I am noticing a weird little trend in usage of vocabulary.
I notice that the vast majority of relationship advice articles and stuff say the word "partner" rather than actually defining the relationship. This is the prevalent trend in women's mags, teenage girls' mags, celebrity mags, other crap. They kind of mumble this "partner" nonsense because they "do not want to put a label on the relationship."
What the fruck? Are you kidding me? What the hell does the term "partner" even mean? I remember being back in kindergarten and the teacher would tell us, "Find a partner to go out on the playground with you."
It is a term that a little kid uses to mean some light and fluffy playing partner. It is nottt a term that a grown adult woman or man needs to use to indicate someone they are having sesss with. There are already words that exist to denote a grown adult having sex with another grown adult. Husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend. A person you had sex with is not a "partner." It's just some random person you had sex with.
Don't attach some useless misleading pseudo-label to it. Just be honest about the nature of the non-existent relationship. There is no relationship between the two people. They are simply perfect strangers that happened to meet in a club bathroom and let their lack of inhibitions rule their behavior. (No relation to that really fun TV show from the 1980s titled "Perfect Strangers" featuring one Bronson Pinchot.)
At least with complete sluts, they are being honest. They know there is no relationship between the two sepp-people whatsoever to speak of. They know that there is no relationship, no commitment, no meaning at all in their chance meeting. What the hell are they? Friends? Business associates? Family members? Rolling stone fan club members in arms? Nope. There is no substance or quality to their physical intimacy. They did not bother creating an emotional bond upon which to
In my opinion, if they are going to do that, they should just do it once with any given person and then move on. Rather than keeping this person off as emergency "partner" contact and rather than pretending there is any semblance of a relationship. That would stave off the embarrassment, awkwardness, and humiliation that accompany such interactions. All of this has been documented in those very reliable sources of this type of information, namely women's mags.
At least sluts admit that with one-night stands, club happenchances, and the ilk, the two participants will exchange body fluids and then will be on their merry ways. They are not pretending the two people are "partners." They can then go about their business and forget that they ever met each other.
This is chronicling the gradual erosion of any hint of a genuine relationship.
I realize now that they are quietly switching to this catch-all term "partner" so that hyper-sensitive <<liberals>> are not forced to face facts of their own self-destructive tendencies.
So they do not have to confront the fact that they have no stability, no security in their emotional relationships.
I guess liberals screech and scream if anyone dares makes a mention of the fact that a sexual relationship is usually supposed to have some modicum of commitment and emotional bond.
======
There is a similar sorry trend following on the coattails of the aforementioned. I notice a weird little thing lately in all news reports about the economy and demographics. And also in women's mag articles.
They lump all mothers who are ->currently the sole provider or "legal guardian" of their respective family into one big huge lump sum. They use this general bank term to collectively address alllll mothers that are not currently in a state of active marriage right this second. As if they are all exactly the same.
This is even though simple facts dictate that the phrase "single mother" does not describe all these groups accurately. "Single mother" does nottt apply equally nor does it define___
When I hear the phrase "single mother," I think of a crackwhore baby-daddy situation, wherein both the female parent as well as the male parent are stupid, irresponsible crackwhores.
"Don't you dare call attention to the fact that they royally screwed up their lives. And also started off their kid on the fast track to disappointment and failure. Don't you dare call them 'unwed mothers.'"
"Don't you dare make a distinction between widows, divorced women, and promiscuous idiots that got pregnant because they couldn't keep it in their pants."
They are subconsciously trying to convince people that all these wildly divergent categories are part and parcel of the exact same thing. By using this same general phrase repeatedly, the media are trying to hypnotize people into thinking there is no difference between these vastly___
I think they are hoping people will forget that each of these demographic categories have very little in common. There is a canyon of difference between the future foresight, life planning, and decision-making processes of each of these
It all comes down to the fact that they are trying to make single unwed mothers, i.e., dumbazzes, more acceptable in mainstream culture and society. Just like how in recent years, this new-school pseudo-feminism has been trying to force people into accepting sluttery as normal behavior. I suppose this follows hot on the heels of that one. Since they strained constipatedly trying to make that one acceptable and welcome in polite society, this is the next step. It is the consequence of sluttery. Or more accurately, it is the next gradual move down the downward spiral.
I notice that the vast majority of relationship advice articles and stuff say the word "partner" rather than actually defining the relationship. This is the prevalent trend in women's mags, teenage girls' mags, celebrity mags, other crap. They kind of mumble this "partner" nonsense because they "do not want to put a label on the relationship."
What the fruck? Are you kidding me? What the hell does the term "partner" even mean? I remember being back in kindergarten and the teacher would tell us, "Find a partner to go out on the playground with you."
It is a term that a little kid uses to mean some light and fluffy playing partner. It is nottt a term that a grown adult woman or man needs to use to indicate someone they are having sesss with. There are already words that exist to denote a grown adult having sex with another grown adult. Husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend. A person you had sex with is not a "partner." It's just some random person you had sex with.
Don't attach some useless misleading pseudo-label to it. Just be honest about the nature of the non-existent relationship. There is no relationship between the two people. They are simply perfect strangers that happened to meet in a club bathroom and let their lack of inhibitions rule their behavior. (No relation to that really fun TV show from the 1980s titled "Perfect Strangers" featuring one Bronson Pinchot.)
At least with complete sluts, they are being honest. They know there is no relationship between the two sepp-people whatsoever to speak of. They know that there is no relationship, no commitment, no meaning at all in their chance meeting. What the hell are they? Friends? Business associates? Family members? Rolling stone fan club members in arms? Nope. There is no substance or quality to their physical intimacy. They did not bother creating an emotional bond upon which to
In my opinion, if they are going to do that, they should just do it once with any given person and then move on. Rather than keeping this person off as emergency "partner" contact and rather than pretending there is any semblance of a relationship. That would stave off the embarrassment, awkwardness, and humiliation that accompany such interactions. All of this has been documented in those very reliable sources of this type of information, namely women's mags.
At least sluts admit that with one-night stands, club happenchances, and the ilk, the two participants will exchange body fluids and then will be on their merry ways. They are not pretending the two people are "partners." They can then go about their business and forget that they ever met each other.
This is chronicling the gradual erosion of any hint of a genuine relationship.
I realize now that they are quietly switching to this catch-all term "partner" so that hyper-sensitive <<liberals>> are not forced to face facts of their own self-destructive tendencies.
So they do not have to confront the fact that they have no stability, no security in their emotional relationships.
I guess liberals screech and scream if anyone dares makes a mention of the fact that a sexual relationship is usually supposed to have some modicum of commitment and emotional bond.
======
There is a similar sorry trend following on the coattails of the aforementioned. I notice a weird little thing lately in all news reports about the economy and demographics. And also in women's mag articles.
They lump all mothers who are ->currently the sole provider or "legal guardian" of their respective family into one big huge lump sum. They use this general bank term to collectively address alllll mothers that are not currently in a state of active marriage right this second. As if they are all exactly the same.
This is even though simple facts dictate that the phrase "single mother" does not describe all these groups accurately. "Single mother" does nottt apply equally nor does it define___
When I hear the phrase "single mother," I think of a crackwhore baby-daddy situation, wherein both the female parent as well as the male parent are stupid, irresponsible crackwhores.
"Don't you dare call attention to the fact that they royally screwed up their lives. And also started off their kid on the fast track to disappointment and failure. Don't you dare call them 'unwed mothers.'"
"Don't you dare make a distinction between widows, divorced women, and promiscuous idiots that got pregnant because they couldn't keep it in their pants."
They are subconsciously trying to convince people that all these wildly divergent categories are part and parcel of the exact same thing. By using this same general phrase repeatedly, the media are trying to hypnotize people into thinking there is no difference between these vastly___
I think they are hoping people will forget that each of these demographic categories have very little in common. There is a canyon of difference between the future foresight, life planning, and decision-making processes of each of these
It all comes down to the fact that they are trying to make single unwed mothers, i.e., dumbazzes, more acceptable in mainstream culture and society. Just like how in recent years, this new-school pseudo-feminism has been trying to force people into accepting sluttery as normal behavior. I suppose this follows hot on the heels of that one. Since they strained constipatedly trying to make that one acceptable and welcome in polite society, this is the next step. It is the consequence of sluttery. Or more accurately, it is the next gradual move down the downward spiral.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment