john merrick, king kong, and ray
John C. Ryan, Jr.
Logical, coherent, and supported post Odious!
Odious wrote:
>
> The Bombastic Buffoon wrote:
>>>
>>> Some Guy Writes:
>>>
>>> Yeah there are glaring contradictions in much of what he offers
>>> this NG.
>>
>> <------Cite some?
>>
>
> "I am a psychic" vs "Physic influence is bullshit."
>
Let me add the following:
1) "I'm going to sue you." (Addressed to about half the people that
post here.
2) "Women don't like SS" Refuted by Jeri and a few other women.
3) (To me) "You're going to lose that girl when she finds out about
the real you" (Or something to that effect.) The wedding plans are
going
full steam, Nuptials to take place in 19 days. We're just as happy
as two bugs in a rug.
>
>>> Likely HE doesn't even believe three quarters of what he writes, or
>>> perhaps he does, for a few minutes at a time... I don't know. But
>>> it doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes ya know what you're
>>> dealing with. If commenting on/responding to Ray is "for the good of
>>> the group", why not incorporate an 'editorial Ray warning' into the
>>> ASF FAQ, worded so that you don't get 'sued', and then forget about
>>> it?
>>
>> <-------Because they'd get sued. As it is, the ASF FAQ represents
>> an attempt to censor what is by definition an uncensored group.
>
> The same way they censor you at the public library by not letting you
> smear feces on the walls.
>
Poor "Ray"... He just can't get past the FACT that no one takes him
seriously. Pitiful.
>
>> A better question is why you would trust someone who has been proven
>> a liar (remember Oedipus speaking every so calmly about a picture he
>> claimed was mine that wasn't?)
>
> Since "ray gordon" doesn't exist, there can be no "untruth" in a
> description of his likeness. However the image I was given was from
> someone who said that you sent it to them, which is what I said when I
> posted it. That was 100% true. You said the image was not you, and I
> said you might be right, but we've no way to be sure unless you post a
> picture. Even then, there's no way to be really sure. As you've
> said over and over, nothing on usenet can really be believed. That
> which is not believable, is not libel, by definition you dirty son of
> a whore.
>
>>, and who harasses 60 year-old women by calling them whores?
>
> You've still yet to answer how it is harassment of her, if she's not
> reading the group, you pitiful moron. However, telling a woman you
> hope her daughter dies and that if anything happens to you, that her
> little girl will be held responsable...that is harassment. That's
> illegal. I really can't wait to see you try to defend that in court
> ray. When are you going to get of your ass and sue me, you child
> threatening net harasser?
>
I've already compiled over 750 documents, from an independent source, in
which "Ray" himself has made threats, promised violence, contradicted
himself, proclaimed supernatural powers, and declared that the Legal
System and the Courts were his province with which to wreak vengeance on
those whom he doesn't like. The courts are going to have so much fun
unraveling this web of crap that "Ray" has spun, that he won't know what
hit him. Just imagine what they'll find when they get logs of all his AOL
chats, affidavits from Juno that he fraudulently and consistently
endeavors to circumvent their TOS, and the results of court-ordered
psychological testing that I'm going to have performed... This is almost
too easy.
>
>
>>> Nope, no forcible confinement but it's exactly the same effect,
>>> because y'all know that you can leave, live life, come back, and
>>> he'll still be there. throw him some scraps, beat him with a
>>> stick, grin, repeat. turn off your computer, return to 'real life'
>>> for a bit, come in late, get online, throw some scraps, beat
>>> him with a stick...
>>
>> <------Anyone who does that deserves what they get in return.
>
> Ray's own words from later in this post "typical jerk men who feel
> threatened when the obvious flaws in how they approach women are
> exposed. The "you deserve it" crap is used by the abuser to justify
> the abuse"
>
> He can't even keep from contradicting himself long enough to write one
> post.
>
What an incredible insight. "Ray" simply cannot accept that anyone else
other than he is able to have successful relationships. I've been waiting
for months now for Jeri to react negatively to the revelation that I used
NLP and "Seduction Techniques" on her, in the beginning of our
relationship. Hell, we talked about it on the way to our FIRST weekend
together, which BTW was also our first real date. LOL... To date, all I've
heard from her, is how wonderful that I am, because I pay attention to
what she says, and I make her feel special.
>
>> Funny how a group of losers who can only get sluts by lying to them
>> tries to sit in judgment of me.
>
> Ray, how many of the men here need to go digging though
> alt.support.divorce to find posts that they can use to show that
> someone else might be worse off? You did just that, in a desperate
> attempt to show that you aren't a loser, but only verified the
> contrary.
>
And even worse, he's got the biggest case of sour grapes anyone has ever
seen. For him to sit there, in his mommy's basement, and dare to write
that someone else's woman is a slut, is incomprehensible in the least,
especially when at least one of the very women that he's labeled as a slut
has publicly stated in this very newsgroup, that "Ray" couldn't get within
10 feet of her, without her having him arrested as a stalker!
>
> How many of the men here live with their mommy? How many of them are
> 33 years old? How many men here have been caught red handed lying
> about having a girlfriend who just turned out to be someone you'd
> only talked to online and on the phone?
>
> Nobody is judging you ray, the judgment was rendered long ago. All
> that is happening now is that we are laughing our asses off as you
> continue to demonstrate the accuracy of those conclusions.
>
>> Won't be too long before the lawsuits rain down and you see the REAL
>> Ross Jeffries.....would you like to identify yourself while you are
>> at it, or is your bravery for attack only there when your identity
>> is HIDDEN?
>>
>
> Yawn...when the lawsuits rain down. Nope, no malicious prosecution
> there.
>
As soon as you publish your full name, and address, as well as that of
whatever lawyer you think is representing you, I bet the rest of us will
do the same. Unless and until you do what you're asking, then you have
less than no business expecting anything from anyone.
>
>>> Ray, i'm no expert on you, only you are, right? But man, sometimes
>>> people get so used to being ridiculed/abused that they literally go
>>> out ASKING for it when it's gone.
>>
>> <---------The only one asking for problems here is YOU. What you are
>> overlooking is that I don't vacate this group because if I did that
>> would send a message to people that they can harass people out of the
>> group.
>>
>
> Yawn, more excuses for ray to continue spaming in the groups where
> there are actually people and traffic, unlike his empty group.
>
You think he just can't accept the premise that he's simply not welcome in
some places? I'd like to see him waltz into a country club, and get thrown
out on his scabby ass, all the while complaining about his rights. Yeah,
he has the right to remain silent. We all just wish he'd exercise it more.
>
>>> Kids get abused, then feel rejected when daddy moves onto the
>>> younger sibling. and that's a fucked up reality, with a lot of
>>> wisdom attached to it. Hostile-yet-familiar territory and all that.
>>> Maybe this describes you, maybe not. Just consider that, though. I
>>> think you get 'picked on' in here because people just don't know
>>> what to make of a routinely angry person who refuses to help
>>> himself.
>>
>> <---------Help what? I have all the help I need: LAWYERS.
>
Lawyers can't diagnose, nor treat serious psychological disorders, you
idiot. If you realized just how demented that made you sound, you'd have
never posted it. All you're doing is FEEDING the courts more and more
information they can use to put you in a place where you will get help,
before they can release you.
>
> Name one. Why have you not had him contact KR's lawyer?
>
Because he knows that he'd get slapped with a countersuit that would make
the current Big Game Lotto jackpot look like pocket change.
>
>> You're confusing the speed of the judicial system with my refusal to
>> stomp out a few cockroaches. Oh well, run your mouth while you can.
>>
>
Look who's talking about mouth running. Bwahahahahahaha... This pitiful,
pathetic little boy wouldn't any more know whether to shit his pants, or
run if he ever met any of us in person. He has to make threats, talk like
a big man, and proclaim his physical prowess, because he's afraid that
none of us will think about that, without him reminding us. Hehehehe...
>
> I find it so amusing that no matter how many times ray says this over
> years and years, that the avalanche of lawsuits is just around the
> corner, he still thinks the threat hold water. He still thinks that
> people really buy it and think he can sure for this crap. Ray tried to
> sue and his case is dead in the water.
>
> Has there even been a preliminary hearing date set ray? The web page
> says there are no scheduled events on the case. Nothing is happening
> ray, because you do not know what you are doing and you do not
> understand the process. Have you even seen the judge yet, ray?
> LOL!!
>
> This is what happens to cases in line to be thrown out.
>
I wonder what he'll say when it does get thrown out. Let's all remind him
of it, when it happens.
>
>> <-----------Dude, I have a LAWYER who is all the help I need.
>
> What is his name?
>
>> Those who attack me are going to pay a HUGE price for doing so.
>
What about all of those whom YOU'VE attacked? I know of a bunch of people
that you have threatened, and we all could easily file a suit against YOU
for your terroristic threats, using interstate communications to make
harassing statements, and threatening malicious lawsuits... Wonder how
well that will go over? I have documentation. From your own words. From an
independent source.
>
> Speaking of censorship. Again we see that ray is allowed to censor
> people by using threats of legal action against anybody who criticizes
> him. When that doesn't work, he resorts to casting spells to harm
> little kids if people criticize him.
>
Yes, if he dares to try to sue anyone else, I will make all of my records
of his prior posts available to whomever requests.
>
>> It sounds more like jealousy
>
> Yeah there's nothing I want more than to be a bitter bi-polar shut-in
> with herpes, who lives with his mom at age 33 and has to lie about
> having girlfriends, when he's really only getting phone sex, so he can
> spam his shitty useless books.
>
> Where do I sign up? Is there any way I can learn how to seduce
> women from a man like this?
>
</sarcasm mode on>
I know that I would want to be a shut-in, that has delusions of grandeur.
</sarcasm mode off>
>
>> Ask yourself this: if I'm so meaningless, why are people risking
>> JAIL and BANKRUPTCY in order to attack me?
>
The only person that's risking incarcerations and bankruptcy is you. If
you persist in wanting to sue everyone, then you'll have to pay the price.
BTW, if and when you do sue say, the next two people on your list, you
will have established a pattern of filing malicious lawsuits, and the
courts will likely throw you in the crowbar hotel for abusing the legal
system. I'd love to see that. Hehehehe...
>
> False premise...nobody is risking anything by attacking you.
> Criticizing you for your behavior is legal. Insulting you is legal.
> Expressing opinions about your behavior and your mental state is
> legal. Stating observations about your behavior, and quoting your
> own posts to support claims made about your behavior and what it
> refelcts...are all legal.
>
Yep. All are legal. What's funny about it, is that "Ray" isn't man enough
to take it, without screaming about his rights. Hahahahaha.
>
> On the very face of things, nothing libelous has been said about you
> ray. So nobody is at risk. Everything is supported by your own
> behavior and as a result of your constant and intentional effort to
> change your screen name and hide your identity behind aliases, there's
> no real way to know the truth. That being the case, the behavior you
> display is all people have to go on, and all your behavior shows that
> you are an abusive, predatory, hateful, bitter little man who blames
> women for his problems and threatens little children with harm and who
> has an unhealthy sexual obsession with young gymnast girls that he has
> openly stated he considers sexual performers.
> Try to claim being called a pedophile is libel, when you are on record
> saying that you consider gymnasts girls to be sexual performers like
> stripers.
>
> Such behavior coupled with your self admitted mental problems and
> troubled home life, fits the profile for most serial killers and sex
> offenders. You're a prime candidate, a ticking time bomb.
>
> All it is going to take is a failure you can't rationalize away, and
> you'll probably snap. When you do you will target the weakest woman or
> child around and attack. When it finally does happen, you'll be
> locked up and we won't have to see your spam any more.
>
>> If what you said were true, they
>> woudln't be doing that.
>
> People swat at a fly, therefore the fly must be important.
>
>> Nothing is going to change the devaluation of SS
>> as women catch on.
>
> Except for the fact that it doesn't happen. In fact as one woman
> pointed out, her friends actually told her about the "way with words"
> the SS guy had, and it excited her all that much more. Knowledge of SS
> is a skill that women love. The idea that a man would take the time to
> learn how to really give them pleasure, is something that's very
> desirable.
>
That was me. Jeri had talked to a friend of hers that she knew I had
dated. Unsolicited (on my part) testimonials really work. It was part of
the reason Jeri came after me. Don't ya just hate it when you're WRONG,
"Ray" ???
>
> No matter how hard you try, you just are not going to be able to dupe
> men into thinking that learning SS is somehow detrimental. Not to far
> back you were claiming ross was brilliant and crying because he wasn't
> sharing the spotlight with you.
>
> Again can you cite one single source of evidence or provide one
> logical argument to support eh claim that knowledge of SS hinders
> it's effectiveness?
>
Ummm... no, he can't.
>
>> and nothing will change what happens to people who think picking on
>> me is a fun activity.
>
> Poor ray, maybe you should go tell your mommy.
>
Waitaminit. If he thinks that people are only picking on him, and he can't
take it, then how is that libel? There's a non sequitur in there
somewhere... LOL
>
>> By the way, women aren't very impressed with you guys.
>
> Lets see....
>
> Number of women currently posting in support of SS and SSers: 3-5
> Number of women currently posting in support if Ray or his stuff: 0
>
> If outfoxing is so much better and has such a wide appeal to women,
> and SS is so distasteful to women....why aren't there any women
> supporting you?
>
There is no answer to this, that "Ray" is capable of making.
He's too delusional.
>
>> It seems your sexual agenda isn't something they find very
>> appealing.
>
> Yeah because women hate sex, right ray? If they don't hate sex, then
> they are whore, just like mother says. Mother is always right, isn't
> she norman?
>
Oh, I don't know... Jeri seems to think that she managed to catch a prize
that many women had let slip through their panties...
>
>> Do you really think attacking me is going to change any of that?
>>
>
> Attacking you changes nothing significantly, because you are
> infinitely insignificant. You are the poster boy for failure, and as
> you scream all your little threats, they are forever lost in the
> deafening thunder of the world's laughter.
>
> A whisper by a waterfall...can you hear it?
>
> --
>
The silence must be deafening.
--
Jack
<----------<< =+= >>---------->
The problem with Paradigms,
is that Shift happens...
(Reverse "oohay" to reply.)
~J~
"John C. Ryan, Jr." wrote:
> The wedding plans are going full steam, Nuptials to take place in 19 days.
> We're just as happy as two bugs in a rug.
Just don't get rug burn. : )
You must be the friend Vince spoke of that was getting married - Here's to
many happy years together.
I never knew anyone to get married on a Thursday either, is it because of
Memorial Day?
> when at least one of the very women that he's labeled as a slut
> has publicly stated in this very newsgroup, that "Ray" couldn't get within
> 10 feet of her
Make that two women.
John C. Ryan, Jr.
>
> "John C. Ryan, Jr." wrote:
>
>> 19 days. We're just as happy as two bugs in a rug.
>
>
Too late! LOL
>
> You must be the friend Vince spoke of that was getting married -
> Here's to many happy years together.
>
We both thank you, for that kind sentiment.
>
> I never knew anyone to get married on a Thursday either, is it
> because of Memorial Day?
>
Actually, it's the midpoint between our birthdays.
>
>> ...when at least one of the very women that he's labeled as a slut
>> has publicly stated in this very newsgroup, that "Ray" couldn't
>> get within 10 feet of her...
>
> Make that two women.
>
LOL
~J~
"John C. Ryan, Jr." wrote:
> >> The wedding plans are going full steam, Nuptials to take place in
> >> 19 days. We're just as happy as two bugs in a rug.
> >
> > Just don't get rug burn. : )
> >
>
> Too late! LOL
Well, hope it didn't hurt.
>
>
> >
> > You must be the friend Vince spoke of that was getting married -
> > Here's to many happy years together.
> >
>
> We both thank you, for that kind sentiment.
I'm always happy to hear of two people making a commitment to each other.
>
>
> >
> > I never knew anyone to get married on a Thursday either, is it
> > because of Memorial Day?
> >
>
> Actually, it's the midpoint between our birthdays.
I knew there had to be some theory behind it.
Shawn T Pickrell
:> when at least one of the very women that he's labeled as a slut
:> has publicly stated in this very newsgroup, that "Ray" couldn't get within
:> 10 feet of her
: Make that two women.
a slut need not sleep with you
to be a slut.
hth 2.0
shawn
Brock Hannibal
>
> >a slut need not sleep with you
> >to be a slut.
> >
> >hth 2.0
> >
> >shawn
>
> society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
> make them feel better about not being selected by chicks.
Actually I enjoy being selected by sluts.
--
Brock
"Pearl, you're curved in the flesh of temptation. Resistance is
going to be a darn sight harder for you than for females protected
by the shape of sows."
Geddy Lee
>to be a slut.
>
>hth 2.0
>
>shawn
Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless term in
society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
make them feel better about not being selected by chicks. That's it! There
is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure. Guys get pissed because
girls reject them or choose someone else and instead of taking it like a man
and moving on they have to make themselves feel better by degrading the
chick that they failed with. The term is an attempt to boil someone's
entire self down to an interpretation of her sex life and not only is it
about as unintelligent as eating monkey shit, it's lame as hell. So all of
you who obsess over who is and isn't a 'slut' get a fucking life!
- Geddy Lee
Shawn T Pickrell
:>a slut need not sleep with you
:>to be a slut.
:>
:>hth 2.0
:>
:>shawn
: Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless term in
: society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
: make them feel better about not being selected by chicks. That's it! There
i am engaged to be married on 22 july
what is your point again?
: is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
: only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure. Guys get pissed because
: girls reject them or choose someone else and instead of taking it like a man
: and moving on they have to make themselves feel better by degrading the
: chick that they failed with. The term is an attempt to boil someone's
it depends on the guy they rejected you for.
: entire self down to an interpretation of her sex life and not only is it
: about as unintelligent as eating monkey shit, it's lame as hell. So all of
: you who obsess over who is and isn't a 'slut' get a fucking life!
it seems you are obsessing over your obsessions.
whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone but you.
shawn
Brock Hannibal
>
> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
> slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone but you.
>
> shawn
I like my definitions better.
whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
No User
>>a slut need not sleep with you
>>to be a slut.
>>
>>hth 2.0
>>
>>shawn
>
>Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless term in
>society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
>make them feel better about not being selected by chicks. That's it! There
>only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
why, if that is the case, is it used by women against other women?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
it's evolution baby
- pearl jam
grab a kleenex for this one, cuz there's no god and your idiotic human
ideals are laughable!
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha heh!
- bender
there are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
- thomas sowell
asking nerds for romantic advice is like going to the amish for an auto
mechanic.
- me
so you just pretend to be an asshole?
it's what i'm good at.
- man on the moon
enialle
>
>Shawn T Pickrell wrote:
>
>>
>> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
>> slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone but you.
>>
>> shawn
>
>I like my definitions better.
>
>whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
>slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
>
>--
>
So we keep asking, over and over,
Until a handful of earth
Stops our mouths--
But is that an answer?
--Henrich Heine, "Lazarus"
DeepBlue
no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> "Geddy Lee" <gedd...@depechemode.com> wrote:
> >>a slut need not sleep with you
> >>to be a slut.
> >>
> >>hth 2.0
> >>
> >>shawn
> >
> >Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless term in
> >society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
> >make them feel better about not being selected by chicks. That's it! There
> >is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
> >only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
>
> why, if that is the case, is it used by women against other women?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
[exceedingly long sig file snipped]
Good question--I once asked a female friend to explain why she was
angrily referring to another girl as a "slut."
I kid you not, she said:
"Because she's just *giving* it away! She's making it harder for all the
other girls!"
She explained that the "slut" was making it harder for other girls to use
sex as a valuable bargaining chip, particularly in the quest for a
"committment." She felt that if all women played their part in making it
difficult for guys to "get" sex, then guys were more likely to make a
commitment a.k.a. marriage.
Gotta love her honesty.
DeepBlue
crash street kidd
> In article <39182615...@pacifier.com>, Brock says...
> >
> >Shawn T Pickrell wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
> >> slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone but you.
> >>
> >> shawn
> >
> >I like my definitions better.
> >
> >whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
> >slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
> >
> >--
> >
> what is the male equivalent?
a male can be a slut too.
smoochies!!!
crash street kidd
No User
and keep it once it was made.
she obviously had a keen grasp of economics.
(paying attention geddy?)
>Gotta love her honesty.
was she sexually attractive?
the tree by the river
>In article <39182615...@pacifier.com>, Brock says...
>>
>>slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
>
Nearly all of them...?
--
Trygve Lode, president, Nyx Net ( www.nyx.net ) free internet access
Misc.Fitness.Weights homepage, FAQs, glossary - http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html
Soc.Singles FAQ: www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html - Personal page: www.trygve.com
Free music and videos now available - check out http://www.mp3.com/TrygveLode
DeepBlue
NoMoreAFC
In article <ff48b1fdcd92509e...@anon.xg.nu>,
No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
> DeepBlue <Deep...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >In article <b66eece9594912ce...@anon.xg.nu>,
> >no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> >> "Geddy Lee" <gedd...@depechemode.com> wrote:
> >> >>a slut need not sleep with you
> >> >>to be a slut.
> >> >>
> >> >>hth 2.0
> >> >>
> >> >>shawn
> >> >
> >> >Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless
term in
> >> >society.
<snip>
> >> why, if that is the case, is it used by women against other women?
> >> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >>
> >
> >[exceedingly long sig file snipped]
> >
> >Good question--I once asked a female friend to explain why she was
> >angrily referring to another girl as a "slut."
> >
> >I kid you not, she said:
> >"Because she's just *giving* it away! She's making it harder for all
the
> >other girls!"
> >
> >She explained that the "slut" was making it harder for other girls to
use
> >sex as a valuable bargaining chip, particularly in the quest for a
> >"committment." She felt that if all women played their part in making
it
> >difficult for guys to "get" sex, then guys were more likely to make a
> >commitment a.k.a. marriage.
<snip>
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
"By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to become
prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
use of their vagina at certain given moments."
"For most women, marriage means money. That is, engaging in sex for
money. And that's prostitution.
Women know this: "Traditional women were and are deeply suspicious of
the package we call the sexual revolution. They know that in the past
women were valued for sex and reproduction, and they believe that wives
should hang on to their monopoly on legitimate sex for the very simple
reason that it enhances their value." (A Lesser Life, Sylvia Ann
Hewlett, p 330)
"Legitimate sex" equals marriage, and pop-feminists oppose prostitution
-- "black market sex" -- not because it harms "ladies of the night" or
causes men to lose respect for women, but because it undermines women's
monopoly on "legitimate" sex. That is, it undercuts the monopoly price
and decreases female sexual power."
Full text at:
http://www.backlash.com/book/prostit.html
NoMoreAFC
Study... gain knowledge. Practice knowledge... gain results.
1. http://www.seduction.com/news/ (Ross's Newsletters)
2. http://www.ut.ee/~anton/layguide/ (Tony's Lay Guide)
3. http://www.pickupguide.com/ (Maniac High's website)
4. http://www.fastseduction.com/ (Formhandle's resources site)
5. http://www.backlash.com/book/sexism.html (Male-positivity)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wise_...@my-deja.com
NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
become
> prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
> for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
> the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
> use of their vagina at certain given moments."
Just out of curiosity - does the above indicate that you support an
opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
(feminazi bitches).
Is there a win-win *anywhere* here??
-J
enialle
>
>In article <8f9qev$23...@edrn.newsguy.com>, enialle <ohw...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <39182615...@pacifier.com>, Brock says...
>>>
>>>whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
>>>slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
>>
>>what is the male equivalent?
>
>Nearly all of them...?
>
>--
No User
>In article <8fa67i$aeb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
>become
>> prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
>> for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
>> the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
>> use of their vagina at certain given moments."
>
>
>Just out of curiosity - does the above indicate that you support an
>opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
>'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
>the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
>traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
>(feminazi bitches).
very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with sexual
attractiveness.
heh
No User
>In article <95791124...@iris.nyx.net>, tl...@nyx10.nyx.net says...
>>
>>In article <8f9qev$23...@edrn.newsguy.com>, enialle <ohw...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
>>>In article <39182615...@pacifier.com>, Brock says...
>>>>
>>>>whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
>>>>slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
>>>
>>>what is the male equivalent?
>>
>>Nearly all of them...?
>>
>>--
>he he... so that's good?
and it's all in fun
now get in the pit and try to love someone
Brock Hannibal
>
> On Tue, 09 May 2000 07:52:05 -0700, Brock Hannibal
>
> >whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
>
>
> cbianco
Sex for computer consulting. Yeah.
John C. Ryan, Jr.
>>
>>>
>>> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
>>>
>>> shawn
>>
>> I like my definitions better.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
There is no Male equivalent. The terms apply equally to both sexes.
No User
>cbianco wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 May 2000 07:52:05 -0700, Brock Hannibal
>>
>>
>>
>> cbianco
>
>Sex for computer consulting. Yeah.
leave your first three wives out of this.
No User
>>>There
>>>is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
>>>only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
>>
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>
>to pursue.
your understanding is... limited.
>You've been in the game for awhile. I'm sure you've been around
>girls when they find out that 'their' man is interested in someone else.
>It's easier for her to degrade the girl by calling her a slut then it is
>take a look at why she was lost to this girl and try to improve. It's still
>just a way to glorify failure.
or protect market share.
>- Geddy Lee
>
>ps. I still contend that the term is useless and sexist. Can you think of
>an objective definition of the term that has an equally degrading male term?
what's wrong with being sexy?
No User
>In article <8fa7hd$boa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, wise_...@my-deja.com says...
>> In article <8fa67i$aeb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
>> become
>> > prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
>> > for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
>> > the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
>> > use of their vagina at certain given moments."
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity - does the above indicate that you support an
>> opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
>> 'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
>> the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
>> traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
>> (feminazi bitches).
>>
>>
>> -J
>>
>
>anything else by simply choosing to focus on the similarities. In other
>words you could just as well tell someone who is drinking milk that they
>are actually drinking cow sweat or someone eating honey that they are
>really eating bee vomit. While prostitution and marriage share some
>similarities, there are obviously some differences, and those differences
>make *all* the difference.
yes. a wife can take half your money and she doesn't even have to give a
reason.
the worst a whore can burn ya for is what's in your wallet.
Brock Hannibal
>
> brock wrote:
> >cbianco wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 May 2000 07:52:05 -0700, Brock Hannibal
> >>
> >> >whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
> >>
> >> what if she barters.
> >>
> >> cbianco
> >
> >Sex for computer consulting. Yeah.
>
> leave your first three wives out of this.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
They were more into houses and real estate. I like to think of
myself as doing my part to keep them off the street.
Odious
Geddy Lee wrote:
>
> >a slut need not sleep with you
> >to be a slut.
> >
> >hth 2.0
> >
> >shawn
>
> Lol. There's wisdom for ya! Listen, the word 'slut' is a useless term in
> society. It's only purpose is to give desperate rejects some recourse to
> make them feel better about not being selected by chicks. That's it! There
> is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
> only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
I wrote a great pattern based on this idea:
========================================================================
Women are taught to avoid this idea of being a slut and anything that
even looks like it. The result is women who are very afraid of their
natural desires. They do not want to even look like they might have the
potential to be a slut, so they bury their desires in the pit of their
stomachs and pretend to be just like everybody else. Though everybody
else is just pretending to be like everybody else as well.
It is a colossal pseudo moralistic mind fuck.
BUT, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. You can't just go
suppressing your natural human desires, it doesn't work. Especially the
sexual desires, because that's like trying to suppress eating or
drinking. It doesn't work. You either fail or you fuck yourself up so
royally that you can't function.
From this contradiction, and the fact that the pressure not to be a slut
resides in a social context, we get my friend "The Madonna/Whore
complex."
(that's madonna as in the virgin mary, not the pop sensation with pointy
tits)
The Madonna Whore complex is this: The average woman wants to be a
Madonna in the public eye, but a whore in the bedroom. And never the
twain shall
meet.
So what does this mean to you, the seductionist? Simple. It means
that there are a hell of a lot of women out there who are craving
satisfaction...which they can only get from behaviors that have been
labeled as slutty. They really want to have these desires satiated.
This has two main results...
Some women throw off the social rules and go full on into slut mode all
the time. They are sluts and OK with it...you've seen them before.
Though they
are a small minority.
Most women simply try to suppress their desires. Instead of expressing
what they really want, they act like they want all the same basic things
that they think they are supposed to want...and they hope you will just
blunder onto what they really want.
This is another reason women go for assholes, because she knows he is
going to do what he wants, with no regard for her feelings. An asshole
doesn't tip toe around during sex, avoiding the things he is not supposed
to do because they might make her feel slutty.
Also a lot of women are with guy they might really love, but they still
do not feel they can open up and tell this guy what they really desire.
They maintain this set of rules on how they think they are supposed to
behave for so long that both think if they break it then the other will
react badly.
Understanding this gives you a fantastic advantage over the AFC.
Why?
Because you know something she wants, that the AFC doesn't know about and
if he did he'd not know how to handle. Though knowing is only half the
battle. So you know she wants these things, but you can't just go up to
her and say "hey, I understand that most women want to behave in a way
that
would be considered slutty by most...they just want to do so behind
closed doors." You might know what she wants, and you might be right on
the
money. However she is still afraid of looking like a slut. When you meet
her, she is in public...you are the public. So you are dealing with the
Madonna side.
How do you approach Madonna and tell her to let the Whore out?
1. You need to present yourself as understanding the distinctions
between who we are in public and who we are in private.
This is rather straight forward and easy enough to understand.
2. You need to attack the ideas labeling, adhering to social rules, and
suppressing desires.
This means you need to show her that you consider the labels, slut in
particular, to be meaningless and harmful. A quick example. I was
talking to a woman on the phone a few days ago and she started to mention
something she had done one night...and she cut herself off.
This is a huge flare going off saying you've found something good. When
she cuts off what she was about to say...it is gold, start digging.
Me : What?
Her: Never mind.
Me : Oh man...just when you were getting interesting.
Her: It's stupid.
Me : No, it is real. We spend so much time in our lives going through
the motions that we are expected to go through. We follow rules that make
us
behave in a way that is not who we are. It isn't real...it's phony. You,
know what I mean.
Her: Yeah.
Me : And you just sliped...you let your guard down and started to tell me
something real. Something that doesn't fit into the stupid social rules
that we subject ourselves to. Then you got scared and pulled back. Well
you don't have to do that...it takes a hell of a lot of strength to be
who you are and to open yourself up like that. I respect that.
Her: wow
Me : Well I don't like the rules that we adhere to based on what other
people think. Because other people don't think that...they are just
going through the motions too. Everybody just behaves how they think
others expect them to behave. And so you find yourself suppressing part
of who you are in favor of what you think others expect you to be and
that is very detrimental. You should never suppress who you are or what
you desire. Me, I never hide my feelings or desires. Right now, I
desire to know what you were going to tell me.
She then told me about how she got drunk at a party and fucked some guy
in plain view of like 10 people. She kept going on about how she had
never
told anybody about that and she didn't want me to think that she was a
slut.
To which I said, "Nobody is...slut is a meaningless label used by
hypocrites to keep you from feeling what you want to feel."
Another good point to make is that when you suppress one part of yourself
(sexual desires) you inevitably suppress other aspects of yourself as
well.
3. Lastly, you have to give her permission to be a slut.
Remember this programing has been pounded into her since day one...you
are not going to undo it in one night. All you can do is show her you do
not
buy into the labels or the social rules, and in fact you think they are
ultimately harmful.
She is still going to think X behavior equals slut. She is just going to
be more open at this point because she knows you don't think X behavior
equals slut. IOW the public, you, are not going to hold her to the
standard she is used to...now she is not so afraid of behaving in the way
others might consider slutty.
Now you take it one step further and actually give her permission to be a
slut.
My favorite way to do this is the slut pattern,
"I actually have an immense about of respect for
sluts...(what...why)...when you can throw off all the useless rules that
are holding you back and keeping you from doing what you truly want to
do, that is very powerful. When you can say that feeling what you want to
feel is more important to you than what other people think...that is very
liberating. It is very impressive to me, when you see what you want in
front of you and you can just go for it...wihtout worry about the social
rules...without worry of what others might think. It is honest. It is
real. There is a strength in being able to this. Now, with me when you
can take all the rules and all the bullshit and say to yourself "All that
is meaningless in the face of fulfilling my desires," well, that is
something I have a lot respect for."
At this point you've made it clear not only that you do not care for the
social rules that scare her, but given her permission...even
encouragement to behave in a way she would not with any AFC. She now
sees you as not only safe, but as a man who she can share herself with in
a way she desperately wants to.
Have fun.
========================================================================
I've recently added some stuff to it after having a conversation with a
feminist friend of mine.
One must also consider the origins of the term slut. The word is not so
much the product of rejected men, but rather it is a throwback to a time
when women were considered property. That property was less valuable if
not virginal and pure.
A father owned his daughter until he gave her away via marriage. Then
the husband owned her. The term slut and similar negative labeling was
to discourage their property from devaluing itself by having sex outside
of marriage.
So why would any woman in modern times feel the need to continue to
adhere to the outdated archaic value system that was built around
repressing them?
--
The Spiffy Page: Home of the Ask Odious seduction advice column.
http://members.home.net/odious
DeepBlue
> Shawn T Pickrell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > shawn
>
> I like my definitions better.
>
>
> --
Reminds me of a joke:
Q: What's the difference between a bitch and a whore?
A: A whore sleeps with everyone at the party, and a bitch sleeps with
everyone at the party except you.
DeepBlue
Here's a few more for the road...
(and believe it or not, I got these from a woman!)
Q: How is a woman like a condom?
A: Both of them spend more time in your wallet than on your dick.
Q: Why do women have two sets of lips?
A: So they can piss and moan at the same time.
Q: How do you circumcise a hillbilly?
A: Kick his sister in the jaw.
Q: Why doesn't Mexico have an Olympic team?
A: Because everybody who can run, jump, and swim are already in America.
Q: What's the difference between love, true love, and showing off?
A: Spitting, swallowing, and gargling.
Q: How do you embarrass an archeologist?
A: Give him a used tampon and ask him which period it came from.
Q: What did the cannibal do after he dumped his girlfriend?
A: Wiped his ass.
Q: How can you tell if your wife is dead?
A: The sex is the same but the dishes pile up.
Q: How can you tell if you're at a bulimic bachelor party?
A: The cake jumps out of the girl.
Q: How do you make 5 pounds of fat look good?
A: Put a nipple on it.
Q: If your wife keeps coming out of the kitchen to nag at you, what have
you done wrong?
A: Made her chain too long.
cbianco
>whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
what if she barters.
cbianco
Geddy Lee
>>is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
>>only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
>
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
The same reason. To make themselves feel superior to women who guys choose
to pursue. You've been in the game for awhile. I'm sure you've been around
girls when they find out that 'their' man is interested in someone else.
It's easier for her to degrade the girl by calling her a slut then it is
take a look at why she was lost to this girl and try to improve. It's still
just a way to glorify failure.
- Geddy Lee
DeepBlue
> In article <8fa67i$aeb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
> become
> > prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
> > for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
> > the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
> > use of their vagina at certain given moments."
>
>
> Just out of curiosity - does the above indicate that you support an
> opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
> 'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
> the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
> traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
> (feminazi bitches).
>
> Is there a win-win *anywhere* here??
>
> -J
>
I don't view wives as prostitutes. Anything can be said to be like
anything else by simply choosing to focus on the similarities. In other
words you could just as well tell someone who is drinking milk that they
are actually drinking cow sweat or someone eating honey that they are
really eating bee vomit. While prostitution and marriage share some
similarities, there are obviously some differences, and those differences
make *all* the difference.
What is criticized in prostitution is that it is an exchange where the
*only* thing the woman wants is money and the *only* thing the man wants
is sex. To the extent that this type of attitude prevails in a marriage,
it is criticized there too, as people push for some sort of perfection
beyond our "baser" urges. But to some extent women will always be
somewhat security minded, and men will always be somewhat sex driven and
to think every last trace of this must be eradicated, or else it's
prostitution--that is not realistic, nor is it truly necessary.
Anyway, that's my 2cents there.
DeepBlue
Wayne J. Rasmussen
:>>is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
:>>only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
:>
:>why, if that is the case, is it used by women against other women?
:> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
: The same reason. To make themselves feel superior to women who guys choose
: to pursue. You've been in the game for awhile. I'm sure you've been around
: girls when they find out that 'their' man is interested in someone else.
: It's easier for her to degrade the girl by calling her a slut then it is
: take a look at why she was lost to this girl and try to improve. It's still
: just a way to glorify failure.
I would suggest that anyone who calls someone a slut is doing for some
perpose that really serves themselves.
Nathan SZILARD
| very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
| but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with sexual
| attractiveness.
| heh
| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
having a greeeat sex life. From what I know, this is just not
the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
have poor sex lives).
--
Please rate this article:
Not funny [ 0 ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Funny
Poorly written [ 0 ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Well Written
Not interesting[ 0 ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Interesting
Not original [ 0 ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Original
©2000 SZILARD. Post released under the GNU GPL. See <URL:http://gnu.org>
Before asking questions, go check:
<URL:http://www.pickupguide.com/> -- non commercial
<URL:http://www.fastseduction.com/> -- non commercial
<URL:http://www.ut.ee/~anton/layguide/> -- non commercial
<URL:http://www.seduction.com/> -- commercial
~J~
enialle wrote:
>
> >>>whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
> >>>slut = a woman who'll sleep with anyone she finds attractive enough.
> >>
> >>what is the male equivalent?
> >
> >Nearly all of them...?
> >
> >--
> he he... so that's good?
Depends on the day?
Brock Hannibal
>
> No User tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
>
> | very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
> | but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with sexual
> | attractiveness.
> | heh
> | jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
> having a greeeat sex life. From what I know, this is just not
> the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
> have poor sex lives).
Well it's no wonder if they're carriers.
Your word, not mine.
> --
> Please rate this article:
> Not funny [ X] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Funny
> Poorly written [ X ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Well Written
> Not interesting[ X ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Interesting
> Not original [ X ] [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] Original
No User
>No User tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
>
>| very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
>| but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with sexual
>| attractiveness.
>| heh
>| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
>having a greeeat sex life.
only if they occasionally say yes.
>From what I know, this is just not
>the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
>have poor sex lives).
if they are pretty that is easily remedied.
Nathan SZILARD
| nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD) wrote:
| >No User tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
| >
| >| very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
| >| but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with sexual
| >| attractiveness.
| >| heh
| >| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
| >
| >Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
| >having a greeeat sex life.
|
| only if they occasionally say yes.
|
| >From what I know, this is just not
| >the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
| >have poor sex lives).
|
| if they are pretty that is easily remedied.
Man, you are dead wrong. Out of my mind, I can think of many
very pretty such girls I know.
V: hard working student. Had a boyfriend for 1 month in the
last 2 years, after she brokeup from her previous LTR.
I "dated" her for some time, she was never available.
Always "too busy" -- I gave up, she was really wasting my
time. Not seeing anyone since then apparently.
Pretty face, long legs, just her tits are a bit saggy.
Her friend: law student, *zero* sex in 3 years, after her
heart got "broken" (she was just obsessing over this one
guy and he understandably got fed up with it). Working
all the time. Now she's with a guy (a complete loser
salesman BTW).
Extremely beautiful (as in, 100% of hetero men turn around
to look at her in the street).
L.: brit law student, hard working, I kissed her once and then
she rejected me later because someone told her I was a "playa".
She had told me in our only conversation that she had only gotten
laid while she was on vacation in Ibiza in the last two years ...
(probably several times during that short period, but still that
does not really qualify for a fulfilling sex life ...)
Ivy League lawyer: model type (former model if I remember
properly), works for big law firm, wants to become a
partner before she turns 30, no sex whatsoever, no
boyfriend.
Hope this helps ...
--
Please rate this article:
No User
just because something is easily remedied doesn't mean that everyone knows
how to or is willing to do what it takes to remedy it.
wise_...@my-deja.com
nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD) wrote:
> No User tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
>
> | very few successful working women are feminazi bitches.
> | but then this should be no surprise as success correlates with
sexual
> | attractiveness.
> | heh
> | jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
> having a greeeat sex life. From what I know, this is just not
> the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
> have poor sex lives).
Ah, I see, all the career women *you* know have poor sex lives,
therefore *all* career women have poor sex lives. Brilliant deductive
reasoning!
Nathan SZILARD
| > Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
| > having a greeeat sex life. From what I know, this is just not
| > the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
| > have poor sex lives).
| Ah, I see, all the career women *you* know have poor sex lives,
| therefore *all* career women have poor sex lives. Brilliant deductive
| reasoning!
You might consider taking a few courses in logic before
responding to my posts.
Shawn T Pickrell
but once they have the relationship sex should no longer be a
bargaining chip. it should be a given.
In alt.romance DeepBlue <Deep...@nospam.com> wrote:
: Good question--I once asked a female friend to explain why she was
: angrily referring to another girl as a "slut."
: I kid you not, she said:
: "Because she's just *giving* it away! She's making it harder for all the
: other girls!"
: She explained that the "slut" was making it harder for other girls to use
: sex as a valuable bargaining chip, particularly in the quest for a
: "committment." She felt that if all women played their part in making it
: difficult for guys to "get" sex, then guys were more likely to make a
: commitment a.k.a. marriage.
: Gotta love her honesty.
: DeepBlue
--
==========================================================================
Shawn Pickrell: Randolph-Macon '97, George Mason '03
"Go take a 15 minute break or something." - R. Martray, my current
supervisor, in response to a request for more work
==========================================================================
wise_...@my-deja.com
nat...@metabork.fr.eu.org (Nathan SZILARD) wrote:
> wise_...@my-deja.com tried to tell us something, and all I got was:
>
> | > Were this true, it would result in carrier-orientated women
> | > having a greeeat sex life. From what I know, this is just not
> | > the case (case in point, all the young carrier women I know
> | > have poor sex lives).
>
> | Ah, I see, all the career women *you* know have poor sex lives,
> | therefore *all* career women have poor sex lives. Brilliant
deductive
> | reasoning!
>
> You might consider taking a few courses in logic before
> responding to my posts.
Sarcasm is completely lost on some people...
DeepBlue
no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> reason.
> the worst a whore can burn ya for is what's in your wallet.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
Hah. Foolish mortal. Pitting your puny dendrite logic against my
holographic array of quantum processors. It's no wonder you hide in the
shadows of an anonymous remailer.
: )
In any event, your point misses the mark on two counts.
First off you are talking about marriage as a legal institution, whereas
I used the term merely to indicate a form of intimate social partnership.
Forget the word marriage then, and substitute the word relationship.
Secondly, insofar as you *are* talking about marriage as a legal
institution, your comment is not about marriage per se, it is entirely
about laws in the USA. Other countries handle these issues very
differently.
You could just as well tell a business that having customers is awful,
because they will sue you for millions if you make the slightest mistake,
or say that having residential tenants is awful, because they will
practically own your property (see the movie Pacific Heights). These
things are true, but only in regions where the laws are severely
lopsided, so your comment is a statement about the laws themselves more
than anything else. In *that* regard it is a valid point.
DeepBlue
No User
>In article <8fc35f$c2c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <39197BF0...@snet.net>,
>
>
>>
>> If women were as honest as men, and did not play games, there would be
>> much less trouble getting the 'win-win' you speak of.
>>
>
>"If girls didn't have cooties..." Save the inflammatory statements,
>I'm not interested in sweeping emotional generalities - why not try
>compelling statements designed to enlighten and persuade..?
how tall are you?
how much do you weigh?
how old are you?
do you do anal?
rthroc...@my-deja.com
> "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to become
> prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
> for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
> the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
> use of their vagina at certain given moments."
> NoMoreAFC
Oh, i remember it well. they secretly smuggled us girls out of our 6th
grade class and trained us all to become prostitutes. i got an A in oral
sex 101.
Bex, laughing
rthroc...@my-deja.com
wise_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8fa67i$aeb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
> become
> > prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
> > for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
> > the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
> > use of their vagina at certain given moments."
>
> opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
> 'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
> the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
> traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
> (feminazi bitches).
>
> Is there a win-win *anywhere* here??
>
> -J
Madonna, whore, wifemothersisterslutbitchlover, my my, how do we manage?
When in doubt, go shopping!
Bex
rthroc...@my-deja.com
wise_...@my-deja.com
DeepBlue <Deep...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> > >are actually drinking cow sweat or someone eating honey that they
are
> > >really eating bee vomit.
*squick* BEE VOMIT???
He: My darling, I want to drizzle your supple limbs with honey and then
feast on you like a rich, decadent dessert..."
She: You know, that stuff is really bee vomit, how about we use
chocolate sauce instead?"
DB, there is the ineffable truth, and then there is you, ruining my
afternoon tea break forever... ROTFLMAO
-J
the tree by the river
>In article <MPG.138337715...@news.earthlink.net>,
> DeepBlue <Deep...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
>> > >are actually drinking cow sweat or someone eating honey
>> > >that they are really eating bee vomit.
>
>*squick* BEE VOMIT???
>
>He: My darling, I want to drizzle your supple limbs with honey and then
>feast on you like a rich, decadent dessert..."
>
>She: You know, that stuff is really bee vomit, how about we use
>chocolate sauce instead?"
Did you know that chocolate is allowed to have an average of
up to sixty microscopic insect fragments per 100 grams or a
maximum of one hundred insect fragments in any one 100 gram
sample? They're more stringent on the maximum allowed number
of rodent hairs--no more than 1.5 per 100 grams on average,
4 in any one sample.
>DB, there is the ineffable truth, and then there is you, ruining my
>afternoon tea break forever... ROTFLMAO
Whereas tea leaves, on the other hand, can contain up to....
--
[ Trygve Lode ] music videos and MP3 files on [ Nyx Net, free ISP ]
[ http://www.trygve.com ] http://www.mp3.com/TrygveLode [ http://www.nyx.net ]
soc.singles FAQ [ ] Misc.Fitness.Weights homepage
http://www.trygve.com/ssfaq.html [ ] http://www.trygve.com/mfw.html
Odious
cbianco wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 May 2000 07:52:05 -0700, Brock Hannibal
>
> >whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
>
> what if she barters.
>
...for say, dinner and a movie?
Aaron Kulkis
>
> if they want marriage then that is fine.
>
> but once they have the relationship sex should no longer be a
> bargaining chip. it should be a given.
Now you know why I don't have anything to do with American women.
>
> In alt.romance DeepBlue <Deep...@nospam.com> wrote:
> : Good question--I once asked a female friend to explain why she was
> : angrily referring to another girl as a "slut."
>
> : I kid you not, she said:
> : "Because she's just *giving* it away! She's making it harder for all the
> : other girls!"
>
> : She explained that the "slut" was making it harder for other girls to use
> : sex as a valuable bargaining chip, particularly in the quest for a
> : "committment." She felt that if all women played their part in making it
> : difficult for guys to "get" sex, then guys were more likely to make a
> : commitment a.k.a. marriage.
>
> : Gotta love her honesty.
>
> : DeepBlue
>
> --
> ==========================================================================
> Shawn Pickrell: Randolph-Macon '97, George Mason '03
> "Go take a 15 minute break or something." - R. Martray, my current
> supervisor, in response to a request for more work
> ==========================================================================
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
Nathan SZILARD
| > You might consider taking a few courses in logic before
| > responding to my posts.
|
| Sarcasm is completely lost on some people...
Ahem ... if I'm guilty of not getting your sarcasm, you're
even more guilty of being very very obscure.
Reread your post; there is no way to tell that it's sarcasm.
Wayne J. Rasmussen
: if they want marriage then that is fine.
: but once they have the relationship sex should no longer be a
: bargaining chip. it should be a given.
That is a power they own, they can TRY to exploit it.
Suppose a gal said, I won't put out until we take a trip to Cabo. You
can give in, but, you are rewarding her for her behavior. Why shouldn't
she do it again? She should.
You could drop her like a rock that instant. Unless she knows you are
going to do that it doesn't give you much return. So it is better to not
give into her demands and warn her of your dumping policy. At least you
may get to fuck her a few more times before she pulls that shit again.
But there seems to be many guys who give into to this crap. They talk
big to their buddies, but, when the time comes they cave. Of course they
talk about "how they got the bitch in line". We know better. I know this
guy, talks about how his GF tries to pull shit and how he gets her under
control. Then she dumps he and he mopes around for a weekend binge or
so, then a week later they are back together. Guess she knew what she
was missing. :)
DeepBlue
> In article <8fchol$u9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <wise_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <MPG.138337715...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > DeepBlue <Deep...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > >are actually drinking cow sweat or someone eating honey
> >> > >that they are really eating bee vomit.
> >
> >*squick* BEE VOMIT???
> >
> >He: My darling, I want to drizzle your supple limbs with honey and then
> >feast on you like a rich, decadent dessert..."
> >
> >She: You know, that stuff is really bee vomit, how about we use
> >chocolate sauce instead?"
>
> Did you know that chocolate is allowed to have an average of
> up to sixty microscopic insect fragments per 100 grams or a
> maximum of one hundred insect fragments in any one 100 gram
> sample? They're more stringent on the maximum allowed number
> of rodent hairs--no more than 1.5 per 100 grams on average,
> 4 in any one sample.
>
> >DB, there is the ineffable truth, and then there is you, ruining my
> >afternoon tea break forever... ROTFLMAO
>
> Whereas tea leaves, on the other hand, can contain up to....
>
*any* rodent hairs in the food, not even 1.5 per 100,000 grams of food!
He did that for *20 years*, never using up the maximum allowable ration
of rodent bits, just keeping the allowances in reserve until one day he
had finally EARNED himself the right to *legally* include an entire
sauteed rodent in the health inspector's minnestroni soup. That was quite
a day.
: )
Greetings from Mickey and Minnie Stroni!
shade
Nathan was merely saying his experience with all the women he knew. You
then went on to imply that all the women he knew didn't constitute the
whole picture. Do you see how neither of these things contradict each
other?
--
shade
remove -nospam- from the email address to reply by email.
Steve Chaney
>>>There
>>>is no clear definition for the word and there never will be because it is
>>>only used by rejects like Ray to glorify failure.
>>
>>why, if that is the case, is it used by women against other women?
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
>
>The same reason. To make themselves feel superior to women who guys choose
>to pursue. You've been in the game for awhile. I'm sure you've been around
>girls when they find out that 'their' man is interested in someone else.
>It's easier for her to degrade the girl by calling her a slut then it is
>take a look at why she was lost to this girl and try to improve. It's still
>just a way to glorify failure.
Crash Street Kidd knows this well.
After all look at all the things he gets called now that he's with enaille.
heh heh heh
>- Geddy Lee
>
>ps. I still contend that the term is useless and sexist. Can you think of
>an objective definition of the term that has an equally degrading male term?
"All men are dogs" is one.
-- Steve
No User
>In article <7f12ca208f5343f6...@anon.xg.nu>,
>no....@anon.xg.nu says...
>> DeepBlue <Deep...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8fa67i$aeb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> NoMoreAFC <NoMo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > "By the age of twelve, at the latest, most women have decided to
>> >> become
>> >> > prostitutes. Or, to put it another way, they have planned for a future
>> >> > for themselves which consists of choosing a man and letting him do all
>> >> > the work. In return for his support, they are prepared to let him make
>> >> > use of their vagina at certain given moments."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just out of curiosity - does the above indicate that you support an
>> >> opposing viewpoint to DeepBlue's desire for women to pursue more
>> >> 'feminine' roles..? Women seem to be getting unpleasantly caught in
>> >> the middle of what you men say you want - we are damned for being either
>> >> traditional housewives ("prostitutes") or successful working women
>> >> (feminazi bitches).
>> >>
>> >> Is there a win-win *anywhere* here??
>> >>
>> >> -J
>> >>
>> >
>> >anything else by simply choosing to focus on the similarities. In other
>> >words you could just as well tell someone who is drinking milk that they
>> >similarities, there are obviously some differences, and those differences
>> >make *all* the difference.
>>
>> yes. a wife can take half your money and she doesn't even have to give a
>> reason.
>> the worst a whore can burn ya for is what's in your wallet.
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>
>Hah. Foolish mortal. Pitting your puny dendrite logic against my
>holographic array of quantum processors. It's no wonder you hide in the
>shadows of an anonymous remailer.
>: )
which is how you devised the stunning array of standard issue luzenet
mediocrity kneejerk non points below.
>In any event, your point misses the mark on two counts.
>First off you are talking about marriage as a legal institution, whereas
>I used the term merely to indicate a form of intimate social partnership.
>Forget the word marriage then, and substitute the word relationship.
in future you might consider writing what you mean.
>Secondly, insofar as you *are* talking about marriage as a legal
>institution, your comment is not about marriage per se, it is entirely
>about laws in the USA. Other countries handle these issues very
>differently.
well then they can discuss them in thier barbarous tongues on thier own
uncivilized newsgroups.
>You could just as well tell a business that having customers is awful,
>because they will sue you for millions if you make the slightest mistake,
actually in the united states that is a real problem. we don't have loser
pays as the default.
>or say that having residential tenants is awful, because they will
>practically own your property (see the movie Pacific Heights).
that was set in a particularly bad part of the country. also you can do
background checks on potential tenants and reduce the chances of that sort
of thing considerably.
>These
>things are true, but only in regions where the laws are severely
>lopsided, so your comment is a statement about the laws themselves more
>than anything else. In *that* regard it is a valid point.
in future remember that most people here are americans and you'll do fine.
No User
>In article <39199...@news.sisna.com>, Geddy Lee
<gedd...@depechemode.com> wrote:
>>>If women were as honest as men, and did not play games, there would be
>>>much less trouble getting the 'win-win' you speak of.
>>>
>>
>>You know, I can see where you are coming from.
>
>"I won't cum in your mouth" - male honesty at work
that sort of lying is completely unnecessary
at least for a skilled operator
No User
>>The same reason. To make themselves feel superior to women who guys choose
>>to pursue. You've been in the game for awhile. I'm sure you've been around
>>girls when they find out that 'their' man is interested in someone else.
>>It's easier for her to degrade the girl by calling her a slut then it is
>>take a look at why she was lost to this girl and try to improve. It's still
>>just a way to glorify failure.
>
>Crash Street Kidd knows this well.
>After all look at all the things he gets called now that he's with enaille.
i'm sure sue is just lashing out due to jealousy
as is cb
what with them being so lsmv and all
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
p.s. define 'with'
*sunbird*
> ps. I still contend that the term is useless and sexist. Can you think of
> an objective definition of the term that has an equally degrading male term?
slut: someone who fucks nearly anyone.
--
wherever you go, EM has been there first
sunbird (Pt) http://profiles.yahoo.com/irishcherokee
Geddy Lee
>>ps. I still contend that the term is useless and sexist. Can you think
of
>>an objective definition of the term that has an equally degrading male
term?
>
>
Is it an equal term though? Lots of guys call each other 'dog' all the
time. At one level, it has approximately the same meaning, but because of
the hypocritical ways that american society looks at men and women, it is
not anywhere near as degrading. It is generally a compliment for a guy to
have lots of women whereas a women who has lots of guys gets no compliments
for beings a 'player' or a 'stud' or anything like that and instead gets
labelled as a slut.
The term is outdated because,
1) It perpetuates an outdated puritan perspective.
2) It promotes gender discrimination.
3) Pigeonholing someone based solely on your perception of their sexuality
denies you the opportunity to explore that person on a deeper level.
- Geddy Lee
DeepBlue
> ps. I still contend that the term [slut] is useless and sexist.
> Can you think of an objective definition of the term that has an
> equally degrading male term?
There is no exact male equivalent, because men are not judged as harshly
as women are for sleeping around. Supposedly this imbalance has its roots
in the fact that paternity is uncertain, but maternity is unarguable. (At
least for all the millenia predating dna testing).
In other words, no matter how much a woman's husband sleeps around, when
she has a baby she can still be certain that it is her baby. But
historically, a man could never be 100% sure the baby was his. So for
countless millenia, genetic selection has rewarded men for ensuring that
their wives don't sleep around. By enhancing one's genetic survivability
this attitude survived and spread culturally, along with the genes.
They're even called "memes." There is no fairness or logic about them,
just the reality of how these things play out in their evolutionary
effects.
But as for counterpart phrases, I remember some years ago talking to a
girl about the expression "airhead." I mentioned that I never heard women
calling men "airheads", I only heard men using it on women. I asked her
what she thought the counterpart put down would be for men. She said
"loser." And yet I have never heard a man putting a woman down by calling
her a "loser." Obviously there are differences in what men and women want
(or don't want) in each other, and our put downs vary accordingly.
I still contend that the term slut is used primarily by women, not men.
In their early teens girls go through a phase where they police each
other very strictly through censure and ostracism to elevate and maintain
their percieved value in the eyes of males by not being too easily
available. Any girl who breaks the cartel by "giving it away" too easily
is ostracized and called a "slut" by the other girls. It is that
ostracism by her female peers that gives the word slut its real sting for
most women. Is all this not totally obvious to anyone who went through
grade school and highschool? See any modern book on developmental female
psychology if it isn't.
DeepBlue
Jeri Snowdon
>
> enialle wrote:
> >
> > In article <39182615...@pacifier.com>, Brock says...
> >>
> >> Shawn T Pickrell wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone
> >>>
> >>> shawn
> >>
> >> I like my definitions better.
> >>
> >> whore = a woman who'll sleep with anyone for money.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> > what is the male equivalent?
> >
>
> There is no Male equivalent. The terms apply equally to both sexes.
>
> --
>
> Jack
>
> <----------<< =+= >>---------->
>
> The problem with Paradigms,
> is that Shift happens...
>
> (Reverse "oohay" to reply.)
I notice that no one replied to this. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance
was too great for anyone to remember how to type.
I *love* this man... hee hee hee
--
Jeri S.
---------------------------
Teachers are special
They open up the world
Peanut
>I still contend that the term slut is used primarily by women, not men.
Yeah, I think you're probably right here.
Slut: A women having more sex than I am. :)
Peanut
Take out the trash to email me
DeepBlue
craft...@applepie1.fsnet.co.uk says...
> DeepBlue wrote in message ...
>
> >I still contend that the term slut is used primarily by women, not men.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I think you're probably right here.
>
> Slut: A women having more sex than I am. :)
Good one.
I read something similar once about Puritans...
"A Puritan is forever worried that somebody somewhere is having more fun
than he is."
I can't help wondering what a woman really feels when she hears the word
"slut". As a guy, I must confess that the word actually perks my
interest, heightens my senses and makes me salivate slightly, like
Pavlov's dog.
This slut theme reminds me of a comedy routine from the standup comedian
Rodney Dangerfield. He has some funny come back lines for a woman who
tells him she's worried that if she sleeps with him, he won't respect her
in the morning.
Her: But if I sleep with you, you won't respect me in the morning.
Him: Hey, I don't respect you now, so we might as well have sex.
Her: But if I sleep with you, you won't respect me in the morning.
Him: So what! We'll sleep in till noon!
Etc.
DeepBlue
> Peanut
> Take out the trash to email me
So, I suppose you get more emails from women than men, since us guys are
always forgetting to take out the trash.
Peanut
>In article <8grhif$2p8$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>craft...@applepie1.fsnet.co.uk says...
>I can't help wondering what a woman really feels when she hears the word
>"slut".
When my husband wants to make me laugh, he calls me a 'slut', and then I
call him 'pimp'! But, I wouldn't want to be called a 'slut' my a man I
didn't know - I think it has something to do with the way I was brought up.
My mother was very strict, so the term takes me back to my childhood. When a
woman calls another woman a slut, I think that she is commenting on her own
sexuality. Maybe she's not getting enough, and slags-off a woman who is.
As a guy, I must confess that the word actually perks my
>interest, heightens my senses and makes me salivate slightly, like
>Pavlov's dog.
My husbands the same. I think it's because she seems available.
<snip of funny jokes>
>> Peanut
>> Take out the trash to email me
>
>So, I suppose you get more emails from women than men, since us guys are
>always forgetting to take out the trash.
That's because the more times you forget, the less often you will be
asked.(Oh, I'll do it myself)!