Book on Women’s Sex ‘Hookups’ Draws Fire

Gordon friggin’ Bennett, just listen to the intellectual arguements of these women. ‘We can be as bad as guys now” ;”Men have always hooked up” ; Then the audacity of saying, “Can you generalize from a few women? The mind boggles.

So, take the few ‘bad’ men’s behaviours, as if the average man – or rather boys, considering it is mainly about school children – was only bad, and disregard his traditional efforts at doing paper rounds, lawn mowing, chores of all sorts and then into the world of employment to earn the money to woo the little princesses who piss them off at the drop of a hormone, and take the worst as the standard to aspire to.

‘Men’ have always ‘hooked up’ have they? Who with for goodness sake if not the girls? The next-door beagles?

No, ignore the female complicity, make it only male, and generalise from it as an excuse for female bad behaviour. Wonderful. But don’t generalise from females. Oh goodness me, no.

What a lie sold to girls! “Men have always hooked up.”

First, that statement is supposed to be true? “Always” and “never” words of the child mind. Even when you see men here say something about women, you will not hear them say women always this and women never that.

Second, that statement says all guys are promiscuous philanderers. So, as Amfortas points out, who were they hooking up with? The furniture that had legs but no skirt to cover them and keep the men from coupling with?

Third, so girls should be too?

Fourth, so girls should share in their promiscuity?

Fifth, Girls should not think anything will emotionally harm them by being promiscuous?

What a crock!

All this is doing is lowering the standards of behavior and morals (Propriety) which women carry an equal share of responsibility in mantaining with Men.

I am sure that the promoters of this devaluation of people to the lowest common denominator, like Bob H, will not be satisfied until all who are not of Elite Society are fodder for the Jerry Springer Show.

> “It’s a system for finding relationships – and there isn’t
> really an alternate system,”

And there hasn’t been one for about thirty years, because ‘dating’ was so oppressive to women or something that it had to be outlawed.

WRT “being as bad as men have always been”, Mencken wrote about this very thing fully 85 years ago…

“I am sorry to blow up so much romance. In particular, I am sorry for the suffragettes who specialize in the double standard, for when they get into pantaloons at last, and have the new freedom, they will discover to their sorrow that they have been pursuing a chimera — that there is really no such animal as the male anarchist they have been denouncing and envying — that the wholesale fornication of man, at least under Christian democracy, has little more actual existence than honest advertising or sound cooking. They have followed the pornomaniacs in embracing a piece of buncombe, and when the day of deliverance comes it will turn to ashes in their arms.”
– from “In Defense of Women” (http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/hlm/defense.htm#36)

Menken’s point is Excellent. The Dichotomy or Duality of Feminism is its insanity, all based upon a myth, the generalization of men being dogs.

So there are the Feminists who want the freedom to be “as promiscuous as men” and thus see all men as dogs. They are type A Immoral, who have bought the lie of the generalization of men. They know what they are getting into and Men need to understand that they are being used as they use.

Then there are the type M Feminists who denounce Male promiscuity which carries no childish generalization of men. These types might be marriagable, but might not. The sub-group possibilities need more discussion here.

Feminists simply cannot have it both ways. There are consequences to each position. Which set is the individual willing to live with?

They need to choose at an early age and be willing to admit it, so some poor bastard who wants belonging and family does not marry a lie.

So from now on, you meet a Feminist, and that is everyone because we all are in some respect here, otherwise we would not care what a woman is or is not, the question is are you Type A or Type M?

Women who cannot choose are Stealth Type A’s, are unmarriagable, belong in the Hook Up clubs, street corner enterprise, and should accept the label of Slut and whore as an indication of success. Hey it is all reletive, if that is what the girl was aiming at she should accept her acheivement.

Women who are type M are candidates for meeting the family to remove all doubt one way or the other. Yes you can tell who someone is by their family. It’s your life, you cannot risk it even once.

Perhaps there is the Type E/L Feminist, One that does not believe in Men at all, they are the Lesbians, and Male Lesbians (SG comes to mind) who are filled with self-hate that they hate all things masculine or of partiarchy, their own bodies, but only some will go so far as to make the switch.

I suppose that should sum up Mencken’s point, for there are the Moral, Amoral, and the Unnatural

So ask yourself the question. Which type are you?

what are some of the other cocerns about hook ups…1 in 4 american women have venereal disiese.. american women have the highest percentage of venereal disiease in all of the western world…

so much for condoms, awareness, and sex ed.

seems success should have been measured by somethin other than illegitimate births.

now the anti family forces can measure their success by the number of sterile women.

seems it is also OK for the promiscuous females in their 20′s to seed their VD from their sexual history to teenaged boys to then infect young girls.

Oh well, where is PsychoBobH when you need him?