"How Desperate Housewives Is Castrating Us All" (a bit of humor and a bit of truth)

[Lasher]

And posting on never-ending threads about 'Kiera Knightly'. Yay.

I'm saving that one for the weekend.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

See, but that's kind of the problem though. Wanting a guy who can be sensitive and macho, who can discuss Wuthering Heights and fix the Garbage disposal and other examples isn't about wanting balance, it's about wanting everything.

Wow, you accuse ME of hating women, and yet you say the exact same thing I do?

Christ, guys are happy enough with a girl with nice tits who doesn't talk too much during sportscentre.

Speak for yourself. I prefer a woman who hates sports and likes intellectual things. My fiancee is a geek chick, draws Robotech and fairy stuff, has taken to learning Japanese now, and is also a writer... damned near a one woman band. But that's where my expectations have always been. Boobage is fine, but she's gotta have a well endowed mind or else I feel held back.

 

[Adrenaline]

Yes because lord knows you'd be perfectly happy with a fat, lazy, unemployed asshole with bad personal hygiene who was bad in bed so long as he could debate the comparitive merits of T.S. Eliot and Robert Frost while performing complicated repairs on the lawnmower.

The example in the article of a man who can recognize shoe brands, whip up a gourmet meal, quote Edmund Bruke, hit my G-spot twice daily and then get some tools to fix the roof seems a tad unrealistic (to say the least). Yet if displaying some intellectual curiousity (whether it be with a reading hobby or whatnot), having a basic variety of skills in the bedroom and fixing a pipe is an example of "wanting everything" in a man that's pretty pathetic. The keyword being an example.

 

[Adrenaline]

Why don't you people just turn off the fucking television?

That works too. I dumped mine last year, and I can't say that I miss it.

 

[Olivianna]

That works too. I dumped mine last year, and I can't say that I miss it.

I'm TVless, too, and love it.

 

[Weevil]

Wow, you accuse ME of hating women, and yet you say the exact same thing I do?

I'm pretty sure I have yet to say that college bars offering girls cheap drinks on tuesday nights is some sort of obvious example of systemic discrimination against men in modern society.

But that's because I'm not a fourth rate looney toon, like yourself.

My fiancee is a geek chick, draws Robotech and fairy stuff, has taken to learning Japanese now, and is also a writer... damned near a one woman band.

She's also imaginary, so she's perfect for you in every way.

 

[Weevil]

The example in the article of a man who can recognize shoe brands, whip up a gourmet meal, quote Edmund Bruke, hit my G-spot twice daily and then get some tools to fix the roof seems a tad unrealistic (to say the least).

Hey and yet that's the example we were discussing. If following threads as simple as this really is too much for you I'm sure there are some "How big are your boobs" polls that you can actually contribute to.

 

[sunstruck]

I'm TVless, too, and love it.

There's a lot more to television than Desperate Housewives. There's the Discovery Channel, History Channel, C-Span, ESPN, Sundance, that channel that shows all those neat operations.

Most people who don't own TV's seem to think of it as some badge of intelligence when really, all it means it you don't own a TV.

 

[Olivianna]

There's a lot more to television than Desperate Housewives. There's the Discovery Channel, History Channel, C-Span, ESPN, Sundance, that channel that shows all those neat operations.

Most people who don't own TV's seem to think of it as some badge of intelligence when really, all it means it you don't own a TV.

Well, I don't have a tv because I know I'd watch stupid shit.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over a tv show, especially in the context of this thread.

 

[Lasher]

There's a lot more to television than Desperate Housewives. There's the Discovery Channel, History Channel, C-Span, ESPN, Sundance, that channel that shows all those neat operations.

Most people who don't own TV's seem to think of it as some badge of intelligence when really, all it means it you don't own a TV.

Yeh. When I think "TV", I think of network television. I don't even know what's on network television anymore. But I've got lots of channels I actually watch like Sunny described above.

 

[Adrenaline]

Hey and yet that's the example we were discussing. If following threads as simple as this really is too much for you I'm sure there are some "How big are your boobs" polls that you can actually contribute to.

Not true. We want a man who knows when to fuck us hard and when to make love. We want one that can discuss books, yet still fix the kitchen sink. Basically what we want is a balance. A man who can be sensitive and can be macho (for lack of a better word).

See, but that's kind of the problem though. Wanting a guy who can be sensitive and macho, who can discuss Wuthering Heights and fix the Garbage disposal and other examples isn't about wanting balance, it's about wanting everything.

Perhaps you are the one with a little trouble understanding the English language.

a) mrsmiawallace never mentioned what sort of books she thought her desired man should read, you were the one who gave the specific example and turned it into some high standard (god forbid the guy read classic lit anyway but that's beside the point).

b) Her example, and the one you quoted and commented on was nowhere near as extreme as the one in the article (where is her stipulation for gourmet cook and fashionista?). Equating them and then stating that my ability to recognise the different extremes shows that this "simple" thread must be too "complicated" exibits your lack of comprehension skills, not mine.

c) I'm well aware that you mentioned "other examples" but I focused on the one you highlighted. If you do not have the wit or the inclination to argue any points I bring up feel free to avoid the posts in question.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Well, I don't have a tv because I know I'd watch stupid shit.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over a tv show, especially in the context of this thread.

I did that for a while. I wish I could go back to being TV-less. I read a lot more books before I bought a TV....I like watching DVDs now and then.

 

[sunstruck]

Well, I don't have a tv because I know I'd watch stupid shit.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over a tv show, especially in the context of this thread.

Which is why the article is lame and it's author a loser. It's just TV. It's not life. Like Lit.

 

[Weevil]

Well, I don't have a tv because I know I'd watch stupid shit.

I just don't see the point of getting worked up over a tv show, especially in the context of this thread.

So, you don't own a TV so you won't watch such intellectually devoid programming such as the show being mentioned but you find time apart from your scholastic pursuits to make web posts on a porn board about the TV show.

Nice to see we all have our priorities in order.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm pretty sure I have yet to say that college bars offering girls cheap drinks on tuesday nights is some sort of obvious example of systemic discrimination against men in modern society.

But that's because I'm not a fourth rate looney toon, like yourself.

No, it's because you're an ignorant fucking retard, that's why.

She's also imaginary, so she's perfect for you in every way.

No more imaginary than your penis.

 

[Adrenaline]

There's a lot more to television than Desperate Housewives. There's the Discovery Channel, History Channel, C-Span, ESPN, Sundance, that channel that shows all those neat operations.

Most people who don't own TV's seem to think of it as some badge of intelligence when really, all it means it you don't own a TV.

I think that the quality of Discovery Channel, Travel Channel and the rest has seriously declined but sure there's still good stuff on tv. I just prefer to spend my time checking out crappy websites for entertainment instead and get any shows I like on DVD. It's cheaper!

 

[Olivianna]

So, you don't own a TV so you won't watch such intellectually devoid programming such as the show being mentioned but you find time apart from your scholastic pursuits to make web posts on a porn board about the TV show.

Nice to see we all have our priorities in order.

Well, yeah, I'd rather engage in 'conversation' with 'people' online, than to watch TV. Besides, I find I get more castration done--figuratively speaking--on the www than I would lumped in front of the toob.

 

[Weevil]

[/b]Perhaps you are the one with a little trouble understanding the English language.

a) mrsmiawallace never mentioned what sort of books she thought her desired man should read, you were the one who gave the specific example and turned it into some high standard (god forbid the guy read classic lit anyway but that's beside the point).

First off, while we're being needlessly pedantic, mrsmiawallace is talking about her actual man.

Second, I tossed the specific example off on reference to the greater point. The pressures being put on men these days. Reading wuthering heights isn't about specifically reading the collected works of the Bronte sisters it's about the larger pressures to be academically accomplished. It was a specific example to illustrate the larger picture.

[/b]
b) Her example, and the one you quoted and commented on was nowhere near as extreme as the one in the article (where is her stipulation for gourmet cook and fashionista?). Equating them and then stating that my ability to recognise the different extremes shows that this "simple" thread must be too "complicated" exibits your lack of comprehension skills, not mine.

Again, they were more specialized examples of the general point being made. That you couldn't pick up on that just shows that you are A) Obnoxiously pedantic and B) A giant dork.

[/b]
c) I'm well aware that you mentioned "other examples" but I focused on the one you highlighted. If you do not have the wit or the inclination to argue any points I bring up feel free to avoid the posts in question.

Right you focused on the examples because the actual topic of conversation, that some examples were broken off of, was a little too much for your non-TV owning, yet still surprisingly dull ass.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Again, they were more specialized examples of the general point being made. That you couldn't pick up on that just shows that you are A) Obnoxiously pedantic and B) A giant dork.

God, it sucks watching Weevil get his ass broked off and handed to him like this.

If only he'd been admitted to preschool...

 

[Weevil]

No, it's because you're an ignorant fucking retard, that's why.

Well good to see you're relying on those vaunted brain cells you claim to have that are, in fact, as imaginary as your "Fiancee"

 

[Weevil]

Well, yeah, I'd rather engage in 'conversation' with 'people' online, than to watch TV. Besides, I find I get more castration done--figuratively speaking--on the www than I would lumped in front of the toob.

I've been told, by some low brow types who watch TV, that you can do it with other, real life flesh and blood people and talk and junk.

 

[bg23]

so, i just thought i'd say, i only ever watch the simpsons anymore these days.

*nods*

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well good to see you're relying on those vaunted brain cells you claim to have that are, in fact, as imaginary as your "Fiancee"

Poor Weevil, you've spent all your life as an abject manservant and all you got out of it was some doctor snipping your kibbles and bits. How does it feel to be a dickless loser? Those of us on the other side of the tracks desperately want to know.

 

[sunstruck]

lumped in front of the toob.

See, that was kind of...superior. You look down on people who watch TV. It's no different than being "lumped" in front of the monitor. Mindless entertainment is mindless entertainment. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing different either.

 

[Adrenaline]

First off, while we're being needlessly pedantic, mrsmiawallace is talking about her actual man.

Second, I tossed the specific example off on reference to the greater point. The pressures being put on men these days. Reading wuthering heights isn't about specifically reading the collected works of the Bronte sisters it's about the larger pressures to be academically accomplished. It was a specific example to illustrate the larger picture.


.

Well I also emphasized in later posts that iI too saw it as merely an example but an example (miawallace's) that I found perfectly acceptable unlike the one in the article. I never thought that reading "Wuthering Heights" was specifcally referring to Bronte sisters collective works, merely an example of classic literature; and to go slightly off track I see nothing wrong in expecting one's partner (man or woman) to be academically accomplished but then that's a personal preference and the issue is more about how many ideals women expect in their potential mate and what are "deal breakers".

I don't see my identification of the difference between her SO and the example placed in the article as being the same which is why I don't think hers illustrates the points in the article. That is why I highlighted it because IMO the article was making a glaringly obvious point and not worth much comment.

If you wish for arguments to stay within your control I suggest conducting discussions with yourself. That way you won't have to resort to snide insults when you're confronted with disagreement.