Website thou art lol

There's a widely held belief in US pop-cultureⁱ that satire is only to be used against the powerful, something along the lines of Molly Ivins'

Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel — it's vulgar.

The author is exactly what you'd expect of your run-of-the-mill libertardⁱⁱ and her quote is exactly what you'd expect to see coming out of them.ⁱⁱⁱ It's not entirely wrong, but it does miss the point in exactly the way a carpenter might miss a point of architecture, or the soubrette a point of social behaviour.

To round things out : castigat ridendo mores, the actual breast at which satire nurses and always has nursed, simply indicates one is to mock the wrong. Whether the powerful or the powerless are targeted for their wrong is in the end irrelevant, and the presumption to the contrary fundamentally classist, in the bad way one could be classist.^iv

In line with this reasoning, we will now proceed to poke fun at an otherwise very humorous (if unintentionally so) personal website, aptly titled womanthouartgod.com. To quote!

ELISE SUTTON FOR FEMALE SUPREMACY

SUBMITTED BY BOGDAN OF CROATIA, FROM ELISE'S SITE FEMALESUPERIORITY.COM

"Once I learned about the natures of both men and women and once I learned about the natural dominance and supremacy of women over men, it became the key to unlocking and understanding all submissive desires within men. It matters not how these desires are expressed through different fantasies. The root and the core of these are all the same. Namely, the desire of the male gender is to be dominated and ruled by the female gender. Therefore, no expression of this submissive nature surprises me or shocks me. I have heard it all from my male clients and I have seen it all through my own participation in the Female Domination lifestyle.

RASA: I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF THIS, I HAVE BEEN PREACHING THIS FOR MANY YEARS.

This might strike one as a strange, illegible arrangement until the unobvious premise is explained. You see, "rasa"^v, presumably the author of the website in question, would like to reference material published by some other, more successful preacher. She can not do this directly, for whatever reasons^vi, and she doesn't even link to it, but she does intersperse her own commentary - and in order to make it look on the page closer to how it looks in her head, which is to say very very important, she uses all capitals.

"But the common thread to all these sexual and submissive desires is the longing for loving female authority. To me, that is the true definition of Female Domination. Female Domination is Loving Female Authority. That is what most men want and need. All these specific fetishes or desires are the outward expressions of a man's need for loving female authority.

Suppose you're in a car crash and hurt your back, which means that for the next two weeks you will have to be immobilised, which in turn means that you will not be able to get up for any purpose on your own, but instead have to call for help and rather than direct your muscles as per your intent, use your mouth to direct the helpers, with obviously more latency and overall poorer results. This in itself is a stressful arrangement, wouldn't it be great if the helpers also sucked your cock ?

It would, wouldn't it, it'd almost make the thing livable, at least for the first couple of days.

Suppose you're too lazy to get out of bed in the morning, would it be better if the alarm clock shook its hips at you enticingly instead of blerghing annoyingly ?

It would, wouldn't it.

Suppose you're too lazy to chew. Would it be better if instead of being intubated, or spoonfed, you just suckle on a nice, big, warm juicy tit ?

Of course it would.

There's definite appeal in melding the universal desire of all lesser men (and women, for that matter) to relinquish control over their lives with the universal memory of infancy all men (and all women, for that matter) share. Would it be better if instead of having to go to work, stress over bills or worry over the progressing retardation of the country all around you to instead join the retard pack and just mop around the house, doing what X says ? And would X having tits make this less or more appealing, on the net ?

Obviously not all men could put up with this arrangement, but that's perfectly fine : most women can't mother around the clock without going nutso anyway.^vii Consequently, everyone's ideal arrangement is this situation where most men are obsequiously uxurious, most women are mostly mothering, a few men rule the world and those mothering women bow to them and gleefuly suckle their toes as entrees to more ellaborate sexual service. Which, shockingly, is exactly how the world has been working for the known past, and will continue to work for the foreseeable future.^viii

Terms like Female Domination, Female Supremacy, and Female Superiority were all coined by men, as they tried to explain their desires toward the female gender. So women are wise to capitalize by using those same terms (thus the reason for the title of my web site).

Indeed, women are generally speaking wise to follow in the tracks cut for them by men. This perhaps may not have been what the almost literate author intended to convey, however.

Words are merely verbal pictures.

I will cut this phrase out and let it stand on its own for it is representative of two mistakes of the noobish thinker.

To consider the first, let's follow the mental convention of a two panel cartoon. The left pane reflects the situation, the right pane adds the caption.

1. L : Rough looking bum mugging pencilneck in the street ; R : "the homeless are merely people without homes"
2. L : Person on deathbed in oncology ward ; R : "cigarettes are merely plant shavings wrapped in paper"
3. L : Person burning on the electric chair ; R : "electricity is merely the movement of electrons"

So... what of it ? I get it, the ignorant love their ignorance, and replacing a common word that has lost all its ignorance cachet with a new word or construction that still maintains all the innocent wonder and puzzlement of not knowing what the fuck anything means is a way for these people to derive their stunted version of intellectual pleasure through the abuse of language. The pleasure part does not make abuse any less abuse however, and you are well advised to consider that while raping a woman offers directly the excuse that at least she is being used in a manner in which she was designed to be used, thusly abusing words allows no such excuse. It is indeed a worse crime to be doing this to a word than to do anything you could conceivably do to a woman without using tools.

To consider the second... well the second's a morass. For one, there's no such thing as verbal icons, as the author maladroitely confuses noun and verb in his confused blather. Nouns are indeed stored and referenced mostly as pictures by the uneducated, the very young and the (mildly) mentally retarded. This goes away as the brain matures. For the other, it's not entirely clear what words are, and this from a variety of perspective we won't be covering here for a lack of space and patience. For a third, the relation between mental images as a term of art as variously employed in the various professional fields of inquiry into the matter and "pictures", especially if considered as the author is likely to be meaning the term in light of the refinement so far exhibited, is ambiguous at best. No, your head isn't a large ipad with a directoryful of poorly exposed, grainy vacation pictures which can't be copied off it because Steve Gods likes captive audiences.

The right signal sent to the male mind will conjure up the programming that has gone into his subconscious since he was a child.

More playing with words. It's not the case that it's "programming", in the nefarious sense implied, but that aside I certainly hope that everyone had a mother, which mother loved and nursed them, and so they were "programmed" into fucking humanity.

Men create the majority of FemDom art, pictures and images to express how powerful women are in their eyes and how weak they feel in a woman's presence.

Alternatively, men create the majority of everything everywhere, because that's what men do while women suck, or as the trope goes "men do and women are".

These images represent what men are feeling inside. The poet and the song writer use words and the artist uses pictures to express their inner feelings.

Dissecting the infantile products of this youthful mind, I am starting to feel a little like I'm playing in the entrails of a seven year old, which is grossing me out. This is fundamentally why on one hand most idiots never get a clear and complete rebuttal to their idiocy, and on the other why it's not a good idea to allow in the public sphere people not yet mature enough for the job : most everyone is not interested in playing around with the entrails of children. There are some interested in it, and there are still more who have no choice, by virtue of being mothers. But otherwise, your average adult would very much be spared if at all possible, so how about we get serious with those maturity exams, and do not allow the use of computers to any kids that fail to pass ?

I understand that there's not as much manual labour needing to be done these days as there used to be in the past, but look at it in a positive light : if all the intellectual refuse of the world, all those teenagers unable to pass muster and satisfy their Baccalaureat were chained up in the warehouses where cows and pigs are currently being fed, wouldn't this likely result in an improvement of the quality of life for the poor animals ? I doubt the evil slaughterhouse companies would still keep the cattle in waist high shit and full of antibiotics if half the spots were occupied by stupid or lazy girls and boys that failed to cross over into humanity when they were eighteen and had their chance. Your average meat farm would probably look a lot more like the cubicals and dormitoirs of today, and that in my opinion would be a net gain, for all involved.

So no, the "poet and the singer-song writer" do not use images to "express their inner feelings", little miss Julia A. Moore.

So when a woman becomes that image by donning a fetish outfit or saying a term or using her voice in a certain manner, she touches the male submissive nature and triggers his feelings and desires, thus he becomes weak and helpless. Then the woman can interact with the man with all barriers and defense mechanisms down. Now she is free to interact with the man in a more meaningful way. Now true intimacy and bonding can take place between the woman and the man because she now can see herself as he does. She now sees that in his eyes, she is indeed a Goddess.

Leaving aside the pedestrian manner of expression, there is a point burried deeply in here, but it is a lot less gender specific than the author would like to imagine. As a point of fact, only in complete abjection attendant upon absolute abandonment of the self can one interact with the other as one actually is. This fundamental truth is what makes the master-slave relationship superior to conventional marriage (and its degenerate forms, dating and what have you), in that instead of the meeting of two pretenses there's the meeting of one nude, honest person with another. It doesn't work too well both ways, not really, but on one hand something is still better than nothing at all, and on the other the nudity (metaphorical as well as physical) of the slave does allow a very useful and very efficacious condensation point for meaningful communication, if only the two are sophisticated enough to be able to use it. The entire process is not without its costs, risks and perils, but at least it does something.

So I say to the ladies, please do not get offended by FemDom artwork, videos, or literature, no matter how graphic in nature some of these may be. Instead, look more closely at what is being expressed by the male gender. What are men trying to convey when they produce media that shows men collared and bound at the feet of a woman? Ask yourself, why are sites like The Other World Kingdom so popular with men? What do these pictures say about the male submissive nature?

Honestly I had no idea whatever obscure rehash of Acworth's Armory from a femdom perspective is particularly popular with men. I do know some people in nearby Czech Republic tried it out, I knew it didn't work out principally for financial reasons, I had no idea it was "so popular". Kink.com revenue still is in the 10s of millions a year to this day, catering principally to the large market of men interested in seeing women variously humiliated in a friendly, conversational manner. The Other World Kingdom started with about 3 million in capital, which was mostly extinguished in a decade. The land and buildings were sold years ago, for a nominal profit (however inflation being what it is...) But perhaps cold, dark numbers get in the way of the verbal pictures that words are or something.

That aside, my educated guess^ix would be that when men depict men collared at the feet of women, they would principally be trying to convey their desire to dominate other men not only and not just through the direct avenue, but also through the deliciously devious method of having a woman do it for them. That, and a whole host of fuzzily related issues, such as for instance : you know how car crashes are fascinating to people, sometimes to the degree of sexual arousal ? The driving force there'd seem to be a deeply seated "look at that and I'm still alive" reinforcement mechanism. According to at least Al Pacino^x, the fundamental driver of the problem gambler is exactly the same thing. And besides, there's a strong drive in male psychology to be maimed and gruesomely murdered, which is how things like knights and for that matter war were invented in the first place. It has precious little to do with woman in and of herself, at best she's yet another prop in this complex, century spanning, intricate male masturbatory project. From which perspective, the little girl's "what do you think they meant when they inadvertently squirted all over my red riding hood" line of inquiry is, again, made of squick.

If a woman will look closer, get over her prudish and self-righteous ways and examine the message more than the content, then she will gain an incredible insight into the male psyche.

Learn all about the mom that invented a new way to make money by renting out the space inside your nostrils that all the wall street banks really hate.

What is the underlying message to all of these expressions, regardless of the content? Is it not simply the male gender recognizing his need to submit to the female gender? Is it not the inner male child, crying out to be disciplined and trained by the female gender? Is it not the true nature of man breaking forth in his attempt to surrender himself to the female gender?

It's quite improbable that gender plays much of a role if at all.

Yes, the inner child of men and women alike cries out to be "disciplined", which means a whole set of complex things (which does not exclude violence, or copulation, but doesn't limit to either nor perhaps requires them absolutely). The problem with mixing gender into this basic premise is that in point of fact the female gender equally cries out to be "disciplined", except in a different manner and with a different flavour. Even if it expresses itself as simply as "make me a baby", which is to say "make me into a mother", it still is what it is, people coming to the altar of the holy Cock to worship and be transformed. Lovingly, if possible, painfully if it has to be, but in any case not ignored. Anything but that.

The thing women must keep in mind about Female Domination is that men need it. It is almost always the man who will introduce the Female Domination lifestyle to the woman.

This is factually true. The irony is that a similarly factual observation, such as "It is almost always the man who will introduce woman to a new geographic location" would perhaps not quite curdle the author's toes in the same self-stroking manner. Why should that be ? Same thing, same structure, what is the big difference ? I suppose it could be said that men do the exploring because they need to, because they suck and aren't good enough to overthrow their better peers already entrenched in the known spaces, and so on. Again, women'd be an incidental in this story, a convenient prop to have that is perhaps worth the hassle of shipping over on the third trip or so.

That irony aside, the thing is one of those excellent coincidences that the entire "intelligent design" argument is based on in the first place. Think, to be the master of the women whose husbands voluntarily and of their own devising enslaved themselves. It's not like you had to train the women to train the men, o, not at all. What more and what else to ask for ?

A courageous man with submissive desires introduces Female Domination to his female partner. Why do men do this? It's because men desire and need to be in submission to women. No matter how hard society or religion tries to tell men differently, something deep inside of them yearns to surrender to a powerful woman. These desires grow stronger with age and men will spend countless hours dreaming and fantasizing about Female Domination. They will pursue these desires and struggle with these desires trying to come to terms with them but sadly they will not come to terms with them until they truly have a relationship with a woman that can explore these desires with him in a loving manner.

I think this is factually correct in many cases, and I can only hope there's an increase in the future.

The other side of this dynamic is that women who embrace the dominant role and who allow their dominant nature to come out, end up absolutely loving this lifestyle. It never ceases to amaze me how many women who once were real hesitant about being dominant, end up loving it so much that they later say that they would never go back to being in submission to a man or only having traditional sex with a man. The Female Domination lifestyle is liberating to women and it is also liberating for men as they now can fulfill that yearning within them. The Female Domination lifestyle can be a win/win relationship for both the woman and the man.

This is generally true, again for both genders : with few exceptions, men and women that do embrace the dynamic tend to love it and never wish to move back, or indeed be able to even consider vanilla as in any way sexual.

Arabs from strict environments will be aroused by the sight of nude womanly earlobes, or calves, or necklines. This is a learned behaviour, and while occasionally it may happen you get a hard-on from something of the kind it'd be very far from a rule. Obviously after transplantation into the less repressive culture, those same Arabs become tolerant of what once were "sexual stimuli". The same process is at work everywhere : while a nice t-bone steak may be appealing to you, it's unlikely you'll eat it off the floor, especially if you customarily have it with a side of french fries and a nice cold beer. Even if you've been eating off the floor your entire life, in your god forsaken hut with earthen flooring and no glass in the windows. Well... "windows". Wallholes.

As far as my belief system goes, I have grown a lot over the years and I am a Female Supremacist. A Female Supremacist is a woman who believes that women are the superior sex over men. She is a woman who has come to believe that society would be better served if it were ran by women instead of men. A Female Supremacist believes that women should be in positions of authority from government clear down to marriage, where the wife should rule over the husband.

This is fundamentally the mode of statal decay, in history : as the government moves from warlords to bureaucrats, and the art from scandal to mannerism, women get increasingly more of a voice in public affairs, to everyone's detriment. Chiefly to theirs, but generally to the state's and all citizens'.

A Female Supremacist believes that women and men are different. She believes that they both have strengths and weaknesses, but that the woman has more strengths than the man and that she contains the traits that is best fitted to be in a position of authority.

Traits like persay a facility with plural formation in highly analytical languages such as English, which don't ask too much of her womanly wisdom.^xi Imagine how the quoted text would have looked in say French, where every verbal image has to match the gender of every... what do you count those other parts of speech which are neither verbs nor images again ? Officious intermeddlerers ? Something like that anyway.

RASA: LOOK, IT IS A PITY WOMEN ARE NOT JOINING ME BUT THEY WILL. A LADY CALLED ME TODAY AND AFFIRMED THAT SHE AGREES WITH ME TOTALLY AND WANTS TO SEE ME DO THE MATRIARCHY BIT. THERE IS MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS. WOMEN ARE SCARRED, BATTERED, USED SO MUCH BY PATRIARCHY IN THE PAST AND BRUTALIZED THAT THEY ARE SLOW TO TAKE RISKS. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WOMEN ARE AFRAID OF GETTING HURT? I AM GETTING HURT BY CONSTANT ATTACKS BY THE PUBLIC, CONSTANT ACCUSATIONS. BUT I AM EMPOWERED AND ANOINTED TO TAKE THE RISKS, AND I AM THE PERSON GOD HAS CHOSEN. WHY HAS GOD CHOSEN ME? ONE REASON COULD BE THAT NO OTHER WOMAN WANTS TO DO IT. MAYBE SOME OTHERS ARE CAPABLE, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE PAIN, THE PROBLEMS, THE RISKS, ETC. BUT I AM WILLING TO DO THIS. I AM ALL FOR GOD AND GOD FOR ME, AND SO I JUST SAY, 'HERE I AM, SEND ME.' THE OTHERS ARE HOLDING BACK. I AM PEEVED THAT MEN KEEP TELLING ME TO REACH THE WOMEN. I AM REACHING EVERYONE BUT THE WOMEN AREN'T JOINING. THAT IS NOT MY FAULT, IT IS THEIRS. THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO BUT LEAD THE HORSE TO WATER, BUT IF IT WON'T DRINK, THEN I CANNOT FORCE IT.)

So deliciously internet-y, this thing. It's really a pity vaguely defined classes do not join random retards in their mangled, misguided quests of self-centralisation. But they will. Definitely. Because those who have failed to control the past are in the best position to express in definitive terms what the future's like.

I hope you, at some point, laughed. Did you ?

1. To be perfectly clear, there's no such a thing as culture in the US, nor was there ever. Any reference to "culture" in the plain that I may inadvertently make does imply the pop- prefix. [↩]
2. I guess she stayed closeted her entire life, but nevertheless : teaching people to read and write and stopping there results in abominations such as US columnists. It's not that they're bad people, or entirely wrong. It's just that they fail to say anything worthwhile, and over time become entrenched in their repeated failure to the degree it almost seems successful, to them. Self-coherence is always in practice preferred to coherence with the experimental data, after all. [↩]
3. Consider the following exchange :
   Me Check out fucktards totally not comprehending fractions.

   The name of this trope comes from basic fractional mathematics. If we metaphorically imagine individual numbers as the minds of the audience members, some larger and some smaller, the Lowest Common Denominator is the show itself, a number that is calculated by taking all of them into account. If you would think too hard about the metaphor, it would be heavily in favor of the egalitarian interpretation: after all, in mathematics, the LCD itself, the product of a multiplication, tends to be a large number, almost like in The Sons and the Spears metaphor, the result of including everyone is more than the sum of its parts.

   Its other common interpretation was probably intended to evoke the 'Greatest Common Factor' concept, a number that is trimmed until it's small enough that it can be used to divide any of the other chosen numbers with it, just like mainstream works are trimmed for Joe Sixpack, but ironically, its users just demonstrated the shallowness that they intended to reference with it, by quickly assuming that any calculation with the words "common" and "low" in it must have a "weak" result.

   Her Yet still in its reddit-style pedantic "we"ing tone. I dont get how you stand it.

   Let's work the mathematics of it : suppose the numbers are 1/5, 1/11 and 1/13. These are fractions, and in decimal notation they come to 0.2, 0.(09) and 0.(076923). The parantheses are there to indicate the repeating convention, which is to say the digit sucession within repeats infinitely. This is necessary because the decimal notation is uniquely inadequate to represent fractions.

   Their lowest common denominator is 715. It being a denominator, the fraction properly written out is 1/715, or in decimal notation 0.00. This state of affairs clearly maps to the fate of shows where producers attempt to satisfy the erroneous thinking processes, mistaken assumptions and general stupidity of a large crowd of people : ever ballooning effort resulting in ever diminishing output. This problem comes about because while truth is just one, error is diverse, and consequently the probability of different people sharing the same stupidities is dismal.

   The same situation also causes market segmentation, as a desperate, last ditch attempt to somehow salvage untenable reality into practical entertainment : if you make a show about libertards, who being all libertards they're all divisible by 2 say, then you will encounter series like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/16. Thus working with 1/16 allows you to create works which everyone in that particular subculture can accept, even if with varying degrees of success. The occasional 1/6s or 1/14s involved may errupt in periphery hatedoms (the latter case particularly bitter, especially if a) there aren't enough 14s around for 14 to be a thing, and b) nobody bothered to tell the 14 fucktard why and wherefore exactly 14 is not at all 16, even if it seems to him there's little difference of any import), but what's a producer to do ? Conversely, making a show about rednecks, who for the sake of this metaphor would all be divisible by 3, you end up with 1/3s and 1/9s and 1/27s, with probably a lot of mutual animosity between the 1/4 and 1/3 groups, and a lot of strange, unexplicable fraternisation at the 1/8 - 1/9 coincidence. Or vice-versa. Trying however to meld these two takes one from a peaceable 1/8 = 0.12 and 1/9 = 0.11 to an untenable 1/72 = 0.01, and while diligent business competence may be able to extract some value out of 0.1s, there's no miracle in God's arsenal which may make 0.01 anything but a rounding error.

   So yes, this'd be exactly the problem discussed here : firm conviction of illiterate ignoramuses, presented with all the authority of... a herd of such ignoramuses, that magic "we". As if adding more stupid people together makes the resulting mob somehow more intellectually respectable, not significantly less respectable than any stupid person on their own. This is precisely what is meant when one speaks of the bad idea to teach people to read and write and nothing else : the results are idiots who think they know fractions, and think they are in fact producing intelligent discussion of the subject matter, as illustrated by the quoted material, while simultaneously being more wrong than the beast of the fields, bereft of any arithmetic or linguistic ability as it finds itself. Because sometimes, less is more, and to the man who only uses hammers to drive nails through his skull, the absence of any hammers is a great blessing. [↩]

4. It's one thing to defend class based on reality, such as observing that women generally are happy as obedient servants at the feet of men that are their masters, even if some particular men and some particular women enjoy the converse arrangement. It's quite another thing to defend class based on convention, such as observing that women must grovel abjectly at the feet of their resplendant male owners because "they always have" (historical convention) or "all the others do" (peer pressure) or "so God has ordained" or "dire consequences otherwise" and so on and so forth. [↩]
5. I will be using the small-initials convention as practiced in the BDSM context to denote lifetime, dedicated slaves because this approach seems oddly appropriate to me. [↩]
6. Let's for a moment step back and consider the afore-linked French comedy. How is it that a wife can have a rather motherly, affectionate but otherwise balanced relationship with the adolescent maid her husband is fucking on the side ? It would be something in her head that allows her this, and then therefore it'd be something in one's head that prevents this, too. Well... that's exactly the problem, rasa can not talk to elise because she lacks whatever'd be needed to allow that interaction. I for instance readily resolve this problem on the solid grounding of a certain intellectual tradition, which allows me to reference and link anything I wish with absolute impunity, but then again I've learned more than the letters and the digits in this life. rasa still has a way to go, struggling as she is with the transparent device of the "user generated content". You see, it's not for her, it's... for a friend of hers, and she didn't do it, but some reader did. Bogdan. From Croatia. Honest! [↩]
7. Ask any woman involved with children over long intervals, especially in "trapped in time" scenarios where the kids never grow up, such as in a school setting. She will tell you that sooner or latter this point is reached where she distinctly feels that either she gets out or else she goes insane. Insane, in a very peculiar way, at that. The career teachers are, of course, those people who have made it past this point. [↩]
8. And while there's nothing wrong with it as there could never be something wrong with the natual, nevertheless the idea that half a reality constitutes some sort of novel discovery... you have to be US-minded to buy into this fiction, seriously. "I have discovered the pachiderm leg, it is a magical thing which is found in dark rooms where one feels about blindfolded."

   To be followed up, of course, by the immdiate mobilisation of marketing efforts to "spread awareness" of this entirely novel pachiderm leg discovery, and thus "change the world". I suppose by now you're too petrified to laugh, but allow me to present my perhaps useless if sincere assurances that it's incredibly funny. [↩]

9. As an anthropologist I mean, educated. [↩]

10. You're a lemon. Like a bad car. There is something... there is something inherently defective in you, and you, and you, and me, and all of us. We're all lemons. We look like everyone else, but what makes us different is our defect. See, most gamblers, when they go to gamble, they go to win. When we go to gamble, we go to lose. Subconsciously. Me, I never feel better than when they're raking the chips away; not bringing them in. And everyone here knows what I'm talking about. Hell, even when we win it's just a matter of time before we give it all back. But when we lose, that's another story. When we lose, and I'm talking about the kind of loss that makes your asshole pucker to the size of a decimal point - you know what I mean - You've just recreated the worst possible nightmare this side of malignant cancer, for the twentieth goddamn time; and you're standing there and you suddenly realise, Hey, I'm still... here. I'm still breathing. I'm still alive. Us lemons, we fuck shit up all the time on purpose. Because we constantly need to remind ourselves we're alive. Gambling's not your problem. It's this fucked up need to feel something. To convince yourself you exist. That's the problem.

    [↩]

11. For a more complete deconstruction of why and how feminine practically means stupid, try the Anonimity, or the urban versus rural dispute article. [↩]