"Say my name, say my name..."

Tuesday, 24 November, Year 7 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Motto: today i learned that mircea_popescu listens to destiny's child
~ thestringpuller

Here's a random cull off tumblr no doubt worth ten thousand domestic arguments :

what-are-you

So now that we've settled down with some milk and cookies, ask yourself, why is it that you expect your boyfriend introduce you to his friends ? No, "because he's my boyfriend" doesn't really cut it as an answer, seeing how it's merely circular logic.i

Why do you expect his friends would be interested in meeting you, at all ? No, "because I am" is not a valid answer ; its properly explicited form of "because I am a person just like them" shows it to be mere pretense to an equality you have no reason to suspect and certainly no basis to expect.

Even admitting his friends might be interested in meeting you at all, why would you expect they'd have the faintest interest in meeting you on your own terms ? This isn't a discussion of how negotiation of terms might in principle fail, but more fundamental than that : what makes you think they'd be even interested in hearing what your own terms might be, at all, so they can be rejected knowingly rather than offhand ?

Chafe as you might under the unforgiving Trilema yoke, but know that good quality answers to the above questions are the only way to avoid being the social equivalent of a dumbel attached, to their detrimentii, to someone's arm.

There are worse fates than not having your delusions of identity validated, you know.

———
  1. Specifically : if your definition of the word "boyfriend" is alligned with the common usage of the term ("male to whom I submit sexually"), and therefore impersonal, then it contains no allowance to support your answering the question this way. Meanwhile if your definition of the word boyfriend is personal, something along the lines of "male that introduces me to his friends" then you're misusing a common word. []
  2. Yes, Xenophon's miserably behaved slave helped him in his own estimation be a better philosopher, but not everyone aims to be or even could or should be a philosopher, not to mention another Xenophon. []
Category: Uncategorized
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

3 Responses

  1. [...] female's heart is specifically this : to "objectify" the female, which is to say to reduce her to physiology. Yet as her attention bandwidth is comandeered to manage the flow of access to her anatomy (and [...]

  2. [...] Female "art", just in case you thought I forgot about you dumb cunts. It's not good, not for this or that reason but specifically because it tries to enact the female gaze into human interest, something positively impossible and doomed from the onset, in principle. That's why the "mysterious, enigmatic" expression pasted impossibly atop an "anatomically correct" torso looks like a work of mongoloids with scissors : because it is. There's no objective substance to the female torso besides what males see in it ; nor is there any possibility of "enigmatic" besides that, it's not the fucking face that carries the enygmatic in women, it's the cunt. [...]

  3. [...] as the "particular" expression of precious cuntletry put forth as airs by whatever random (yet supposedly distinct) small town belle. This is the inescapable trap these poor souls forever toil in : that mere [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.