Thread: Philosexology
View Single Post
Unread 23 Aug 2008, 22:02   #18
horn
Registered User
 
horn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 115
horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.horn has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Philosexology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prover View Post
Do people not agree that in general men are being emasculated by women?
it depends on what you mean. women seem to find certain "masculine" traits attractive, and play a pretty big part in their existence. an example would be men trying to appear more confident, in the knowledge that women find confidence attractive. another example would be the 50% reduction in gym memberships if women decided they found fat people attractive.
so in these cases you could argue that women are a causal factor in "masculating"(is that the antonym for emasculate) men rather than emasculate them. this obviously depends on your definition of masculinity but i'm pretty confident you're not deviating too far from the norm.

however. there are some cases where men do indeed appear to have had their masculinity cut down before them. particularly in their domination of women.
unfortunately some women can get pretty unruly at times and just don't seem to understand that patriarchy + a caveman is all they are entitled to. some go so far as to expect equel pay for jobs and stuff. ridiculous as it is to those of us who understand what the bible tells us, it can regrettably lead to things like men not being able to title themselves with the appellation of "breadwinner" with the same verve as genghis khan.

now. if you've been raised in a stupid, (barely) post christian society that encourages you to think little beyond how hard to cheer when jeremy kyle is bullying his latest idiot, then there are going to be problems here.
the reason why, is because the filthy secularist legislation that requires women to be paid the same as men ensures exactly that. what it doesn't ensure, is an enlightened populace that is able to debunk archaic gender roles that they have been raised in. so we're left with equel pay for women but a bunch of idiots who feel like they've been robbed of their bread winner role.

so what do we do? do we apologise to your telegraph polsters while burning some books, or do we keep the rights for women and decide it's best to try and educate ignorant pricks like yourself? i'm in the latter, you're in the former. i'm right, you're not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
And is it just me, or does it feel like a touchy issue on this forum?
*waves dick around* shutup.


Quote:
Originally Posted by prover
But keep following those science fetishists who reduce sex into a Homo species.
no, you see science doesn't do that. Science says there are two sexes. It just misses out the part where they have magic roles to play that will lead to praise from a sky wizard. but thank you for this tour de force of misogyny and homophobia prover you...... thoroughly christian, masculine man.
horn is offline   Reply With Quote