Natalie: Whoo Boy! This is definitely a psych-ward candidate. I
wonder how he'd feel about polyandry?
Tavia: Actually, I don't expect he'd feel anything; he'd be too busy spraying the meager contents of his skull
against the ceiling in an all-out aneurysm.
Natalie: Thought I'd share the fun times at the looney-bin.
Tavia: Gee, thanks EVER so. <G> Oh, this was RICH. It's always nice to be
reminded how deeply I underestimate the sheer idiocy of the purportedly
upright-walking. Must be denial for my own comfort's sake, I guess.
Roemanda: I like how these guys always think they have given us
something to think about. Grrrr.
Tavia: Oh yes. Fabulous, isn't it? Not that
any of this heinousity would have occurred to US, of course. We're all
VESSELS, EMPTY for their self-aggrandizing CONVENIENCE, just WAITing
BREATHlessly to be FILLED to overFLOWing by their SPEWing masculine
Speaking of things that make us want to spit, I'm sure you won't be
surprised to hear that I could NOT resist poking a few of his more . . .
egregious lines with a stick.
Hmm. Wonder what that could REALLY be short for. I understand that a lot
of services limit you to 10 alphanumerics, so I'm sure he must've been
abbreviating something. "UnenlightenedDavidSoul@GorillaUgly.net," maybe?
Or how about
Works for ME.
Subject: From a male Chauvinst
Ya know . . . I love it when people just can't make up their minds about
capitalization. Not to mention that whole thorny SPELLING thing.
Well, that is what the feminists like to refer to me.
Although I suppose they actually use GRAMMAR when referring to him.
I am a traditional religionistic family oriented man. (non Christian,
non Jewish, non Islam).
Um . . . technically, wouldn't that be "NON-traditional," according to our
Western paradigm? Although I do have to say that continuing confusion over
such trifles as punctuation and spelling (not to mention all the
anti-logic backlashes proliferating of late) seems to have become QUITE
traditional these days, especially among the philistiscienti.
I preach patriachialism.
Not very WELL, of course, but . . .
Man has his place, woman has hers.
Let me guess. This wouldn't be some kind of . . . hierarchical scheme or
something, would it?
Right, right. "Simple is as simple does, Forrest."
I have no idea in the world why I am writing this to you. I stumbled
(fell) into your site and am trying to get out of here. Decided to stir
you up with some of my views before I leave. I have no intention of
Seems to me that he has a very GOOD "idea in the world why"
he was writing this. Betcha he thought he'd "stumbled (fell) into" a
veritable warehouse full of empty vessels. Either that, or he figured he'd
just toss his little stink-bomb in and run like the little grungebunny
that he is. "Trying to get out," "[d]ecided to stir you up." Oh, ha ha. I
wonder how disappointed he is that he hasn't received any worshipful (or
at least stirred-up) e-mail back from you yet.
I promote protection of women's chastity.
Have you ever noticed that, whenever someone advocates the "protection" of
women's anything, 99.44 times out of 100 what they REALLY mean is the
"RESTRICTION" of women's anything? Some social problem is identified, and
therefore women's access to whatever is curtailed; the ACTUAL problem is
never addressed, since that would inevitably mean stepping on some male
predatory prerogative, changing the way that kids are raised to think
about themselves and others, or expecting someone to actually act like a
RESPONSIBLE HUMAN. No no--far better to make sure that the chicks stay
barefoot and spread-eagled under the auspices of some Purported Protector
than expect the predators and microcephalic idiots out there to actually
LEARN something about treating each other like human beings. It's SO much
easier to oppress than to evolve.
Does that mean I don't think the average woman can protect herself?
From what? From the likes of HIM? As long as we can keep him and
boneheads LIKE him out of office, out of the pulpit, out of our beds, and off our
backs . . .
Did you ask, 'average woman?',
Did I ask at ALL? Whose "average" are we using here, anyway? And dammit,
where's the Grammar Fairy when you NEED her? (Inconstant slut. She was
probably inadequately protected or something.)
then of course, the answer is NO. Tell the average young woman she is
smart, tell her she is great looking, tell her she is really the most
intelligent person you know, and you really appreciate her views, and any
half-brained playboy can get exactly what he is after and she will feel
like she is obligated to give more.
Uh. Leaving aside all the other
grossnesses presented above, I'm compelled to wonder what kind of
"playboy," however "half-brained," ever even USES phrases like "smart" and
"the most intelligent person" on his targets, at least with a straight
Interesting, too, that the idea that "the average young woman" should feel
"obligated to give more" (more WHAT is left to the imagination, of course)
to "any half-brained playboy" on the basis of a couple of shopworn
compliments isn't considered a problem in and of ITSELF. No no; it's GOOD
to have such easy, push-button access. It's just gotta be REGULATED, so
only the DESERVING can punch their way in. And I know that *I,* for one,
would positively RELISH being stanchioned off by the likes of THIS
After he has enough, hey, all he has to do is turn on the cold water a
few times, she gets pissed at him, he moves on and she thinks, 'good'.
And this is wrong of her to think? She should be UPSET that she managed to
shed an asshole?
While he got exactly what he wanted. Now, who needs the protection in
Who needs "protection" depends on how you define "protection" (not to
mention how you spell "scenario")--and on a whole hell of a lot of OTHER
stuff that doesn't seem to enter into this picture at ALL, like actual
logic or real alternatives.
Don't think that happens very often? Yeah, right.
That and a whole bunch of OTHER scenarios happen all the TIME. And that
has WHAT to do with this?
How is it, I wonder, that people so consistently manage to avoid realizing
that it's the perpetrators, the aggressors, who represent at LEAST half of
a problem? Where is the outrage, ever, against the boys who perpetrate? (I
was watching some documentary on youth violence, and I wondered why it was
never mentioned that, in all of the examples they looked at, the
perpetrators were ALWAYS male, and almost always white and middle-class or
above. There's that entitlement thing again, still undercover by some
mutual agreement.) Why is it, when some rampaging teenagers actually go on
trial for rape, that the defense plea so often centers on what a shame it
would be to damage THEIR promising lives by punishing them for what
they've done? (My thought is, they've already damaged their OWN promising
lives, as well as someone ELSE'S promising life.)
How about the college kids, the guy tells the girl everything she wants
to hear on the first date, and asks her to move in with him.
Asks her to move in on the first date? Geesh! What's that song again?
::assuming nasal twang:: o/~ De-e-esperado-o-o . . .Why don't you come to
your se-e-enses . . . o/~
He misses his mother making his bed for him and seeing that he eats his
breakfast and dinner
And what the HECK is up with THAT? I grow more thankful every DAY for the
women in MY family who knew better than to cut up like that. (I have to
start by giving major props to my paternal grandmother, who made sure that
her sons knew how to cook for, clean up after, and dress their OWN
selves.) Get any kid, male or female, used to being waited on hand and
foot, and you've set 'em up to have a WEE spot o' trouble in the Real
World. Not to mention making a thoughtless, arrogant asshole out of 'em.
It's especially fun to only wait hand and foot on the males, and have the
female kids wondering what the hell is going on. If only for a while.
But of course, it isn't a problem for our little grungebunny here for the
boys to get used to being catered to as early and as much as possible.
That's how things are SUPPOSED to be.
and he misses his high school girl friends who used to keep him warm on
the weekends. But, being a college aged 'man'
Living trapped between renegade apostrophes . . .
now means you can have a young lady living with you so you have a warm
place to put it every night.
Wow. So, like, you get ISSUED a young lady to live with you? Makes you
wonder where HE went to school, dunnit? Or maybe it's just an age thing,
like getting your driver's license?
But, not only that, after you had your bed sports for the night,
Why does this conjure up visions of trying to dribble a Spalding on an
extra-firm mattress? "And it's--it's over the foul line!" "One run, three
hits, two errors, one man on base!" "I think he's going for the extra
point!" "GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!" And just think of the damage
those cleats can do to your 300-count sheets.
the next day she is all too happy to make your bed for your so it is
ready for the next round. Not only that, she helps clean your pad,
"Pad"? PLEASE don't tell me we're dealing with one of those embittered 60s
feeds you, wow, all for free. You don't even pay for maid service. You
don't even pay for getting your body serviced. All for free. No, not
free. She'll even 'pay' you by paying for half the rent, utilities, food,
etc. Even the massages are free. Wow. Not bad.
So--to sum up, then,
his "average woman" is a pathological doormat. (But one that's interested
in splitting rent and such like a responsible person.)
Oh, but she keeps asking when you are going to marry her??? Hey, your
not going to college because your dumb.
Pardon me while I take a moment to ROTFL. I think I hear the Grammar Fairy
You tell her all the things she wants to hear. YES,..... But.....
While you're talking, she hurries to put down some paper towels to blot up
those dribbling ellipses before they stain the upholstery. Chicks LIKE
worrying about stuff like upholstery.
Ah, I am a student right now, and, marriage means kids (kids, yes, yes,
Or, alternately, she chuckles aloud at the idea of such a spawning. Oh,
but that's right--I guess breeding is the "real" mission of any "real"
ah, well, we can't marry until I graduate and land a good job, I mean
that is just being practical and, well, you know, 'intelligent'. Well,
she has to agree with that.
Imagine her surprise.
So, he tells her, but, I do love you, and we will get married (some day,
to someone), so come on, stop talking, get busy taking our clothes off,
show me you love me too. You do love me, don't you? Then you "have" to
Is it just me, or has the "you" in this scenario slipped and
slid a time or three?
Even though such a girl is also going to college, most young men refer
to such girls with adjectives like, "real stupid", "dumb chick", etc.
Leaving aside the whole verbal-abuse paradigm here (which, again, one
assumes is not a problem, since there's no thought of addressing it),
since when does "college-educated" ever have to mean "intelligent"?
I guess when such abused and exploited girls finally get the picture
they could easily go for joining your Heartless Bitches society.
Again--and they'd be WRONG??
Who needs the protection in that scenerio?
More to the point, who needs to be put over a cosmic knee and SPANKED?
Ahh, but that's right--this isn't about actually LEARNING anything or
making substantive CHANGE; this is about reinforcing the idiocies that
lead to the kind of foolishness (and to the sucking-up of foolishness)
that he's pretending to decry, and about elevating the egos of some above
the rights and humanity of others.
If the "idiot" misses her pill and gets 'herself'' pregnant
Hey, what's up with the apostrophes around here? First they muscle in on
the quotes' territory; now they're clumping!
(how does a woman get 'herself' pregnant, I mean, a man generally is the
one who does the hard work),
Oh, looky! He made a funny!
well, the guy argues it was 'her' fault, 'she' was the one who forgot to
take her pill. Either she has to get an abortion (kill the creepy little
preborn kid, his own future son or daughter),
But not HER own, of course.
or put the 'thing' up for adoption. Again, arguing that it is the only
real 'practical' thing to do. So, she goes along. Who needs
Who needs a serious slap upside the HEAD? Who needs to learn to wipe their
OWN ass for a change? Who needs to establish--and respect--a BOUNDARY or
Men don't get pregnant, but women do.
The man is obviously a medical genius.
The more women a man has, he is looked at like some sort of hunk, a real
Whoops. The Grammar Fairy has flitted off yet again. And wait--what's up
with this "hunk/casanova [sic]" jazz? Aren't those terms that WOMEN are
supposed to use for men? And isn't he talking about what MEN think of
other men? (Personally, I don't know ANY women who think that a guy who
plows his way through a plethora of beds is "some sort of hunk." Unless
it's a hunk OF something, I guess.) Hey, maybe there's something ELSE
going on here!
A real together dude. The more sex partners a woman has, the more she
earns the dubious title of 'slut', whore.
What's dubious about THOSE titles?
Men do not think very highly of woman who are very loose. Oh, some men
will definitly take advantage of a free lunch, but, hell if they want to
live full time,
Perhaps he slipped the Grammar Fairy a mickey? Or did he
just piss her off?
let alone feel obliged to care for and cherish a common slut.
Hey hey HEY--what about the UNcommon sluts? Where's the love for THEM?
Who needs the protection in society?
Apparently, it's the double-standards that need protection
here--protection from examination, from challenge, from all that annoying
stuff that could get women started making non-compliant noises.
No, not all women are so dumb.
No SHIT! You THINK? Like WOW! I know that makes ME feel better, hearing that from HIM.
But, the religious scriptures I study specifically states
Maybe if we put out a nice bowl of pixie dust, we could lure the Grammar
that women on the whole are very easily misled by unscrupulous men.
Ah. How nice. And does this text stipulate what should be DONE about these
unscrupulous men, by any chance?
The majority of women, if left unprotected, can be easily cheated,
misled into degradation, exploited, sexually abused, then dumped. Therefor
Hey, look! Silent E has become Invisible E!
our scripture says that women are to be protected by the religious
Wonder which "scriptures" THESE could be? Presumably, after his intro,
we're not talking about the Torah, the Bible, or the Q'ran. Some kind of
Hindu text, maybe?
So, I promote the religious idea
"Religious"? "Religious" HOW?
that a woman's chastity is to be honored, respected, worshipped.
Read: "Owned, operated, sold, distributed, and zoned for occupation by
And a chaste lady is to be taken all good care of.
As opposed, of course, to the sluts--a group that would appear to comprise
anyone who doesn't agree to the stipulated requirements that qualify her
to be slapped with the label of "chaste lady." Maybe it's that the sluts
don't get "to be taken all good care of"; THEY just get "taken care of,"
since according to the grungebunny, it ain't all good.
A 'real' man's duty is to protect a lady's chastity,
So is that just ANY ol' chaste lady, or does he win a particular one in a
raffle or something? And hey--is this "chaste" in the sense of abstention
from sex, or in the sense of never acting like you ENJOY it?
and to treat his chaste women
Waitaminit--so all of a sudden he's got MORE than one? How many raffle
tickets did he BUY? Or are they selling "chaste women" in six-packs these
like the Goddesses.
Excuse me, but don't Goddesses RULE? I guess he must be talking about
late-model goddesses here (without that pesky capital G), who were more
ornaments for some patriarchal construct than anything else.
His duty is to make his wife happy. If she asks for something, a good
husband will go to war to get it for her.
Which means, of course, that he gets the added, hairy-chested bonus of
blowing shit up for no good reason.
He will pamper his wife, hire maid servants for her, whatever.
Okay, all together everybody: "EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWW!!!" And besides, a REAL
man wouldn't be afraid to hire some strapping MANservants for his wife,
right? After all, he can't be everywhere at once, can he?
So: A "'real'" man's duty is so spend all manner of money pampering the
expensive toy(s) that he's married to, then? (Interesting that he has to
be MARRIED, too. Warning: polygamy rant incoming . . .)
But, the world has very few 'real' men,
Why might THAT be, I wonder? And where were was that comma when we NEEDED
therefor our religious scripture
Who the heck is this group whose "religious scripture" he's "therefor"ing
about all over the place?
encourages the real men to take as many wives as they can maintain.
Ah-HAH! I KNEW it. (And you know, I've always loved the honesty of that
particular idiom: "TAKE a wife." "No, really--help yourself. There's
plenty more where SHE came from.")
And what of the women who don't WANT to be "maintained"? And those who
make enough money to pay for their OWN toys? What about THEM? Or don't
they EXIST in this paradigm? Perhaps they're thrown out as heretics, along
with the ones who don't cotton to the idea of being part of a harem, the
ones who keep insisting on thinking for themselves, the ones that've
scrabbled their way out of 4th-century-B.C. thinking toward enlightenment,
the ones who keep expecting to be treated as equal human beings instead of
as acquisitions . . . YOU know. THEM.
This way as many women as possible can be properly protected
There goes that "protected" thing again. (What does IMproper protection
involve, I wonder?)
and cared for in the most moral and religious way,
Nope. I'm not going NEAR the too-ripe hilarity of "the most moral and
religious way." I just can't, not without my rubber gloves and my gallon
jug of Pepto.
not for the poor man's benefit (image the poor guy
Right. Make plenty of photocopies of his face--or better yet, of his
naked, pasty butt.
whose duty it is to make not one, but 2, 3 or 10 women happy. His life
is toast, so it is not for his benefit),
Oh yeah. Sure. My heart just BLEEDS. And why, if his life is supposedly
toast, would the poor guy take ON such a harem as that? Hmmmm? Oh wait,
let me guess--his overriding sense of religious duty, right?
religious polygamy is for the benefit of the women.
I just had to pause here for a minute.
Okay, I'm done. Let's move on.
And, such religious men who take up this idea
Do they really take it up, like knitting or smoking? (Or maybe like a
hem?) Or do they PICK it up, like a club or a bad habit?
of protecting women,
And there it is AGAIN. I wonder why it is that these folks don't have the
courage (and I use the word advisedly) of their convictions and just come
out and SAY "ownership."
they are family oriented, marriage is for life for them. Divorce does
And neither, perhaps, does the Grammar Fairy. Maybe we need to start
clapping our boy on his cast-iron forehead to help her live.
But wait--if divorce "does not exists [sic]," then what happens if some
greedy fool buys himself more women than he can support? (All out of his
overriding sense of religious duty, of course.) Or what if one of his
acquisitions is defective in some way? I mean, like, imagine if it turned
out that her warrantee was forged, and she was really a SLUT! Or she
refused to SPAWN for him! (That's all it COULD be, of course--HER
refusal--since designated Masters of the Universe NEVER have any, um,
"problems" in that regard themselves. In fact, the mere suggestion is
probably blasphemous or something.) Maybe it doesn't count as a divorce
per se as long as he keeps the receipt?
So, the children (lots of them)
Because of COURSE this walking wallet is just BUSTING with speedy sperm,
and ALL of HIS women, rendered fertile by his mere APPROACH, are PERISHING
to spawn for him! (Wonder what the provision is for faulty property,
though? That's been a problem for generations of paternalistic boneheads.)
who are born of his many wives, they will all be raised in a wholesome
*CLAP CLAP CLAP!!*
and very healthy family environment. So, it is most beneficial to the
Not that our puny polemicist has done a damn thing to PROVE any such
fever-dream assumptions at these, of course.
And hey--whatever happened to all those sleazeball males, huh? (First they
loom over EVERYthing, then they just VANISH. Isn't that just like a man??)
What about THEM getting some play?? I guess they have to make sure to go
out and earn lots and lots of money, so they can buy themselves a six-pack
of live-in trim like a REAL man.
Hey, and for the women, one woman whose husband has 6 other wives
besides her, she was saying
So is this an actual, live woman? If so, what was she smoking? And if not,
what was HE smoking?
that several of the women do cleaning, household duties, several cook
(and they trade off different days), several home school the kids, 2 run
their own business--totally guilt free
*Gasp!* You mean to say, it's
POSSIBLE for a MOTHER, with actual CHILDREN, to work outSIDE the home
withOUT guilt?? BLASPHEMER!!!
as they know their children are with loving family 24 hrs a day, so if
she needs to work late, no problem. She has the best of both worlds, she
has lovng family that is well cared for,
*CLAP CLAP CLAP!!*
children, and a full time career, all guilt free.
But wait--if she's got her OWN "full time [sic] career," and is making her
OWN money . . . ? Oh, right--I'm about to be logical again, dammit, and
that ALWAYS gets me in trouble with the psychopaths. And goodness knows,
you couldn't PAY the Logic Fairy to come within a MILE of THIS guy.
And, the other women, they happen to like being full time housewives and
stay at home moms.
Apparently, however, they have a pathological fear of hyphens.
And none of them are at all over worked or stressed out. They have half
the day or more to spend with all the kids having fun, doing fun things,
engaged in hobbies. It is a picnic for them.
You know, when confronted
with delusions THIS thick and rich, you MIGHT be tempted to stab them with
a fork. But use a spoon, so you can get every drop.
For the man, so what if he has 7 places to keep him warm. He also is 7
times more responsible, 7 times more a father, so what if he gets
'something' for holding the whole show together. Everyone benefits. No
one is abused.
ROTFLMAO!! Oh, that IS a good one. Where's my spoon? (I
think I might have to channel The Tick for a minute, here.)
He is happy with the extras he gets,
But wait--I thought he said the poor guy's life was toast. What's all this
about "extras" all of a sudden?
they are all happy with the peace and leisure lives they get,
I presume "they" doesn't include the stay-at-home moms or the
home-schoolers or the full-time workers or . . .
or for several, they get to persue
*CLAP CLAP CLAP!!*
C'mon! Everybody! *CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!*
full speed ahead, and have children who are home schooled, no nurseries
or day cares or babysitters, so, they get unburdened careers and loving
happy family life. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
people holding hands. Huh. Suppose he ever really talked to any members of
ACTUAL polygamous families? Or took an ACTUAL look at the ones that used
to exist--say, in Utah?
But, our modern laws,
As opposed to, say, the antediluvian ones . . .
they will try to tear apart such homes,
'Cause our laws have claws!
throw the kids in state orphanages, put the adults in prison and issue
orders they are never to see each other again, totally destroy the kids
lives, everyone's lives, as such 'families' and marraiges
Right. Those pesky, interfering "laws." (Or rather, 'laws.') I mean,
people try to jail parents and siblings who commit honor killings in these
parts, too. And don't even get me started on the fathers who keep trying
to marry off their 12-year-old daughters to their middle-aged friends,
like any good father should. Will this anti-family travesty never end???
But, porn sites on the web are a dime a dozen, as are the sluts who pose
naked, licking mens penis'
Hey, look! Another fugitive apostrophe! Or maybe it just prefers the
company of one word to another . . . ?
and drinking their semen while in WWW public for the whole world to see.
That is protected by modern laws.
I dunno about that, but the consumers thereof definitely are. (Unless the
sluts who pose naked are underage.) You know, the males whose dollars keep
those porn sites crankin'? (I bet they know a thing or two about the
"unscrupulous men," too.) But we won't mention THEM, of course, because
this is not ABOUT them. It's about the dirty SLUTS.
Even 8 yr old innocent kids go to the library and log on and see these
*CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!*
that is all protected by modern law,
Well heck--you can't reasonably expect even the most forward-thinking
antediluvian to have legislated for the Web, right?
but if a man wants to religiouisly protect
And what other way IS there, really?
more than one woman from ending up becoming World-Wide Web slut,
And of course, as we all know, those are the only two destinies available
to women today: "protected" harem "wife" or "deragatory [sic]" Web ho.
Maybe I should just flip a coin.
no, that is illegal, he cannot 'protect' more than one woman.
Well, whaddya know--he finally put it in quotes! (Okay, okay--so he
actually put it in apostrophes. Whaddya WANT from him, ANYway???)
It is illegal for a 'real' man to make more than one woman happy.
I'd ask him to define his terms here, but I'm already worn out from
laughing as it is.
I just love logic pretzels though, don't you? They're especially nice
dipped in honey mustard. And they're so crunchy when you bite down hard.
It is illegal for 'real' men to be fully responsible for more than one
woman, as a husband. Well, it is if he does this for more than one woman
at the same time. It is not illegal if he tries to do so for one, then
dumps her, divorces and marries another. That is allowed, a man can have
as many wive's
ANOTHER fugitive apostrophe! I bet THEY'RE sluts TOO.
as he wants, as long as he does not try to be responsible for more than
one at the same time. Duh. What is that law for. .
Do YOU think he's really interested in hearing an answer?
Well, I've dumped
Now THERE is a verb I can really get behind. (Figuratively speaking, of
about as much of my so-called Chauvanism
*CLAP CLAP CLAP!!* Come ON!!
on you as I have time for.
Damn. I'm heartbroken that we didn't get The Full Works of This Masterful
Male Genius. (Oop, I'm sorry, how redundant of me; since only males are
geniuses anyway, there was no need for me to use BOTH words.)
I am sure it must have stirred something in your heads.
No, but my GUT'S sure churning something awful.
Hey, your site, I am sure, stirs up emotions. My views do also. Hey, I
*CLAP CLAP--!!* Dammit, I think he's killed her. Either that, or she's
hiding out in some bar, slamming back shots with the Logic Fairy and
trying to forget any of this ever happened.
the exit door, time to go. Bye. And Chant Hare Krsna. You'll get
your heart back. But, a bitch with a heart isn't much better then a
And of course, he would know.
hey, chant the Holy Names,
Why do I picture some guy with robes, sandals, a shaved head . . . and a
smarmy expression and a bunch of chunky rings, snappin' his fingers and
bobbin' his head in some kind of mutant Telly Savalas/Dean
Martin/Vegas-esque way? "Yeah, chant those Holy Names, baby! Chant 'em all
night long! Hey . . . !"
Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama
Rama Hare Hare and not only will you get your heart back, it will clean it
at the same time.
Hmm. Does that mean that your heart will actually
become self-cleaning? Or do these names have some sort of
abrasive/exfoliant/disinfectant quality? Perhaps it's the persistent
removal of certain vowels that activates the scrubbing bubbles?
Then instead of being sarcastically bent and twistedly happy being
called a heartless bitch,
Because anyone who finds happiness outside HIS loony paradigm couldn't
possibly be anything BUT bent and twisted. And because sarcasm is SINful.
you will find it is more pleasing to become a eternal soul, with a heart
Wait--I thought us chicks were all supposed to be commodities here.
(Assuming we can get a pass on the chaste thing, I guess.) Why would he
want to bother having eternal souls installed in his toys?
Maybe I should just buy another shot for the Logic Fairy and forget about
The soul is eternal, it is neither male nor female. But, even you may
have been a man in your last life, or could be next time around.
Oh, LOL. Even YOU. Isn't it AMAZING?
Want to get off the merry-go-round and just live as a soul in the
spiritual world. Chant Hare Krsna, it will take you there.
Or maybe you could just stop reading this missive from Mars.
Or chant Jehova,
Or even Jehovah.
or Allah. Praise the Holy Names of God. It will get you free of all
Ohh, I can't. It's just too easy.
(Just think, what a relief when you actually realize, you are not your
body, you are not a woman or a man,
Except when it's convenient for the vendors, of course.
but an eternal nuetral
*CLAP CL--* Oh, I forgot. Never mind.
Maybe he meant we're all eternal NUTRIAS? I know I'D like to be an
otter-like, fur-bearing critter paddling around forever. Wouldn't YOU?
Or a commodity, depending on which body you're in at the time.
And men are also eternal souls.
(men can have sex operations and take female hormones and grow breasts,
stop growing facial hair, etc;, or a women can take testasterone
Awright. "BARTENDER!! Rack 'em UP!"
and grow facial hair, lower their voices and have mens organs implanted.
"You", the soul, is not this male or female body. The body can change,
even in this lifetime.
Although once you're bought and sold, it's a
breach of contract to change without written permission.
So, chew on that for while.
THERE'S an appetizer from hell.
- no, you are not heartless bitches, you are eternal souls. Respect
your soul more,
More than what? More than HE does? THAT'S easy.
your soul is Godly, honor it.
But make sure to sell your body to the most "religious" bidder, if you're
a girl. Remember, all chanting aside, you still need protection from all
those eternal souls out there that're just sloppin' OVER with respect for
your, um, soul.
I'd like to close by quoting one of my all-time favorite sages, Opus the
penguin: "Hairy fishnuts?"
Tavia, who advocates pear pimples for ALL hairy fishnuts