Set, don't bogart, but pass it along ... dawg
Anyone up for some gin-soaked panties or maxi pads?
that's just so gross cav....where do you get these notions?
He's been smoking his basil, again...
Bombay Sapphire...and I blame BPB for forcing me to get uppity about the choice of liquor.
If you gonna have that stuff, don't waste the good booze, gus. Other than that, Tanqueray or Bombay would be nice.
Regular panties won't do. They have to be from legal concubines.
Don't use thongs though, they can't hold that much.
Spoken from bartending experience, i take, it, Mo . . .
I've tried both uses, set... they never seem to hold what I'm...eehh, nemmind...
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
I will reply to the main thesis when I have it printed out and have a chance to read and study it. However, since several replies have been made to the preamble, I comment on the subject of generalities.
Generalities are a key ingredient in human survival, from the jungle of trees and wild animals to the concrete ones of hurling metal containers and human animals of various degrees of domestication. But that does not mean that any particular generality is correct in all circumstances. Nor does it imply that generalities are to be dismissed out of hand without consideration for their foundation and possible application at the moment.
A trivial example.
In the jungle of trees and wild animals, if I happen to see a large member of the cat family, standing say about a meter high at the shoulder, wearing a coat of black and orange stripes, and said animal is looking at me, exposing its teeth, and making noises I consider to be growling, in general I would consider that I might be in for some trouble.
Change the scene to the concrete jungle and the same scenario and I might be able to discard the generality above because most such cats in the city are restrained by strong metal bars, and frequently in more progressive enviornments, craftily designed enclosures which preclude said cat from making lunch of me.
On the other hand if the first scene is in the city, but the cat is loose in my back yard the original generality might be extremely applicable.
The trivial scenario above is modified only slightly from an experience a coworker and fellow car pool member actually experienced. We live close to a mountain in the middle of our city. A mountain lion did enter his back yard and nearly killed his dog before he was able to unload his rifle at the cat. Unfortunately he was not as strong a proponent of gun control as I am and he failed to hit the large cat, which never the less decided it didn't really care for the loud percussive noises and left the yard in one easy leap.
My Point? That generalities usually have some foudation in valid reality, and thus are not to be dismissed lightly. However, slavish adhearance to the generalties is not always appropriate. And there are generalities which are absolutely false, but which are founded upon predjudice, malice, an undeserved assumption of superiority or some other equally invalid premise. Those generalities do need to be exposed, decried, and abolished from good society.
A woman is nothing outside a group. Her entire self-worth and value is derived through her participation and her position within a group; her entire self-worth is derived by how desirable and appealing she becomes to the opposite sex and, as a consequence, in how she becomes a willing and capable social and cultural tool. ...
A woman, in essence, has no real individuality but plays any part she deems is attractive and necessary to achieve her goal of belonging and reproducing. ...
Unlike a man, a woman does not fully carry the tag of her genetic history but can be traded and swapped between different clans or tribes or cultures like a valuable commodity; a practice she submits to, willingly and easily due to her temperament.
Where on earth did you come up with these absurd generalities? Are the women of your acquaintance really mindless robots who are interested in nothing but marriage and children, or are you projecting your own myopic illusions on them?
The women I know are strong, creative individuals who would not willingly submit to being traded as commodities. We are more likely to make the community meet our own standards than try to fit in. We are not interested in brash, swaggering idiots, but are looking for decent men whose self-confidence reflects their history of success at a variety of endeavors and who will be equal partners in marriage, which includes doing their fair share of housework and diaper changing as well as not imposing unilateral decisions.
IMO, the cultural changes that have come with civilization have had a positive effect on men (note that physical characteristics take a very long time to evolve and have not changed significantly in the last 10,000 years). It is not the "feminization" of man, but the civilization of all
human beings that is responsible for the progress that most of us enjoy to the fullest.