What women are proud to have and men are ashamed of.
"I'd feel guilty taking your virginity away from you," she said, "You're so . . . nice."
"It's not like I value it," said he.
One of the few sequels that surpassed the original.
We have, ironically, World War II to thank for ending the depression.
A man who has rejected the societal notion of masculinity
and chosen to define himself from the inside out instead, realising that traits such as empathy and nuturing are not actually limited to the female of the species, and nor are aggression and assertiveness limited to the male.
Despite this newfound revelation, however, there is still a strong genetic predisposition for humans to continuously behave as if we were animals seeking out the alpha male with those genes most suited for surviving in a hostile environment.
Often times, the average woman, whom society encourages to indulge in her weaknesses and surpress her strengths, is a self-loathing masochist who may appreciate the nice guy's friendship and understanding, but feels no attraction toward him because his insecurities remind her of why she hates herself. Therefore, she almost always seeks the dominant, aggressive, unempathic male with whom she can vicariously live to make up for her weaknesses. Of course, this inidividual, commonly known as a jerk
, is also usually an egotistical, disloyal, and shallow person for whom societal dictates of masculinity will force him to disregard his mate's feelings and treat her as if she were beneath him.
Feeling emotionally unsatisfied, the female will then turn to her nice guy friend, whom she has long since castrated, for comfort, and complain to him about how men suck, except for him, and that he deserves a good girlfriend eventually except that it is never her or any other woman he might encounter.
I'm a Nice Guy? Fuck You!
A person who believes that the biblical account of Genesis is a literal, scientific document, and that all scientific knowledge of evolution and geology are mistaken and/or misrepresented by biased scientists. According to Creationists, the world was created in 6 days some 4 to 6 thousand years ago, God placed fossils into various depths of the Earth for no apparent reason (or that, since fossils are so rare, not all co-existing animals were fossilized together) all species where created individually (with allowance for individual variation and common design themes, but no common anscestry), that all life was harmonious before the fall of man (hence carnivores ate grass), that dinosaurs (which are said to be referred to in the bible as "leviathan" and "behemoth" and are supposedly represented in ancient art) lived at the same time as humans, and that they were whiped out in the biblical flood because they couldn't fit into Noah's Ark (or that he only fit the small ones, in which case some dinosaurs might be alive today).
To promote these views, creationists often misrepresent the data themselves, in an effort to discredit science and abuse it to validate their own beliefs. Hence, they are extremely critical of any and all (overwhelming) evidence that does not support their views while using bogus or equivocal data to prove theirs.
This doesn't work.
Any close, unbiased examination of the evidence reveals that nearly all of the creationist's claims are found wanting. I will not list those reasons here but will instead include a few links below.
Creatonists aim to keep the American public ignorant of evolution and science (which they have done a pretty good job of doing, as recent polls suggest) and desire that creation be taught in public schools along with evolution.
This would be about as ridiculous as teaching two different versions of the Holocaust in history classes (as some people claim that it never happened, and can back up this claim with phony evidence) or teaching an alternate flat earth theory (which another society can find "evidence" for) in geography.
That is not to say that there isn't a place for Genesis in the sphere of public education, but that would most likely be in courses involving theology, religion, culture, anthropology, and philosophy.
The moral here, of course, is that one shouldn't look to science to back up theology and vice versa.
Here are some links to learn the truth and why "creation scientists" are wrong (the links themselves can't be included because this site can't have words with more than 50 characters--wtf??). Go to a search engine and type in:
And perhaps Karl Thornley's page on Theistic Evolution for a few more good links.
"Did I tell you about my trip to the American Museum of Natural History?" I asked.
"No," she said, "That sounds wonderful."
"Yeah, I have a profound interest in all things prehistoric."
"I know," she said with a smile.
"You know, I really liked the section on human evolution," I began, almost immediately noticing her tense up a little.
"I don't believe in human evolution," she said.
"Fossils don't lie," I said.
Motion Picture Assosciation of America. An organization that believes it can universalize standards of morality and appropriateness in the social production of film, claiming, of course to have the best interests of the youth of America in mind. Thus it exists in place of parents, rendering the NC-17 rating useless (due to assosciations with porn) but hypocritically using the R rating as a junkbasket and thus proving that theaters rely on audience members under 17 to see R-rated films.
And it is also important to add that the MPAA is a great moral teacher, proving to everyone that nudity and sexuality are more harmful to young people than depictions of graphic violence. A beating, beheading, disembowelment, immolation, crucifixion, dismemberment? No problem! But catch a brief glimpse of a breast or a patch of pubic hair? Pornography!
Where would America be without the MPAA?
Thus the erect male member may become the last taboo of cinema censorship, although why tumescence is considered more of a threat to a nation's well-being than the numerous examples of stomach-churning violence, destruction and misogyny that are allowed on screens remains a mystery. --Allan Hunter, "Book of Movie Classics"
The greatest, most diverse and successful class of land vertibrates ever, believed to have originated sometime in the Triassic about 240 million years ago, and disappearing around 65 million years ago. Gods among animals, and awesome testaments to the power of creation (or evolution, if your must insist that these words be mutually exclusive) they were physiologically superior to mammals and gave rise to birds.
Often our society shows a disinterest with the phenomena of the dinosauria, approaching paleontology with a "they're dead, who cares" attitude. They are also ridiculed for having "died out" when they in fact persisted a period of something like 160 million years--more than 40 times longer than the time elapsed since the earliest human anscestors appeared. Even the word "dinosaur" has a deprecative connotation, implying something that is outdated or obsolete.
Stop for a moment to consider that these animals did, in fact exist, and are not the chimeras of children. This writer would maintain, however, that anyone holding the view that an interest in dinosaurs is nerdy and childish deserves to have his or head bitten off by a Charcharodontosaurus.
Lots of kids my age got hooked on dinosaurs for a while--it was a childhood disease, like mumps or chicken pox, and if left alone, most kids recovered and then had a lifetime immunity to dinosaurmania. But I was that rare exception, a terminal, chronic case.-- Robert T. Bakker, "The Dinosaur Heresies"
People who think that think any day is good for Halloween, and don't leave you alone even if you give them candy.
That's the same stupid ghost costume you wore last year! Try something a little more original this time!