to interact with women
> >
forced interaction? Of course, those organizations comprised of both
sexes will still, likely BE comprised of both sexes, i.e. the miliary,
work, etc.
> Nah. All men want is for women to perform their equal share of the life
> and lifestyle depriving everyday burdens in return for their unearned
> rights.
Just as soon as men do their share of THEIR "uneared rights" by
gestating each new generation, we can talk. :-)
Men rightly hate on women because women got their rights by merely
walking a few streets.
So you bray and yet, women, who comprise just over 51% of those
eligible to vote, don't seem to be buying your snake oil, 'conman'.
>
Darling Regan
Hyerdahl (Hyer...@aol.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
North American, European descended males would consider themselves
somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
-Aratzio
vkar...@yahoo.com
Darling Regan wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
>
Darling Darling,
Since you clowns are taking my name in vane (which is a major sin, you
know), let me you some free diagnosis:
It is not possible to attemt to drive somebody out of Usenet.
It is impossible to receive a cranial adjustment over Usenet.
But it is possible to receive help. Just call 911 and tell them how Ken
Chaddock has "wronged" you and what you did to his canum. They'll send
some professional people to hepl you fight your cause.
Mental health and peace to you!
>
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > > Ken Chaddock wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>More importantly, given the number of men losing their boners, the question
> > >>>>>should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
> > >>>>>one?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
> > >>>>any man's "boner" up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
> > >>>feminist? :-)
> > >>
> > >> Remember Parg, "pretty is as pretty does" but ignoring the oxymoron of
> > >>"pretty feminist"...aren't you all dykes by definition anyway ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Gee, last time they had a poll most NOW members were married with
> > > children.
> >
> > What all 12 of them ?
> >
> > ...Ken
> >
>
> Ken "Lardbucket" Chaddock is certainly NOT pretty. Wonder why he is
> partaking in this conversation? When was the last time you even received
> a hand-job, fat-pants???
>
Advertising of professional sexual favors is ...oooh.... illegal.
> --
> Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
>
> Let Jesus FUCK you!
>
Just tell this to the 911 folks.
Hyerdahl
Well, yes...they are.
Those that are not stupid are so ossified in their thought processes as
to be undifferentiated from the outrageously stupid. The basic premise
that a bunch of predominately
> North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> somehow oppressed is hysterically funny.
Sure, and reasonable folks know that.
At no point in history has such a large percentage of the population
ever been so empowered as that specific group. Each and everyone of
them had the opportunity to
> become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
> examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
> choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
> obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
>
Sure, but the cool thing is that we all see their insecurity and can
laugh at them.
Darling Regan
(vkar...@yahoo.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a cranial
>
> Darling Regan wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> > of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> > and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
> >
>
> Darling Darling,
>
> Since you clowns are taking my name in vane (which is a major sin, you
> know), let me you some free diagnosis:
>
> It is not possible to attemt to drive somebody out of Usenet.
>
> It is impossible to receive a cranial adjustment over Usenet.
>
> But it is possible to receive help. Just call 911 and tell them how Ken
> Chaddock has "wronged" you and what you did to his canum. They'll send
> some professional people to hepl you fight your cause.
>
> Mental health and peace to you!
Inability to cohmprehend automatic reply header noted.
Lack of basic film knowledge & sense of humor, ALSO noted.
> >
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ken Chaddock wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>More importantly, given the number of men losing their boners, the question
> > > >>>>>should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
> > > >>>>>one?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
> > > >>>>any man's "boner" up.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
> > > >>>feminist? :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Remember Parg, "pretty is as pretty does" but ignoring the oxymoron of
> > > >>"pretty feminist"...aren't you all dykes by definition anyway ?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Gee, last time they had a poll most NOW members were married with
> > > > children.
> > >
> > > What all 12 of them ?
> > >
> > > ...Ken
> > >
> >
> > Ken "Lardbucket" Chaddock is certainly NOT pretty. Wonder why he is
> > partaking in this conversation? When was the last time you even received
> > a hand-job, fat-pants???
> >
>
> Advertising of professional sexual favors is ...oooh.... illegal.
Thanks for the tip. I'll remember that, next time I see your digits
scrawled on a gay bar toilet.
> > --
> > Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
> >
> > Let Jesus FUCK you!
> >
>
> Just tell this to the 911 folks.
Why don't you tell them for me?
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
North American, European descended males would consider themselves
somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
-Aratzio
Ken Chaddock
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>Gee, last time they had a poll most NOW members were married with
>>>children.
>> What all 12 of them ?
> Ken "Lardbucket" Chaddock is certainly NOT pretty. Wonder why he is
> partaking in this conversation? When was the last time you even received
> a hand-job, fat-pants???
Awww, did I offend umm ? Did I hurt umm's feelings ? Poor little
thing...umm shouldn't involve ummself in the debates of grown ups if
umm's so sensitive should ummm...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
Aww Parg, that's beneath you...but then again you never did win an
argument with me so I guess this is your cheap way to try and get a
little back...
Ah well, if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that I'm
alone and lonely like you, well, what's the harm in that :-)
...Ken
Darling Regan
Huh? *scoff* As long as I didn't hurt your feelings, all is cool.
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
North American, European descended males would consider themselves
somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
-Aratzio
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Ken Chaddock
> Darling Regan wrote:
>>"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
>>act. They really are that stupid.
> Well, yes...they are.
You prove your own point every time you post to Usenet...
> Those that are not stupid are so ossified in their thought processes as
> to be undifferentiated from the outrageously stupid. The basic premise
> that a bunch of predominately
Ah Parg, don't be so hard on yourself, you're not that bad...well maybe
you are, but that's OK, you *are* good for comic relief now and again...
>>North American, European descended males would consider themselves
>>somehow oppressed is hysterically funny.
> Sure, and reasonable folks know that.
Just as reasonable folks know that neither are North American women,
who are, in fact, the most pampered and spoiled on Earth...due to the
hard work and sacrifice of their men folk...but that *is* ending and you
girlies don't seem to much like it either...
>> At no point in history has such a large percentage of the population
>>ever been so empowered as that specific group. Each and everyone of
>>them had the opportunity to become anything they wished, literally.
And the opportunity to have a judge take it all away and give it to an
undeserving women...
>>The fact that these pathetic examples decided to become put upon and
>>whiney was entirely their own choice.
Oh, I thought you were ranting about men but you're really talking
about women aren't you...
>>Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time obsessing
>>about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
Well, several thing wrong with that rant, first, feminista women aren't
"evil" and they aren't feminists either...just ask any latino :-)
> Sure, but the cool thing is that we all see their insecurity and can
> laugh at them.
Well, we *DO* laugh at you to a certain extent, we're laughing even
more every day as the excesses of feminism are turned back...
...Ken
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
Darling Regan wrote:
> (edit)
> >>North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> >>somehow oppressed is hysterically funny.
>
> > Sure, and reasonable folks know that.
>
> Just as reasonable folks know that neither are North American women,
> who are, in fact, the most pampered and spoiled on Earth...due to the
> hard work and sacrifice of their men folk...but that *is* ending and you
> girlies don't seem to much like it either...
Since most women are already working outside the home, I'm not sure
what you are talking about. It appears you're delusional, Ken. Not
only that, but also, many women are rethinking marriage and simply opt
out.
> >> At no point in history has such a large percentage of the population
> >>ever been so empowered as that specific group. Each and everyone of
> >>them had the opportunity to become anything they wished, literally.
>
> And the opportunity to have a judge take it all away and give it to an
> undeserving women...
Poor Ken doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "partnership law".
He wants an unpaid partner to do all the work for free, and then he
wants to dump her by saying "I divorce you" three times. Hey, he
should move to Saudi before it's too late. :-)
>
> (edit
> >>Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time obsessing
> >>about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
>
> Well, several thing wrong with that rant, first, feminista women aren't
> "evil" and they aren't feminists either...just ask any latino :-)
>
> > Sure, but the cool thing is that we all see their insecurity and can
> > laugh at them.
>
> Well, we *DO* laugh at you to a certain extent, we're laughing even
> more every day as the excesses of feminism are turned back...
But Ken, feminism is GROWING, not receding. Even Lance Armstrong's ex
wife decided not to put up with the ego needs of husbands. :-)
>
> ...Ken
FBI?Yeah, we phone in the occasional terrorist threat, but other than that, no one really knows what we are doing in Irvine
So is prof piano poser, and his crew of tards. He's a butt fucker too,
as is the australian jello, who has been in the closet, but isn't
really, he's a soc man, manly man, but he's a closet case.
A right wing tard australian closet case. I say this because you
torture me. If you didn't, I wouldn't.
Who'd of guessed?
Oh, look out, more underwater code, oh no....
I'm telling that to poser piano man, because essentially, this is
between the two of us, at this point.
He's the ed harris character in the truman show, right?
Or is that another obsesseo I don't know about?
Because he's nuts.
you're the problem here, tardo, your boring everybody, dave poser
piano.
Do I want to do this?
NO
Does anyone?
NO
terrifying to them if true, they stay in a state of denial
how do you deal with it
We were are gamed the same way, scientsits, by you, we had to make
life or death decisons, gladiator, and now you do too.
We were provoked to rages, driving so you could study that, i'm being
anally raped right now,
where's professor tony?being spanked by poser piano, where the fuck do
you think all the pretty boys go?
right to dave's room and the paddle, right bungmunchers?
you spank them, you choose them for thier lo0ks and then you spank
then, you spank those bad bad boys until they're cheeks are flushed
cherry red and your hand stings from the contstant whack whack whack...
He, in fact, wrote a whole ode to the spank, and those lovely boy
bottoms, about 2 years ago.
You guys must have missed it...
I hear them laughing tardo piano, you're hunter sock isn't working as a
defense, slob.
Well professor poser piano chooses boys, young men, for a certain look,
look around the room. Why he's obsessed with me, I'll never know...
Then, of course, well, everyone knows, it's not a secret.
And no one would care except for this stupid trolling and
experimenting...
He spanks the Russian cabbie after that, before you ask...
Stop using me to profile, stop using the fleas, FBI.
tha's where professor tony is, you thimble
dave
he's telling me it eht manimal butit's not it's him
i could ask the russian cabbie
When they think it's right, i suppose.
vkar...@yahoo.com
> On 15 May 2006 10:50:19 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> (vkar...@yahoo.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a cranial
> adjustment in response to...
> >
> > Darling Regan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> > > of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> > > and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
> > >
> >
> > Darling Darling,
> >
> > Since you clowns are taking my name in vane (which is a major sin, you
> > know), let me you some free diagnosis:
> >
> > It is not possible to attemt to drive somebody out of Usenet.
> >
> > It is impossible to receive a cranial adjustment over Usenet.
> >
> > But it is possible to receive help. Just call 911 and tell them how Ken
> > Chaddock has "wronged" you and what you did to his canum. They'll send
> > some professional people to hepl you fight your cause.
> >
> > Mental health and peace to you!
>
>
> Inability to cohmprehend automatic reply header noted.
>
Tell me, Darling, have you ever wondered how come your "automatic
header generator" generates such insane text, while nobody else's
does? Could it be that you actually have programmed it to do so?
I have heard people refuse take responsibility for their own children's
behavious, but you are the firs tmoron to refuse to take responsibility
ofr oyur own header generator.
>
> Lack of basic film knowledge & sense of humor, ALSO noted.
>
I am not the biggest expert on mass culture and movies. Which immortal
classic does the phrase "some worthless cocksucker ... attempted to
drive me out, and recieved a cranial adjustment" come from? I hope
it's not Milos Forman's "Someone Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...
Look, I don't want to criticize your orientation, but you may want to
consider spending less time in gay bar toilets. "Not that there is
anything wrong with it", as Seinfield would say.
> --
> Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
>
> Let Jesus FUCK you!
>
I guess your signature also has nothing to do with you...
>
> "The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
> act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
> ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
> outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
> North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
> such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
> that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
> become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
> examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
> choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
> obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
>
> -Aratzio
>
Who is this Aratzio clown? Should I know him/her? Also a movie
reference? Or a famous ancient Roman philosophesse? Was she referring
to the ancient Roman times? I hear men were quite professionally
"empowered" in Rome, just as anywhere and anytime else in the recorded
human history since the end of the Matriarchy (if it ever existed).
conn...@hotmail.com
Darling Regan wrote:
> On 14 May 2006 23:14:25 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> conn...@hotmail.com (conn...@hotmail.com), attempted to drive me out,
> and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
>
>
Why not? Recall in the last tut we studied that a mans anus is an
inferior copy of a warm, moist, wet,
soggy..................................................................
drain.
lol.++ -- (give or take a --)
Why accept poor sustitutes?
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> Just as soon as men do their share of THEIR "uneared rights" by
> gestating each new generation, we can talk. :-)
Comparing pregnoid gals sitting back on a warm bed and spreading their
legs and screaming while some doctors whacks off in the back room isn't
gonna take the cake let alone eat it too hyerhdal.
These days men expect women to do their share of the burdens so he can
come home to the kids or in many cases today come home to porn as
substitute for a woman "hand".
>
> So you bray and yet, women, who comprise just over 51% of those
> eligible to vote, don't seem to be buying your snake oil, 'conman'.
>
Women can comprise 99% of the population but I bet that fucking 1%
would be socialised to do all the shit kicking hard yakka on behalf of
that 99%
I simply can't blame on men for rape hatin' on the girls, since its all
girls fault for causing the cock erections with their 'dress less is
sexist N best' attitudes.
Women just never learn to control their sexually peverse manners that
create the worst erection reactions in men.
MCP
<conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147765437....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > Just as soon as men do their share of THEIR "uneared rights" by
> > gestating each new generation, we can talk. :-)
>
> Comparing pregnoid gals sitting back on a warm bed and spreading their
> legs and screaming while some doctors whacks off in the back room isn't
> gonna take the cake let alone eat it too hyerhdal.
Your labels don't alter the FACT that women risk life and health every
time they gestate and deliver. And, it also doesn't change the FACT
that women need not honor what men do if men don't equally honor what
women do.
>
> These days men expect women to do their share of the burdens so he can
> come home to the kids or in many cases today come home to porn as
> substitute for a woman "hand".
>
Again, pornaddictions is one reason women are divorcing their husbands,
'contard'. So it looks like what many men are coming home to is
darkenss, and emptiness and no kids.
> >
Darling Regan
adjustment in response to...
> Darling Regan wrote:
> > On 15 May 2006 10:50:19 -0700, some worthless cocksucker by the name of
> > (vkar...@yahoo.com), attempted to drive me out, and recieved a cranial
> > adjustment in response to...
> > >
> > > Darling Regan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> > > > of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> > > > and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Darling Darling,
> > >
> > > Since you clowns are taking my name in vane (which is a major sin, you
> > > know), let me you some free diagnosis:
> > >
> > > It is not possible to attemt to drive somebody out of Usenet.
> > >
> > > It is impossible to receive a cranial adjustment over Usenet.
> > >
> > > But it is possible to receive help. Just call 911 and tell them how Ken
> > > Chaddock has "wronged" you and what you did to his canum. They'll send
> > > some professional people to hepl you fight your cause.
> > >
> > > Mental health and peace to you!
> >
> >
> > Inability to cohmprehend automatic reply header noted.
> >
>
> Tell me, Darling, have you ever wondered how come your "automatic
> header generator" generates such insane text, while nobody else's
> does? Could it be that you actually have programmed it to do so?
*yawn* I got the feeling that you thought it was directed at you
personally, rather than automatic. That would be WHY I said what I did.
> I have heard people refuse take responsibility for their own children's
> behavious, but you are the firs tmoron to refuse to take responsibility
> ofr oyur own header generator.
WFT? Yes, I composed it. It's part of the persona.
> >
> > Lack of basic film knowledge & sense of humor, ALSO noted.
> >
>
> I am not the biggest expert on mass culture and movies. Which immortal
> classic does the phrase "some worthless cocksucker ... attempted to
> drive me out, and recieved a cranial adjustment" come from? I hope
> it's not Milos Forman's "Someone Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...
What cave have you been living in? Does "The Exorcist" mean anything to
you? My reply header isn't a direct quote from the film, but rather...
inspired by it.
That would be Aratzio of AUK. I'm sure HE will be quite broken up over
your... criticism. *smirk*
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
North American, European descended males would consider themselves
somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
-Aratzio
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Darling Regan
Women's bum-holes are tighter than a gay man's. : )
--
Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
Let Jesus FUCK you!
"The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
North American, European descended males would consider themselves
somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
-Aratzio
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Darling Regan
and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
>
Oh PLEASE! What about those tranny gay guys who dress up, lie to
straight men, and then when the guy finds out they have a ding-dong down
there, they beat the crap out of him??? That ever happen to you, Connor?
vkar...@yahoo.com
Why would it be "directed at me personally" if it was addressed to Ken
Chaddock?
I just have never seen such an offensive preamble as yours. Are you
sure you want to keep it? Does it say hte same thing when you reply to
your friends and allies?
> > >
> > > Lack of basic film knowledge & sense of humor, ALSO noted.
> > >
> >
> > I am not the biggest expert on mass culture and movies. Which immortal
> > classic does the phrase "some worthless cocksucker ... attempted to
> > drive me out, and recieved a cranial adjustment" come from? I hope
> > it's not Milos Forman's "Someone Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...
>
>
> What cave have you been living in? Does "The Exorcist" mean anything to
> you?
>
It is some mediocre horror flick from the 60s. Watched it for 20
minutes, then got bored. Watched Kieslowski (sp?) instead.
> > >
> > > "The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
> > > act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
> > > ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
> > > outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
> > > North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> > > somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
> > > such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
> > > that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
> > > become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
> > > examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
> > > choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
> > > obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
> > >
> > > -Aratzio
> > >
> >
> > Who is this Aratzio clown? Should I know him/her? Also a movie
> > reference? Or a famous ancient Roman philosophesse? Was she referring
> > to the ancient Roman times? I hear men were quite professionally
> > "empowered" in Rome, just as anywhere and anytime else in the recorded
> > human history since the end of the Matriarchy (if it ever existed).
>
>
> That would be Aratzio of AUK.
What is AUK?
>
> I'm sure HE will be quite broken up over
> your... criticism. *smirk*
>
What is there to "criticize" or analyse? Only an ignorant moron doesn't
know that the modern American and Western European women are better off
than women have been virtually at any other time and any other place in
recorded history of the World, both in absolute terms and in
realtion/comparison to men.
Why are you so in love with the above ignorant and convoluted
paragraph, that you put it at the end of each post?
Darling Regan
Well.. whatever. The point is, it's automatic.
> I just have never seen such an offensive preamble as yours. Are you
> sure you want to keep it? Does it say hte same thing when you reply to
> your friends and allies?
Only a fucking noob is offended by it. Ooops! That would be *YOU*.
> > > >
> > > > Lack of basic film knowledge & sense of humor, ALSO noted.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not the biggest expert on mass culture and movies. Which immortal
> > > classic does the phrase "some worthless cocksucker ... attempted to
> > > drive me out, and recieved a cranial adjustment" come from? I hope
> > > it's not Milos Forman's "Someone Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...
> >
> >
> > What cave have you been living in? Does "The Exorcist" mean anything to
> > you?
> >
>
> It is some mediocre horror flick from the 60s. Watched it for 20
> minutes, then got bored. Watched Kieslowski (sp?) instead.
Correction: It is a 1973 critically acclaimed, Oscar-winning Horror film
classic, and widely regarded as the "Scariest movie of all time".
> > > >
> > > > "The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
> > > > act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
> > > > ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
> > > > outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
> > > > North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> > > > somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
> > > > such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
> > > > that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
> > > > become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
> > > > examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
> > > > choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
> > > > obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
> > > >
> > > > -Aratzio
> > > >
> > >
> > > Who is this Aratzio clown? Should I know him/her? Also a movie
> > > reference? Or a famous ancient Roman philosophesse? Was she referring
> > > to the ancient Roman times? I hear men were quite professionally
> > > "empowered" in Rome, just as anywhere and anytime else in the recorded
> > > human history since the end of the Matriarchy (if it ever existed).
> >
> >
> > That would be Aratzio of AUK.
>
> What is AUK?
You might as well ask "What is Usenet?", imbecile.
> >
> > I'm sure HE will be quite broken up over
> > your... criticism. *smirk*
> >
>
> What is there to "criticize" or analyse? Only an ignorant moron doesn't
> know that the modern American and Western European women are better off
> than women have been virtually at any other time and any other place in
> recorded history of the World, both in absolute terms and in
> realtion/comparison to men.
>
> Why are you so in love with the above ignorant and convoluted
> paragraph, that you put it at the end of each post?
It's part of my signature; which explains why it magically appears at the
end of all my posts.
I'm not interested in stating the obvious, for the sake of a cherry's
education. Please direct your idiocy elsewhere, thanks.
vkar...@yahoo.com
I come form Europe. I watch more literary-oriented films. Plus it takes
more than a lot of hysterical shouting to scare me. I have been
married, you know...
I stopped watching this movie after 20 minutes and watched some
episodes form the "Dekalog" instead. As I recall, the one about the dog
and the stamp collectors. Amazing stuff. Too bad he died so young.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The outrageously stupid part for a very significant number is not an
> > > > > act. They really are that stupid. Those that are not stupid are so
> > > > > ossified in their thought processes as to be undifferentiated from the
> > > > > outrageously stupid. The basic premise that a bunch of predominately
> > > > > North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> > > > > somehow oppressed is hysterically funny. At no point in history has
> > > > > such a large percentage of the population ever been so empowered as
> > > > > that specific group. Each and everyone of them had the opportunity to
> > > > > become anything they wished, literally. The fact that these pathetic
> > > > > examples decided to become put upon and whiney was entirely their own
> > > > > choice. Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time
> > > > > obsessing about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
> > > > >
> > > > > -Aratzio
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who is this Aratzio clown? Should I know him/her? Also a movie
> > > > reference? Or a famous ancient Roman philosophesse? Was she referring
> > > > to the ancient Roman times? I hear men were quite professionally
> > > > "empowered" in Rome, just as anywhere and anytime else in the recorded
> > > > human history since the end of the Matriarchy (if it ever existed).
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be Aratzio of AUK.
> >
> > What is AUK?
>
> You might as well ask "What is Usenet?", imbecile.
>
Well, genius, my Google search for "AUK" returned:
/////////////////////////////
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AUK&btnG=Google+Search
THE AUK - Journal of the American Ornithologists' Union Abstracts for
current issues of the Auk can be found at BioOne.org. Full text of
current issues for UNM students, staff and faculty users can be found
here. ...elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/index.php - 31k - Cached - Similar
pages
///////////////////////////////
My Wikipedia lookup says:
////////////////////////////
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUK
AUK is a three-letter abbreviation with multiple meanings, as described
below:
Audax UK, a cycling organisation
American University in Kosovo, part of the Rochester Institute of
Technology
////////////////////////////////
So, which is your "Aratzio of AUK":
1. An ornithologist
2. A cyclist
3. An Albanian muslim
And in any of these cases, two questions arise:
1. How does any of the tree above qualify him as an expert on sex roles
and relations?
and
2. Why would an ornithology magazine, a local cycling cliub, or a
college in Pristina, Kosovo be as important as the Usenet?
>
> > >
> > > I'm sure HE will be quite broken up over
> > > your... criticism. *smirk*
> > >
> >
> > What is there to "criticize" or analyse? Only an ignorant moron doesn't
> > know that the modern American and Western European women are better off
> > than women have been virtually at any other time and any other place in
> > recorded history of the World, both in absolute terms and in
> > relation/comparison to men.
> >
> > Why are you so in love with the above ignorant and convoluted
> > paragraph, that you put it at the end of each post?
>
>
> It's part of my signature; which explains why it magically appears at the
> end of all my posts.
>
OK, let me repeat and rephrase for the retarded:
Why are you so in love with the above ignorant and convoluted
paragraph, that you have made it part of your signature?
>
> I'm not interested in stating the obvious, for the sake of a cherry's
> education. Please direct your idiocy elsewhere, thanks.
>
> --
> Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
>
> Let Jesus FUCK you!
>
You are one screwed up individual. Do you blame men for you condition?
Couln't it be genetic?
When will militant feminists and the militant "Moral Majority" accept
evolution and genetics? Why do normal educated people have to live
under the rules and laws written by right- and left- wing religious
extremists, who don't beleive in science?
Ken Chaddock
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>
> Darling Regan wrote:
>
>
>>(edit)
>>
>>>>North American, European descended males would consider themselves
>>>>somehow oppressed is hysterically funny.
>>
>>>Sure, and reasonable folks know that.
>>
>>Just as reasonable folks know that neither are North American women,
>>who are, in fact, the most pampered and spoiled on Earth...due to the
>>hard work and sacrifice of their men folk...but that *is* ending and you
>>girlies don't seem to much like it either...
> Since most women are already working outside the home, I'm not sure
> what you are talking about.
Yet most women working outside the home *still* need a man to support
them because they are working at part time jobs and even the majority of
those who do work full time cannot support themselves, probably because
they chose to work at the less demanding (read "safer") but lower paying
jobs...
> It appears you're delusional, Ken.
I've read dozens of articles (even listed 10 or so for you a while
back) by women complaining about the "Marriage Strike" and about men's
unwillingness to "commit". I've watched several talk shows hosted by
women (hell, even Oprah had a segment) on the same topic and I've heard
several radio shows with a similar bent...I don't particularly care for
"Dr" Laura but this also seems to be a fairly common complaint from her
female callers...yet I've NEVER heard, watched or read even ON complaint
from a man that they're having trouble finding a wife :-)
So you see Parg, your insistence that it's women who are "opting out"
en-mass is the biggest delusion in this thread :-),
> Not only that, but also, many women are rethinking marriage and simply opt
> out.
Yep, and the grapes are probably sour anyway :-) but all joking aside,
it probably does assuage a broken heart to convince yourself that you've
"opted out" of marriage when the truth is that you just couldn't find a
man stupid enough to marry you...
>>>>At no point in history has such a large percentage of the population
>>>>ever been so empowered as that specific group. Each and everyone of
>>>>them had the opportunity to become anything they wished, literally.
>>
>> And the opportunity to have a judge take it all away and give it to an
>>undeserving women...
> Poor Ken doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "partnership law".
Apparently neither do you. I've spent the last couple of days studying
the Uniform Partnership Act and the Uniform Limited Partnership Act,
both of which have been adopted by the majority of States. In neither of
these documents is their any provision for a partner, either limited or
general, to make off with assets of the partnership that are out of
proportion to their contributions during the partnership AND at
disillusion of the partnership both contributions made by the partners
AND benefits gained by the partners must be analyzed ...so if division
of property at divorce followed normal partnership law, a stay at home
partner would NOT automatically be entitled to a 50/50 split...now if he
or she is entitled to 50% (or more) based upon their contributions, I
totally support them getting everything they deserve...
> He wants an unpaid partner to do all the work for free,
Not for free Parg, he or she IS being paid with their support, often
that support providing a far better life style that they could ever have
earned for themselves...
>>>>Yet they will spend an exceedingly large amount of their time obsessing
>>>>about how oppressed they are by the EVUL FEMINISTA WIMMINS."
>>
>> Well, several thing wrong with that rant, first, feminista women aren't
>>"evil" and they aren't feminists either...just ask any latino :-)
>>>Sure, but the cool thing is that we all see their insecurity and can
>>>laugh at them.
>>
>> Well, we *DO* laugh at you to a certain extent, we're laughing even
>>more every day as the excesses of feminism are turned back...
> But Ken, feminism is GROWING, not receding.
Really ? Then why do the vast majority of women, particularly young
women, adamantly deny that they are feminists and why are NOWs numbers
way down ?
> Even Lance Armstrong's ex wife decided not to put up with the ego needs
> of husbands. :-)
Naw, she probably just saw a chance to make a fast buck now that he's
famous...
...Ken
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > Ken Chaddock wrote:
> >
> >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Darling Regan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>(edit)
> >>
> >>>>North American, European descended males would consider themselves
> >>>>somehow oppressed is hysterically funny.
> >>
> >>>Sure, and reasonable folks know that.
> >>
> >>Just as reasonable folks know that neither are North American women,
> >>who are, in fact, the most pampered and spoiled on Earth...due to the
> >>hard work and sacrifice of their men folk...but that *is* ending and you
> >>girlies don't seem to much like it either...
>
> > Since most women are already working outside the home, I'm not sure
> > what you are talking about.
>
> Yet most women working outside the home *still* need a man to support
> them because they are working at part time jobs and even the majority of
> those who do work full time cannot support themselves, probably because
> they chose to work at the less demanding (read "safer") but lower paying
> jobs...
Since women do more of the unpaid work at home, and childcare, it would
be expected that men pay their fair share of all, that, no?
>
> > It appears you're delusional, Ken.
>
> I've read dozens of articles (even listed 10 or so for you a while
> back) by women complaining about the "Marriage Strike" and about men's
> unwillingness to "commit".
The only article I've seen was that one poking fun at men by M. Dowd.
Today, women aren't waiting for men for anything, really. They're too
busy buying their own houses, going on their own vacations and even
having their own careers and children. Today, women seem to see boys
on the side as a good thing.
I've watched several talk shows hosted by
> women (hell, even Oprah had a segment) on the same topic and I've heard
> several radio shows with a similar bent...I don't particularly care for
> "Dr" Laura but this also seems to be a fairly common complaint from her
> female callers...yet I've NEVER heard, watched or read even ON complaint
> from a man that they're having trouble finding a wife :-)
The proof is in the pudding tho, and you don't see women going to
Thailand or Russia for spouses. Also, there have been men who have
advertised on billboards for wives. And men in places like Alaska and
the Outback who give contests trying to find wives.
> So you see Parg, your insistence that it's women who are "opting out"
> en-mass is the biggest delusion in this thread :-),
>
I"m not saying women are 'opting out' of marrying all men; I'm saying
that women won't marry men like you, which is much different.
> > Not only that, but also, many women are rethinking marriage and simply opt
> > out.
>
> Yep, and the grapes are probably sour anyway :-) but all joking aside,
> it probably does assuage a broken heart to convince yourself that you've
> "opted out" of marriage when the truth is that you just couldn't find a
> man stupid enough to marry you...
>
Again, you don't know my personal life at all. So denigration doesn't
win the day here.
> >>>>At no point in history has such a large percentage of the population
> >>>>ever been so empowered as that specific group. Each and everyone of
> >>>>them had the opportunity to become anything they wished, literally.
> >>
> >> And the opportunity to have a judge take it all away and give it to an
> >>undeserving women...
>
> > Poor Ken doesn't seem to understand the meaning of "partnership law".
>
> Apparently neither do you. I've spent the last couple of days studying
> the Uniform Partnership Act and the Uniform Limited Partnership Act,
> both of which have been adopted by the majority of States. In neither of
> these documents is their any provision for a partner, either limited or
> general, to make off with assets of the partnership that are out of
> proportion to their contributions during the partnership AND at
> disillusion of the partnership both contributions made by the partners
> AND benefits gained by the partners must be analyzed ...so if division
> of property at divorce followed normal partnership law, a stay at home
> partner would NOT automatically be entitled to a 50/50 split...now if he
> or she is entitled to 50% (or more) based upon their contributions, I
> totally support them getting everything they deserve...
When limited partnerships end, they can divide what's left based on
their contract, and that is usually set up to reflect what they each
brought to the table. General parners split what's left 50-50. The
state sees marriage like that, and so do I.
>
> > He wants an unpaid partner to do all the work for free,
>
> Not for free Parg, he or she IS being paid with their support, often
> that support providing a far better life style that they could ever have
> earned for themselves...
>
They both SHARE whatever lifestyle they bring in. It isn't up to you
to determine that what he brings in has any more value than what she
brings. And the courts look to make sue one partners is not being
unjustly enriched while the other must pay solely for sacrifice. I'm
ok with that.
(edit)
> >>
> >> Well, we *DO* laugh at you to a certain extent, we're laughing even
> >>more every day as the excesses of feminism are turned back...
>
> > But Ken, feminism is GROWING, not receding.
>
>Really ? Then why do the vast majority of women, particularly young
> women, adamantly deny that they are feminists and why are NOWs numbers
> way down ?
You mean like Laura Bush? ;-) She just admitted she was a feminist,
and her two daughters as well?
>
> > Even Lance Armstrong's ex wife decided not to put up with the ego needs
> > of husbands. :-)
>
> Naw, she probably just saw a chance to make a fast buck now that he's
> famous...
Whatever. The fact is that women are rethinking. They are going their
own way and you bitter twitters have no third leg to stand on.
>
> ...Ken
Raving Moonies. The Cult of Meow!
I told you they were gay.....................................
Darling Regan wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 01:38:17 GMT, some worthless cocksucker by the name
> of Ken Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca), attempted to drive me out,
> and recieved a cranial adjustment in response to...
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > > Ken Chaddock wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hyerdahl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>vkar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>More importantly, given the number of men losing their boners, the question
> > >>>>>should be asked: Do WOMEN need the 'rape culture' to get a good hot hard
> > >>>>>one?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Depends on the woman. A pretty woman with a kind personality will get
> > >>>>any man's "boner" up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>A fat ugly macho feminist - never.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>At the risk of introducing you to diversity :-) what about a pretty
> > >>>feminist? :-)
> > >>
> > >> Remember Parg, "pretty is as pretty does" but ignoring the oxymoron of
> > >>"pretty feminist"...aren't you all dykes by definition anyway ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Gee, last time they had a poll most NOW members were married with
> > > children.
> >
> > What all 12 of them ?
> >
> > ...Ken
> >
>
> Ken "Lardbucket" Chaddock is certainly NOT pretty. Wonder why he is
> partaking in this conversation? When was the last time you even received
> a hand-job, fat-pants???
>
> --
> Darling Regan: vIoLaToR of Man-ass
>
> Let Jesus FUCK you!
>