|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 13, 2014 09:15 PM |
|
|
Jeremiah, feminists usually work to abolish gender norms altogether, which also means abolishing those problems that men have. Rather than pushing for women to be drafted, all the feminists I know want men to not be drafted. They want to reduce familial obligations altogether. They want to reform the prison system (in the US) so people wouldn't be spending so much time in prison.
In the post-independence history of the US, men never fought for men's right to vote. It was granted to them, and the fact that they were drafted to fight into wars is entirely irrelevant. But more importantly, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if men had fought for their right to vote, they shouldn't have had to, they should've just been allowed to vote, and the fact that the right to vote was granted to women without bloodshed is a good thing, because any time the right to vote is granted without bloodshed is a good thing.
As for women in the Middle East, in theory the husband/father is supposed to take care of them, and that's how they justify their horrible oppressive system to themselves, but in reality it's full of abuse. Actually, it's inherently abusive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 10:00 PM |
|
|
like some other mass movements, it is likely that some of those "feminist" movements are financed by people who actually don't really have women interests in mind.
I know it's full of illuminati stuffs and conspiracy theory, but maybe you heard about Rockefeller funding feminism :
link
don't know how much is true about it, but they are probably right on some points at least.
Quote:
Feminism is not a grass roots, bottom up movement. It is top down, elitist instigated and funded astroturf with real objectives that have no relation to human rights or social equality between men and women. What’s a worse indictment of the gullible public is that this is obvious with the most cursory examination.
This can be seen by the ideology’s produced outcomes – one of which is the reduction of the social power of the family unit as a fundamental unit of society. By isolating individuals from the social support of traditionally strong family framework, this has rendered our culture much more pliable to top-down social control. Another is the reduction of the economic value of labor by the doubling of the available labor pool. This was sold to a credulous mainstream under the guise of giving women the “right” to work.
that's the 2nd link. it's what I said in a previous post.
someone saw right through Xerox's agenda  :
Quote:
Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.
Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
last link in 1st page. well, it's some religious site, so probably not the source you would trust the most... but seeing an argument that matches Xerox arguments (probably in the "feminism" or the "what is love thread, I wonder how many feminism topics there are) and considering that Xerox probably forged his opinion in the course of his political research is quite striking. also considering the recent events with the "mariage pour tous" or the "gender theory".
of course the goal may be nothing more than distracting us from more crucial subjects, like when they use racism. or maybe they really want to destroy the family as some people claim.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 10:21 PM |
|
|
Quote - JeremiahEmo
And that is why I said MEN PAID THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE WITH BLOOD while women got their rights to vote because it was handed to them in a silver platter. Not really oppressed now is it?
How on earth was voting handed to women on a silver platter. We had to wait several hundred years before being given the rights to vote! Women campaigned and were imprisoned, beaten, starved, locked away in mental asylums by husbands and families. That is not handed out on a silver plate. Read up for crying out loud.
Prior to William the Conqueror, women owned their own property, but the Normans changed that and those laws and views stayed within Western society for hundreds of years, until only recently in some cases. If a man had two children, a boy and a girl - the boy inherited everything. The girl was expected to marry/arranged marriage. Her wealth lie in the dowry her parents paid to her husband. And then that property became his. She had nothing. So she had no choice but to stick with her husband, regardless of what he did/behaved. Divorce was not an option for women until the later half of the 20th century, and only then for a chosen lucky few.
Even in the cases where a man had a substantial estate and only daughters, there were no guarantees any of them would inherit, if their father had living male relatives. A nice little easy read of Pride and Prejudice details the worries that Mrs Bennett has about the inheritance issue regarding her daughters and her husbands only living male relative - a cousin. Her daughters will likely end up with nothing, losing even the home they were born into.
Father/Husband taking care of daughter/female. Well as a parent you take care of your children regardless. But up until the end of the Victorian era, a daughter was still a chattel. And her father could marry her off to whomever he wished. If she refused, he could have her interred in a asylum, locked up at home, thrown out into the streets. The women had very little say, if any, in their lives.
As a male you have no concept of this, which shows in your highly inflammatory misogynistic posts.
Quiet and Submissive - women were expected to be quiet and do as they were told. If not, they were beaten or classed as mad if they dared have an opinion.
Try to imagine, if you can, never being asked what you wanted or thought or felt to be right. Should this be done? Would you like this? Being told that you are to marry this old women. You don't like it, well tough I am your parent and I have arranged it. She will pay a lot of money for you and I need the money. And to keep you in 'your place' your elderly wife will beat you for no reason and rape you when she wants to and your only job is to serve, be respectful, quiet and submissive. And even if you are all those things there is no guarantee she will treat you any better. Just think, your entire life is one of oppression, subjugation, humiliation, pain and suffering. Once you can honestly think about that yourself, you then will get an idea of what women have had to endure, and some still endure right now, before worrying your little head about whether Ubisoft has too many female characters now or if Western White women are justified in complaining about still not being paid a fair wage compared to male colleagues.
Women discouraged to get manly jobs. Are you seriously this ill informed or are you just trolling. Women were not allowed to work in most cases. Those women that did work, the peasants the lower classes shared every job. Women did exactly the same as men, as well as child rearing and taking care of the family (women's work as you probably like to call it). Women toiled in the fields and mines alongside their menfolk. Widows and abandoned women had no choice but to work hard, sometimes in workhouses or forced into prostitution.
It was only because of World War II that most women got the opportunity to work properly. Do the jobs only reserved for men before. And after the war, they lost those jobs - handed back to the men. But it showed they could do it. I suggest you read up about the Munitions Women of WWII and how dangerous their jobs where. Not to mention the nurses who risked their lives to care for the wounded.
And women were never allowed to go to the front line. I believe that only recently now the American Forces allow some women to fight on the 'front line'. Thousands of girls and women would be willing to risk everything to do this. You insinuate that we all sit on our backsides, knitting and gossiping rather than doing anything worthwhile is an insult.
However, I am going to stop here for a while and take a breather. I believe you are a troll, because I find it hard to believe that someone who appears educated could be so badly informed and ignorant of so many facts. You talk about choice. That is the big word. So many women have never had a choice in anything. So many still do not have a choice. They cannot choose how to live their lives. They cannot choose to leave their home. They cannot choose what man they will marry. They cannot choose what age that might be ... could be 7 and married to a 50 year old man. They cannot choose birth control. They cannot choose if they wish to have sex with their husbands. They have no choice but to do as they are ordered, by their father, brothers, husbands and sons.
And if they do choose - they are rewarded with stoning, burning, beating to death, and acid.
But according to you, those women have a choice, right?
And even though women in the West do not have to live like the poor oppressed women in other middle eastern countries, we are still not paid the same as men for the same jobs. There is still rampant misogyny in every corner - see you.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 10:32 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:33, 13 Jul 2014.
|
Fauch, maybe you should go figure who's behind the agenda of preservering the patriarchy...
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 22:59, 13 Jul 2014.
|
the exact same people?
patriarchy, feminism sound like both side of a same coin and I doubt those people are on either of those sides. most likely a divide and conquer strategy.
Quote:
It was only because of World War II that most women got the opportunity to work properly. Do the jobs only reserved for men before. And after the war, they lost those jobs - handed back to the men.
that's exactly the problem, though it is quite irrelevant to feminism I think. because of war. that's one of the reason why women taking part in economic life is a regression, because economy, as it works currently, is mostly war (and in particular in the USA). contributing to economy is basically contributing to war (and vice versa)
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 10:48 PM |
|
|
me thinks white men of power and riches protecting their privilegie is more likely
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 11:00 PM |
|
|
|
I would imagine them that way too
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 13, 2014 11:53 PM |
|
|
There is so much junk and inconsistency when it comes to conspiracy theories and there is so many about everything, the best thing to do is avoid them completely.
Feminism (or gender equality) is a result of social change, just like the patriarchy of the agricultural era was. The pattern is, although not egalitarian in the modern sense, nomadic people were sometimes much more close to our day in that sense. Their traditions were shaped in a world where everybody moved together constantly, they had no ownership and inheritance of land, everybody was doing whatever work was demanded instantly. When agriculture came, it meant division of labor (very simplistic compared to industrial times but still), stricter social classes and roles, a stable nuclear family unit, a war economy based on conquest of land... These and many more caused the patriarchal norms to tighten. You can not pinpoint this change, it's gradual, social change occurs in centuries. Yet, you can observe it following similar patterns in many places, sometimes slowly, sometimes in a more revolutionary fashion. The Abrahamic religions are determined by agricultural values for example, and just like pre-William England being less patriarchal (haven't checked that out myself, taking Meroe's word for it), you can read that the pre-Islamic shaman societies of Central Asia had women with many rights, even as horse riding warriors.
We are now going through another big change. Agri-cultural norms as they were shaped by the direction of their age are coming to an end. This is not a bad change at all. Having women accomplish things, having them as regular friends you can talk to about stuff, reading their perspective from books they write... these are all great things and I really don't understand the NEED to buy into those conspiracy theories about how Rockafeller financed feminism for his sinister plan. I mean, besides being ridiculous and totally inadequate to explain such a widely spread transformation, they are also pointless.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 12:19 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:49, 14 Jul 2014.
|
well, I think the original poster said to focus on the USA. now I don't know if Rockefeller did anything, and he certainly didn't invent feminism, but that doesn't seem absurd to me that some people would invest into those movements, not because they care about women's right, but because they have other personal interests. that's kinda like those movements for democracy. there are people supporting them who don't want democracy, they see them as a mean to get the power.
meroe talked about world war II. if I'm not mistaken, economy was boosted. wars usually boost economy. and for the first time (?) women were playing a big role in it (the economy). maybe companies owners just thought they could make more money thanks to women.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 12:36 AM |
|
|
|
What you are talking about would only be a small and regular case of exploiting the situation, it is so far away from explaining the movement itself. There are opportunists in almost every conflict or major social change, who try to fill their pocket. You are from France, right? How many "citizen" bureacrats got rich from those treasures who were left behind by the beheaded aristocrats, do you think? But does that explain why the revolution happened, no.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 12:58 AM |
|
|
but that may explain what the results were. there are people who come back home after the revolution thinking they won the democracy, and there are those who take the matters in hand, and not necessarily in the interest of the majority of the revolutionaries.
are we actually talking about the same thing when we say feminism? sounds like you are talking about gradual changes taking place over centuries. I thought we were talking about contemporary demonstrations of some people calling themselves feminists.
people don't need to call themselves feminists to defend women's right, and I guess that most of those who did didn't call themselves feminists.
now that I think of it, there is maybe a point in feminists exagerating women's victimhood. I don't say that some women aren't or weren't oppressed, but in an environment where women are oppressed, it is less likely to see feminist movements appear, because that would be very dangerous for them. if feminist movements can have that much exposure, I bet that women aren't very oppressed. though, they may still have less benefits than men.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 01:13 AM |
|
|
There is no exaggerating of oppression towards women.
Look up Du'a Khalil Aswad
Arifa Bibi
Farzana Parveen
Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow
Look up child marriage in the Yemen, Africa, Middle East.
Look up Shafilea Ahmed
Read about the so-called 'Honor Killings'
The above are just a smattering of some of the more violent incidents of oppression. Most of you have no idea what it must be like for a middle eastern woman living in the Yemen or Afghanistan. The daily oppression from all sides. I don't understand how these women do not go mad. And I can understand why so many of them set fire to themselves/commit suicide.
Look those up before talking about women not being oppressed. As a White Western woman I am not oppressed like some, yet I will still end up doing a job where a male colleague who does the same as me, will still get paid more. So I am not going to get too miffed about my circumstances.
There is still misogyny and oppression all over the world, whether its Third World or First. There is no point in bleating over feminism making a few guys feel a little emasculated .... grow up. As males none of you will have ever experienced oppression because of your sex.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 01:27 AM |
|
|
I have no idea what they live, but I didn't say there is no oppression of women.
what I ask is, do those women create feminist movements?
and if they do, do they claim all over the streets and the medias that they are feminists?
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 01:34 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
I have no idea what they live, but I didn't say there is no oppression of women.
what I ask is, do those women create feminist movements?
and if they do, do they claim all over the streets and the medias that they are feminists?
No those women in Yemen or Arabia or Afghanistan can't leave the home without a beating, Fauch. Creating an organisation will get them shot or stoned. Plus they are not even educated. Making it practically impossible for them to do anything alone.
Women cannot travel alone without a male escort. So running away is practically impossible.
That is true oppression.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 14, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
|
|
I think that was my point, no?
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 06:16 AM |
|
|
Come to think of it, yes, women were oppressed but I still stand by my belief that feminists over exaggerated it.
Women were properties of their husbands but men were also properties of the state. A woman was NEVER drafted or forced to fight for her country. Yeah, she could be beaten by her husband but I highly doubt that a lot of men think of women as someone who's easily disposed. Knowing how male biology works, most men I know treats women nicely, heck they even worship women and yes, that's biological.
You get a man abused by their girlfriends, no one but a few people cares. You get a woman abused by their boyfriends. It reaches the media. White knights would jump to the rescue. The cops would arrest the guy regardless of whose fault it was. Social Justice Warriors would shame you if you even dare to question what's the root cause of all this.
Women in the middle east are treated like kids. I'll tell you that. They can't drive a car, they can't go outside the house unsupervised but it's really no different than how feminists treat women in the west. The only difference is that the middle east has tough fatherly love for women. You can see it as a fatherly figure just not wanting his wife/daughter to get hurt.
Feminists in the west on the otherhand is soft motherly spoiling. I mean come on, let's be honest here.
Instead of making women handle the world like adults, the world should change for them. Treat them like kids. Spoil them.
No, don't tell a woman she's bossy, it'll hurt her feelings.
If the two of you get drunk and have sex without consent, it's rape and it's only the man's fault. Apparently, men are adults and should know better.
If a woman is accidentally impregnated, and she wants to raise the kid, the man should pay for child support because if we remember correctly, it takes two persons to make the child. However, if the man and woman are together and the woman wants an abortion, the man should have no say in it because it's her body afterall. Apparently, the "it takes two persons to make the child" argument gets thrown out the window.
Don't teach women self defense, teach men not to rape.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 08:01 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Come to think of it, yes, women were oppressed but I still stand by my belief that feminists over exaggerated it.
What kind of a point is that? Is it the kind of point saying, "come to think of it, yes, the Nazis put Jews in the camps, but the Jews over-exaggerated their victimhood?" And if so, IN WHAT WAY? Is it a "yes, they gassed them, but 6.000.000 is an over-exaggerated victim figure?" If yes, is it more like, "it was only 5.500.000" or is it more like, "heck, not even a million I would say" - or is it more like, "hey, they didn't gas them on purpose - all accidents"?
Quote:
Women were properties of their husbands but men were also properties of the state.
The STATE was led by MEN, though.
Quote:
A woman was NEVER drafted or forced to fight for her country.
That's because women were thought to be incapable of fighting. "Unfit" for warefare - as unfit as, say, being a teacher or a scientist.
Quote:
Yeah, she could be beaten by her husband but I highly doubt that a lot of men think of women as someone who's easily disposed. Knowing how male biology works, most men I know treats women nicely, heck they even worship women and yes, that's biological.
What kind of a point is THAT? If your neighbors all had big dogs and they would let them run freely, so the dogs were basically everywhere - would you think it to be ok, if the neighbors said to you, "sure, they could bite you, but I highly doubt that a lot of dogs would see you as someone to easily dispose.. Knowing how dog biology works, most dogs I know treat humans like you nicely, heck they even worship people, and, yes, that's biological." Would that reassure you?
Quote:
You get a man abused by their girlfriends, no one but a few people cares. You get a woman abused by their boyfriends. It reaches the media.
Nah, it's exactly the other way round. That's because a girl can't abuse her boyfriend. So if a girl would do that, the media were all there, since it was something really special. Quote:
White knights would jump to the rescue. The cops would arrest the guy regardless of whose fault it was. Social Justice Warriors would shame you if you even dare to question what's the root cause of all this.
This is complete nonsense, because there is no "if". There ARE cases of abuse on a regular basis, and there are no white knights who can do anything after the fact - and you lose me with your question, what's the root of all this. You can always ask that question - but if there IS a victim, it doesn't help. If you are robbed by someone it doesn't help you, when someone points out that you were robbed by a guy who can't get work to his inabilities, has been beaten black as a child and has some mental condition.
Quote:
Women in the middle east are treated like kids. I'll tell you that. They can't drive a car, they can't go outside the house unsupervised but it's really no different than how feminists treat women in the west.
I didn't know feminists made laws that command women to insist on their equal rights at every opportunity - or what are you trying to tell us?
Quote:
The only difference is that the middle east has tough fatherly love for women. You can see it as a fatherly figure just not wanting his wife/daughter to get hurt.
Except, that if they are of a different opinion, they will hurt them themselves. It's not FATHERLY love, is the love you have for a dog. If you were a father - and I suspect you are not - you'd know that this is just bull.
Quote:
Feminists in the west on the otherhand is soft motherly spoiling. I mean come on, let's be honest here.
Instead of making women handle the world like adults, the world should change for them.
They are just trying to level the playing field. After all, it's a man's world, remember?
Quote:
Treat them like kids. Spoil them.
No, don't tell a woman she's bossy, it'll hurt her feelings.
If the two of you get drunk and have sex without consent, it's rape and it's only the man's fault. Apparently, men are adults and should know better.
If a woman is accidentally impregnated, and she wants to raise the kid, the man should pay for child support because if we remember correctly, it takes two persons to make the child. However, if the man and woman are together and the woman wants an abortion, the man should have no say in it because it's her body afterall. Apparently, the "it takes two persons to make the child" argument gets thrown out the window.
Are you really making any points here? It's simple, actually: if you are a man and you want to have sex and get it - make sure you can't impregnate the woman you have it with. Because if you do - well, you have kind of a problem, because, obviously, it makes no sense to try and force the impregnated to do something she doesn't want.
Can that be so difficult?
Quote:
Don't teach women self defense, teach men not to rape.
Now you've lost me completely. "Teach not to rape"? THAT sounds, as if "rape mode" was somewhat natural, and it was somehow society's fault not to teach men how to control their urge to rape. But if that was the case, every woman would have to run around with a burqa and a gun, right?
That said, instead of writing further nonsense - shouldn't you just try to PINPOINT what it is EXACTLY that is bothering you? I mean, what is your PROBLEM?
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 09:35 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That said, instead of writing further nonsense - shouldn't you just try to PINPOINT what it is EXACTLY that is bothering you? I mean, what is your PROBLEM?
The problem is this guy almost never asked a woman out and got refused the times he did. You can be sure he has no kids, he already admited he is a virgin.
He isn't trolling like Meroe says, he insists on this points cause he wants society to reinforce (even more) his secret will to abuse the women or to have their fathers delivering them to him based on some costume.
And this forum is the place he found to put out all his frustrated feelings and somehow be eared, he is a sicker version of Dracon-Deus one year ago. Hell, this can even be considered therapeutic (to him, cause it affects my digestion).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 10:15 AM |
|
|
Good points, JJ, but I take issue with this part:Quote:
That's because a girl can't abuse her boyfriend.
Unfortunately, not true. Emotional abuse is quite possible, and happens in some relationships. Even physical abuse can happen, because if the guy tries to fight back, the woman can tell the police that he was the one abusing her, and they're likely to believe her because male physical abuse of women is more common.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:11 AM |
|
|
I was going to reply to JeremiahEmo's bizarre and highly misogynistic post, but when I read JJ's response, I decided to let it go mostly.
Bloodsucker is right, JE is using this forum to rant about his misogynistic hatred right now, probably because his attitude stinks so bad that the girls won't touch him with a bargepole. I mean anyone with his warped views regarding the sexes is bound for failure.
I will just say this. JE, over thousands of years and still occurring in many countries, women are oppressed, discriminated against, abused, beaten, raped and murdered. And this happens not because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not because she was taking out $100 from an ATM in the middle of the night. Not because she got drunk and threatened another person to a fight. But purely because she is a woman and she is seen as an easy target by men. Not only that, but she is seen as lower than a dog. To some societies she is a sub-human with no rights. These men are so terrified of females and female sexuality that their paranoia has led them to behave in the most vile ways imaginable.
There are fathers who would (and have) slit their own daughters throat because she had a mobile phone. Or because he felt she had become too westernized, or simply because someone had claimed to have seen her talking to a boy. When Farzana Parveen and D'ua Khalil Aswad were stoned to death, it was primarily by members of their own family - their father's, uncles, brothers. So if her own family can do this to a woman, if the male views on women is so low and fuelled by such religious and tribal ignorance, intolerance and fear of women - there is no limit to what they can do to their women with almost no consequence to them.
So no, these men do not spoil or adore their daughters/females - they use them. And if they are displeased they beat, rape, kill them. We read about this all the time.
As a male, you have absolutely no understanding of that kind of oppression. Which is why your posts here are a waste of time. No one is going to agree with you JE, because you are wrong. And shamefully ill-informed and ignorant of the facts.
I can assure you one thing though. If it were women treating their men this way, arranged marriages at the age of 8, raping men, setting them on fire or throwing acid over them, beating them and stoning them to death (publicly and like rabid gang of baying wolves) and just oppressing them in every aspect of their lives - you can be darn sure the Western Governments would have done a hell of a lot more to stop it.
So if you can't deal with the fact that some female has bested you at something, or made you feel small or inadequate in some way ..... then tough. Grow up and buck up. At least you don't have to worry about something like Female Genital Mutilation.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
| |
|
|
