when the status quo frustrates.

I ain’t saying she’s a gold-digger

Friday, January 4th, 2008

There’s no shortage of misguided notions to be found in MRA/pick-up artist/MSN-Lifestyle-reading/Craigslist-rant-posting circles (which all seem to overlap, surprisingly). But one common meme that seems to always crop up is the scenario of a man and a woman, out on a date. He buys dinner and movie tickets and perhaps some flowers, and then acts gobsmacked when she doesn’t repay him with sex. He immediately goes on the internet and complains about gold-digging women.

Here’s an excerpt from an article recently mocked on Pandagon:

As I mentioned earlier, women often have an imagined ideal for a date. This may involve many things I’d rather not do (and pay for) with a complete stranger: dinner at Daniel, drinks in the Rainbow Room, the opera — all of this is fine if I really enjoy the person. But with a woman I hardly know this an unacceptable risk to wallet and watch. Not to mention the slim chance of either party wanting to get physical after such a marathon night. In addition, women often say they “want to go out (on the town) so they can get to know me,” which is contradictory. Spending time with me in my apartment will show them more about who I am than cavorting about town. And in my experience, young women often brag to their girlfriends about where they went and what they ate, rather than who they were with. That’s a lousy deal for the sap who funds the night.

Now, misogynist slime oozes out of every corner of these sorts of articles, as the post and comments point out, but one assumption that often goes unremarked-upon is that the man is always paying for the date. It made me wonder whether it’s just my own group of friends that assumes that the couple (het or homo, platonic or romantic) splits the bill evenly, unless there’s a good reason (a birthday, for example, or one party being flat broke). Granted, I mostly hang out with, and date, other Canuckistani-based leftists, so it occurred to me that I just might be living in a social bubble. Seriously, who are these men who drop hundreds of dollars on dinner? And who are these women who are getting free meals all the time? Is it a geography thing, a class thing, a this-is-what-non-feminist-couples-are-actually-like thing?

Fortunately, I live with someone who keeps etiquette books in our library (awesome), so I was able to consult the 1950 edition of Emily Post’s Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, Publishers). This was what Post had to say about who pays on a date:

In this modern day, when women are competing with men in politics, in business, and in every profession, it is really senseless to cling to that one obsolete convention—no matter what the circumstances—that the man must buy the tickets, pay the check, pay the taxi, or else be branded a gigolo or a parasite. The modern point of view has changed in every particular save this one! Certainly it does not seem logical that an otherwise modern man-and-girl situation should still be depicted as that of a Victorian lady dependent for her safety in public upon the protection of a chivalrous gentleman, instead of the modern one of girl friend and boy friend—or one business associate and another.

Ethically this subject comes down to a question of underlying motive. The man who is deliberately “out for what he can get” from a woman is a type of parasite that is not even mentionable. And it is natural that every man of decent impulse shun the faintest likeness to one of these pariahs. Therefore, it is very hard to say how the various angles of a man’s self-respect are to be reckoned with, and at the same time solve the typical situation of Mary who is wondering what has changed Jim, who used to be the life of the party, but who never wants to go anywhere any more! In other words, what can the girl, who likes Jim better than any other man, do about it except to make believe that above everything she likes to cook and stay home and to listen to the radio?

The only real advice to be offered is, first of all, to take whatever the situation may be, frankly and unself-consciously.

Wait, so in the 50s, the time period that anti-feminists consider ideal in regard to courtship and gender relations, the etiquette experts were recommending dividing up the bill on an egalitarian, or at least case-by-case, basis? You’d think that nearly 60 years later, this arrangement would have been adopted into common practice. And I think that it probably has been, if only because there can’t be that many men wealthy enough to regularly pay at fancy restaurants.

So what’s the deal, Punkasses? Are the MRAs lying again, or am I just dating cheapskates?

Shocking update: people do bad things anonymously on the internet

Thursday, November 1st, 2007

Via N4G, Britain’s Sky News is up in arms over a playground location in the video game Second Life in which child avatars perform sexual favors:

Getting off on pixelated children humping your digital avatar is both twisted and sad. I get that. If someone I knew confessed to this sort of behavior, I admit I’d be pretty appalled. Ditto trolling Second Life rape clubs. But is anyone surprised by this? I think I’d be more surprised if it turned out that absolutely no one in all of Second Life was trying to fuck people and things they shouldn’t.

Whenever enough humans assemble in one location, be it digital or tangible, weird and/or disturbing activities will occur. This will only be exacerbated if people can do it anonymously, which is certainly the case in Second Life. Plenty of people are repressed, or their curious, or they’re simply deviant, or whatever — and this is no fault of Second Life. The game is merely a reflection of our actual society and the desires of the people living in it. Millions of people on this planet want to fuck kids. *Of course* some of them play Second Life. Has Sky News clued into how much pedophilia and rape/sim-rape happens online involving *actual* people? Perhaps they should send their smarmy investigator to track down people who’ve already passed through the supposed gateway drug of Second Life and are molesting more than 1s and 0s.

I fail to see what Sky News hoped to accomplish here, other than being linked by Deviant Titillation Central… which they were.

Feminism: Empowering women to hurt themselves.

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

A few days ago we heard from a young lady who felt feminism failed her and no doubt you felt my post lacked balance. What, you asked, about the men? What do they think? You ask and sophomore print journalism major Josh Bass provides.

Upon returning from what I assumed, based on her flashing eyes and violent body language, to be an unsuccessful date, a friend of mine bitterly spat out a phrase I have come to recognize as the international anthem for disrespected and mistreated women everywhere: “Chivalry is dead.”

For years now, the cry has sounded from high towers, railroad tracks and marriages arranged for wealth rather than love. Ladies in desperate need of one decent knight are left to fend for themselves against dragons, dastardly mustached villains and boorish fathers.

So right off the bat we know that this is going to be a fresh, original opinion piece that makes a lot of good sense, because I totally got what he was saying there. But I’m not exactly sure what a knight can do against a boorish father, because if I recall correctly, back when chivalry was at its height, possession was still 9/10 of the law, if you know what I mean.

Looking at the bemoaned loss of chivalry in our society, I can’t help but wonder if chivalry had – in accordance with popular belief – brought about its own demise or if more sinister forces were at work.

If you’re about to blame feminism, you are so behind. The real problem is plastics. If you really want to go back to the golden age of gender roles, then you should reduce, reuse and recycle.

The latter accusation is not without validity, given the somewhat primitive state of many of those with a Y chromosome, the underestimated difficulties of courtship and maintaining a meaningful relationship.

Ergo, therefore, vis a vis as you can see, a shiny quarter to whomever can make sense out of the previous two quoted sentences, which in Josh’s mind are related in some manner. Anyway, blah blah blah men are pigs, blah blah, women are to blame. We’ve all seen this song and dance before.

On July 19, 1848, a group of revolutionaries gathered in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and, shedding the feminine shackles of inferiority, began to pull the sword of equality from its historically misogynistic stone prison. What they did not consider at the time was the fatally double-edged nature of that sword.

That? That’s not a metaphor. This is a metaphor:

A lot of women have concluded that the problem is that guys, as a group, have the emotional maturity of hamsters. No, this is not the case. A hamster is much more capable of making a lasting commitment to a woman, especially if she gives it those little food pellets. Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he sense that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he’ll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of nonreadiness.

Dave Barry is a professional writer, and he advises you to not try these metaphors at home. You see, Josh, Dave made your point thirteen years ago, and it was a joke then. The difference between you and him is that you’re actually sincere, and also an asshole.

Along with the empowerment and individuality they so undoubtedly deserved came a complete rejection of all things classically feminine and a new phrase to make men shudder; “I can do it myself!”

…And so emerged a group of warrior princesses affectionately referred to as Feminazis; lean, mean, emasculating machines in power suits who proved to the world that women are intelligent, strong, capable and incredibly frightening.

Issues much? Jesus, Josh, there are women o’plenty, especially on a college campus, who’d be pleased as punch to accept a graciously offered movie ticket or dinner. Unless, of course, you’re a complete cocksucker. Just saying.

So blah blah, time passed and things have changed on the meat market, which Josh seems to think was caused by an Attack of the 50-Foot Feminists having some sort of tantrum for something like 150 years, because the chronology leaps from 1848 to today.

In either case, when the red tint of rage in her eyes faded and the vein in her neck eased, woman did not ask chivalry to come back. Instead, chivalry took advantage of the destruction of feminine stereotypes to fully access her needs, both sexually and romantically.

So women said, fuck chivalry, and then when they were done pouting said, yeah, we were right: fuck chivalry. And chivalry said, “I’ll show that bitch.” What a classy guy, why did we ever dump his ass?

Also, I believe if chivalry was fully accessing women’s needs romantically (“Swipe card, enter PIN. Welcome, Bass J. You are authorized to access the following needs:”) the whole introduction to Josh’s essay would have been shot to shit. Unless romantic is a euphemism for sexual, in which case Josh is truly an idiot because there’s really no need to euphemism-ize something after coming right out and saying it.

Without the age-old strictures forbidding harlotry and all other forms of public taboo, women became free to do what they wanted with whom they wanted without an inordinate amount of societal backlash or the need for a long-term relationship.

*Sputter rage!* And the WOMEN! They organized! For rights! And freedom! And then they got most of it! And started acting like real people, with rights! And freedom! And no one was punishing them! No one! They were out there doing exactly what the men were doing, but no one was punishing them! No slut-shaming or rape or shotgun marriage or anything! Josh is like boggled! He can’t believe that he grew up in a world with 50% less slut-shaming than his father! Seriously, why aren’t you people upset? Women! Just doing things! With not nearly enough social backlash! Like hardly any!

Just wow. How oblivious do you have to be to actually type those words and then submit them. I’d say someone’s editor let that one go to press just to maximize the hate mail.

As women, the traditional gatekeepers and pacesetters, collectively dropped their standards and engaged in commitment-free, purely physical relationships, they opened the door for the treatment that their behavior elicits.

That’s a two-way road, buddy. For example, your stunning self-absorption and barely masked loathing of the fairer sex means that you actually do deserve to be alone. So very alone. Quite honestly, if I was your right hand I’d refuse to form a fist. That’s how alone you should be.

When a guy is given the option to bypass courtship and gain entry without much effort, it takes no great Holmesian deduction to discover why proper treatment and respect fall by the wayside.

Dave Barry, if I may refer to the master once again, once praised Rod Stewart for his cleverly subtle lyrics “Spread your wings/And let me come inside.” I hereby award the Rod Stewart Award for Class and Subtlety in Sexual References to Josh Bass, Sophomore Print Journalism Major. *clapclapclap!*

But that does not mean that chivalry cannot be resuscitated, or that it does not live on still in the hearts of a good number of men. And after listening to me prattle on in rebuttal to her no doubt unconscious remark, I think my friend may have gained a new perspective.

No, dude, she knew you were a dick before you followed up her crappy date by boring her to death. Also, she’s pretty sure you just called her a whore.

No, this doesn’t mean she’s free next Friday.

After all, there are women all over the world who have male confidants and close friends, but they never for once take a step back and realize that the person with whom they are constantly sharing their romantic woes is in fact ­- male.

And so to that widow of romance out there, when next the words seem about to spill unbidden from your lips, bite your tongue and look a little harder. You may have to seek, my lady, but ye shall find.

Wait, wait, that didn’t make any sense. Let me run it through Babelfish…let’s see…from “Douchebag” to “English”

I’m a Nice Guy(TM)! How come women never want to go out with Nice Guys(TM)! All I did was point out that I’d treat her with respect and if she doesn’t like it then she’s a slutty mcharlotwhore who just doesn’t appreciate what a Nice Guy(TM) I am. But all these bitches will see. Oh yes, one day they’ll see. They’ll be all “Help, help, I’m being raped!” and I’ll be all “Well you deserved it, skank.” And they’ll be all “Oh, why didn’t we see how wonderful Josh was when we had the chance, ow! Ow!” and then I’ll jump on my horse and pick up a maiden and we’ll live happily ever after.

Seriously, why can’t these hos see how great I am?

Next week, how I used my power as a woman to trick a guy into buying me a $3 cherry bomb, proving feminism unnecessary

Sunday, September 30th, 2007

Is it midterm time already? It must be – the weather is changing, the days grow shorter, and the wind blows over hill and dale, caressing the campus and picking up the smug cry of the newly hatched ‘concern’ feminist. Hearken to the self-righteously uninformed screed of the third-runner up of the Bestest Girl/Honorary Boy competition as she makes the first of many homes she’ll find in inferior, content-desperate publications across the land. Sure, today it’s the wretch that is your student paper (seriously, is there a student-run paper worth a damn anywhere in the country?) but tomorrow, it could be Townhall, or even, God willing, IWF.

But she’s got the routine down, she just needs some polish. Step 1: Pick a somewhat interesting non-topic over which to get your panties in a twitch. Ignore the fact that the vast majority of students have sex lives that rival that of their parents in terms of frequency and variation of partners and go straight to giving yourself a wedgie over the fraction of the 20% who are actually getting some who may be getting theirs in an irresponsible manner.

An online search of the phrase “hook up” returned some interesting – though nonscientific – results. The most benign definition I found came from dictionary.com – to join or become associated with.

I found the most disturbing definitions on open-source Web sites like wikipedia.com and urbandictionary.com. A hook up, according to Wikipedia, is “casual sexual activity.”

Really? Because the most disturbing definitions I found were when I did a safe-search-off Google Images search for “hook up.” Although I was impressed with the diversity; it’s not often the same search will bring you old men golfing AND a close-up of a fishhook injury AND a woman fucking a large dog in the top 10 results.

Two grafs in and already I’m thinking Callie Corley’s opinion isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Clearly she didn’t dive into the real nitty-gritty of her subject matter. Where is her outrage over what that dog is doing to that poor woman’s emotional fidelity?

And here, she fumbles again:

And if you ask most college students how they classify a hook up, their definitions echo those from the open-source Web sites. Also, forgive me for any wide-sweeping generalities I make. I know there are always exceptions.

NEVER apologize for getting your rage on, Callie! I mean, you are a girl and are therefore hardwired by genetics to apologize in advance for breathing, but if you want to moral scold with the big dogs, then you have to stifle that impulse, ESPECIALLY when you’re about to shoot your mouth off over something that you have no idea about.

Cosmopolitan magazine says hook up culture consists of “lots of partying and flirting, plenty of alcohol, and [...] the idea that women can be just as bold and adventurous about sex as men are.”

Cosmo says alot of things, though, and almost all of it’s crap. For example, they routinely suggest “surprising” your partner with sexy-time props like ice when in reality that is the sort of thing you need to clear with your lover in advance. They also imply that you should feel comfortable spending $200 on a pair of jeans, and that the $80 range is a bargain.

Also, it’s a newb mistake so don’t feel bad for making it, but if you’re blaming feminists for something and your examples come mostly from your imagination and Cosmopolitan Magazine, prepared for a good old fashioned feminist mocking, because you have already torched your relevance as the voice of the young and hip-to-be-square.

College students around the country fall victim to this hook up culture everyday, not just women.

And the remaining 80% of students who have between 0-1 partners a year (but are all convinced, absolutely sure, that their contemporaries are getting more tail) would like to know how it’s done.

I won’t let the pig-headed college guy stereotype convince me that all guys only want to hook up. I refuse to believe that.

Hey! She’s right! Men might be individuals, too! Some may want things different than others! What bold and visionary thinking!

I do believe, however, that women are more affected emotionally – and, obviously, physically – by this culture.

This is the part that is feminism’s fault, for feminists told women they could reach for the stars, and then promptly fuck them, but failed to have the proper PR in place for when society ignored the boring thinky bits (“Women, long denied access to power, wealth or even bodily autonomy… *snzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* Boorrr-iiiing!”) and kept only the juicy bits (“Hotties, feel free to fuck, and ignore that ugly woman crying about how all sex is rape – what a nut!”).

You got a better theory? Patri-what? Booorrr-iiinnnggg!

I think when it comes to equality the genders should be equal.

If Plato had been a chick, and felt the same way about gender equality, he’d totally have been Callie Corley. Because that was deep.

Women and men should be able to achieve the same high-profile jobs with big-figure salaries. We should share the workload in the office and in the household.

Equality is fine for the boardroom, but in the bedroom, skanks and virgins only, the way God intended. We’re not all going to get high-profile jobs with big-figure salaries, and in the event that I’m pushing papers for a mere low-5-digits, I’m going to need a lightly used pussy to have some marriage market value. Feminists are destroying my plan B!

Thanks to feminism, women are doing better, going farther and achieving more than ever before. From childhood, men are taught to – hopefully – respect women and treat them equally.

With all the positive things feminism started, it did neglect to educate women about one certain thing. Though we can do whatever men can, we’re going to handle and react to it differently.

Let Callie say this slowly so you assholes get it. Cake. Eat. Too. Callie likes the college educating and the voting and the ability to get credit in her own name and everything, but she is not ready to go head-to-head on a level playing field when it comes to getting the best guys, and we all know it’s still all about getting the best guys. There is a script that she is comfortable with, and she’d prefer we not screw with it. So instead of saying that a fast and easy sexual culture upsets women because the patriarchy has distorted sex-positivity and young women rush into the new sexytime ‘feminism’ without properly internalizing real feminist principles, leaving them open for a big old shaming the morning after, let’s just say women and men are “wired differently.”

Grossman has seen thousands of students, but remembers one girl’s searching question vividly.

“Why, Dr. Grossman, do they warn you about STDs and pregnancy, but they don’t tell you what it does to your heart?”

With so much accessibility to birth control and other contraceptives, women can have as much sex as they think the average male has with less worry – though avoiding pregnancy or STDs is never guaranteed by any product….

Nothing, however, protects the heart or mind.

Which is why Grossman immediately developed the condom…for the heart. Buy with the Mind Sponge to prevent dangerous oxytocin saturation!

Women will, always, treat sex different emotionally and mentally than men. Men have the ability to compartmentalize and separate emotions. Women have a more difficult time disassociating from their emotions. It’s just the way our bodies are chemically designed.

…Feminism failed us, in this respect. We were given this freedom but not taught how to properly utilize it.

Is this what our sister suffragettes envisioned when they fought for women’s equality?

Right. Women are ‘wired’ to be clingy needballs, while men are basically Data from Star Trek but hornier. Just keep telling yourselves that.

Something needs to be done. Help women understand that nothing will change the way their brains chemically react, and give them the tools and courage to make good decisions about sexual health.

Silver Ring Things for everyone!

Educate men about this difference. Teach them to be understanding – when it comes to sex, a girl can never be one of the guys.

We must teach our children the difference. We must teach our boys of the Pussy Oversoul. For it seems as though the Oversoul taunts them, taunts them mercilessly, but there is a reason behind the torture, for first and foremost, the Oversoul must protect itself.

Had your fathers and your father’s fathers not been such bastards about the skank thing for oh, about the whole history of civilization, perhaps the Oversoul would be more generous and benevolent, but alas, they were and now you must respect the Oversoul, unless she’s put out in the past and is drunk, in which case, game on.

Relationship education is what’s needed. Somewhere college students are learning that it’s OK to hook up. Somewhere they’re learning that this represents the norm. Somewhere they’re learning that such behavior carries no consequences. Somewhere.

I blame the heart.

But that somewhere is not in the heart.

Oh, then I blame the patriarchy. It wasn’t the feminists; sure, we like for the wimmins to have a good time in the sack, but we emphasize that it often means being very discriminating and choosing sexual partners who are committed to sexual equal…*snnnnzzzzzzz snork!* Boorrrr-iiiinnngggg!

Seniors doin’ it Democratically

Saturday, August 25th, 2007

Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe it’s proof of a correlation between getting laid and voting Democratic.

How these pieces of evidence relate to each other is up for debate, but we do know two things:

1) Of all age groups in 2004, 70-80 year olds were by far the most likely to vote Democrat.

My ageism revealed itself as I learned that little fact. While I knew there was bound to be some old-school loyalty to the days of FDR out there, I had no idea the Democrats possessed such a pronounced lead among the elderly. I figured there’d be a lot of cane-shaking at the tree-hugging hippies and Plan B hoochie-mamas (see what I mean about the ageism?) despite avowed Democratic support for Medicare and Social Security. Obviously, I was wrong.

It’s also interesting to note that the only ages won by the Republicans in 2004 were the 30-40 year olds. The generation of wannabe Alex P. Keatons sucks.

2) Along with voting Dem, old folks are getting laid, people:

The first comprehensive national survey of the sexual attitudes, behaviors and problems of U.S. adults age 57 and older finds many are having sex often. In fact, the frequency of sexual activity dropped only slightly between the late 50s up to the early 70s.

And more than half of those in the oldest age group — 75 to 85 — who were sexually active reported having sex at least two to three times per month, and 23 percent reported having sex at least once a week.

Approximately 47 forms of cancer run rampant through my family lineage, so I have little hope for reaching 75 (much less 85), but if I do, I pray that I’m able to make with the boom-boom as often as your typical senior citizen.

A very annoying relative once said to me that if you aren’t a Democrat when you’re 20, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a Republican by age 40, you have no brain. It appears, though, that the only majority stupid enough to be duped by the Republicans are people in their 30s, i.e. folks who are more likely to be knee deep in debt, children, and job frustration than those in their early 20s or late 70s. Anyone want to bet they’re also suffering more sexual frustration than their younger and older counterparts?

However you slice it, here’s to the generation I sorely underestimated when it came to sex and party politics. May you teach your annoying Republican children the value of free love and national health care.

Who does a blog have to blow to get a little recognition around here?

Tuesday, November 28th, 2006

Via Sadly, No!, Americans for Truth have set up a convenient list of pro-homosexual organizations, just in case you was wondering where the gays were at so you could, uhhh…hate them, yes, that’s it. So you’d be aware of where they were as you thought about how much you hate that sin, that throbbing, sweaty, panting, sexy sii….

OK, take a deep breath, and focus on the homos.

I was a bit disappointed by their blog list, though. It’s so short!

Pro-Homosexuality Blogs

* Andrew Sullivan
* Evil Gay Lawyer
* Ex-Gay Watch
* Faggoty-Ass Faggot
* Good As You
* Joe Brummer
* News Fit to Post
* Pam’s House Blend
* Queer Today
* Queerty
* Quench Zine
* Sadly No
* Skinny Little Faggot
* The Angry Fag

That is one short list though. It’s missing at least one entry that I know of…us!

That’s right, PunkAssBlog is pro-homosexual, whatever that means! Now we’re not much of a resource, but then again, I don’t see Sadly, No photoshopping exclusivly for the gays either. And even though we’re only a B-list blog:
B-List Blogger
I think we can make up for it by being extra-pro-gay.

And sexier. I note that some of those so-called “gay resources” do not infact devote any webspace to tantalizing descriptions of gay sex or video from various homosexual orgy parades. Whereas we, on the other hand, have at least one post devoted to Marc’s hot, naked chest complete with an attempt to lure a Christian blogger into the lifestyle via a sneaky chest-off. How’s that for gay, huh? Pretty gay, I think.

Give me a G! Give me an A! Give me a G-A-Y! Yaaaaayyyyyy Gaaaaayyyyyy! Look, I’ve even got pom-poms:


EB023486.gif pompom.PNG

Can we be on the list now?

Consider helping Americans for Truth out. If you are aware of any gay resources, go ahead and send them a message.

Pat My Back

Friday, November 17th, 2006

Today an old man called because he ordered an adult movie and it didn’t come through (no pun intended). I credited him the movie and then sold him a subscription to Cinemax.

He laughed to his friend: (overheard) Motherfucker sold me Cinemax. That’s a mutherfuckin’ salesman.

Did you miss me?

The Porn Fairy Giveth, The Porn Fairy Taketh Away

Friday, October 6th, 2006

Thank you for calling Big Media Provider Co. My name is, McBoing; how can I help you today?

“I got up this morning and went to order Big Booby Bitches 3, but I got something else instead. I was going to watch that but then it cut off and said it was a subscription service.”

Sir, I show no evidence that any movies were ordered this morning.

“I want credit on my account or big booby bitches.”

I notice that you’ve received quite a bit of credit for adult movies that haven’t showed up on your television. Perhaps we should schedule for someone to come out to your home and take a look at your services.

“Look, if I don’t get off before I go to work I’ll go insane. Credit or big booby bitches.”

I put The Masturbator on hold and call my supervisor over. She takes a look at his credit history and says no way. She tells me to schedule a home visit so we can look at his subscription services and fix anything he claims is wrong.

Sir, I can actually have somebody out to your home within the hour. Will you be home?

“Just make sure you call first.”

I Got Your Dirty Joke Right Here

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

I raise your Jimmy Dean sausage-stick with a whisker biscuit.

whiskerbiscuit.jpg

Click to make big. Caption, euphemize, and go.

My system of oppression has a bigger cock than your system of oppression

Monday, September 4th, 2006

This is possibly one of the most irritating ideas I’ve seen in all the internets:

“…how does your primacy of feminism play out with other POC…and in the blogosphere, away from sites like this?” maggiethewolf

It doesn’t. I don’t even go there. It’s a waste of my time to concern myself with racism since sexism precedes it. Racism will only end when sexism, the root oppression, ends.

This reminds of that story about those blind wise guys who start fondling an elephant and then start argueing afterwards about what the elephant is like.

“it is like a bat’s wing!” declares the wise guy who’d been fiddling with the elephant’s ear.

“No, it is like a tree trunk – stout and cylindrical.” argues the wise guy who’d been fiddling with the elephant’s leg.

“You are both wrong, it is long and supple like a snake!” cries the third wise guy, who had been feeling up the elephant’s trunk, or something.

So too goes the endless discussion on which system of oppression is bigger, badder and needs to be tackled more urgently.

So this black guy, this poor guy and a middle class white woman see that rich white guys are always at the very top of all the systems of oppression.

So the black guy goes “You see, it is rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so racism is the ultimate system of oppression, we must deal with racism first and foremost.”

“No no, it is the rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so capitalism is the ultimate system of oppression, we must deal with capitalism first and foremost.” argues the poor guy.

“No no NO, you’ve got it all wrong, it is rich white guys who are the oppressors, and so the patriarchy is the ultimate form of oppression, we must deal with patriarchy first and foremost!” Cries the middles class white woman.

The black guys and the poor guy then look at each other and say together “shut up you stupid bitch.” (more…)