46 Replies to “Is That An Arm Sausage In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Unhappy To See Me?”

    1. Any one of my husband’s and my four cats are smarter than anybody mentioned or quoted in that article.

  2. At one time both parties needed medical tests done to make sure that the future to be married couple weren’t closely related by accident to make sure any future kids would be okay.

    Now you need a chromosome test done on your future spouse, or even just to go on a date, just to be sure………

  3. Years ago, one thing that was sacrosanct was one’s preferences for dating or marriage. That seems to have gone by the wayside.

    1. Even if we are sacrosanct in our preferences, today’s society no longer accepts that we have values and morals to keep, and constantly tells us so.

      1. “Vulva Views” is rarer still, but perhaps far more essential. I know I could stand to see a little more.

        1. I consider myself a world class vulva viewer … which is likely to get me in hot water with the “Trans” community. Good.

        2. If you’re complaining about lack of vagina on the internet, you need to work on your search skills.

          Type any of a dozen words for the world’s greatest body part into Google, millions of results.

          1. A vagina is not the same as a c**t, there are plenty of the latter, it there, not so much of the former..

            I hate fake anything, people, products, a fake is something designed intentionally to deceive, to be just an accurate enough representation to simulate the real thing, but usually far inferior to it.

            I choose not choose, that is still a choice and I’m standing behind my choices!

  5. The important thing, that almost everyone understands, is that you can’t force someone to like you or love you. Unfortunately, the trans community as well as other special interest groups like “body positivity” are so out of touch with reality that they can no longer recognize basic human nature. They live in a weird, delusion alternate reality where they somehow think that they can change people’s evolutionary habits and personal preferences about mate selection.

    I kinda doubt that they even believe what they’re saying because it is so crazy and unreasonable.

    1. When people tell you who they are and what they want, you should believe them.

      Yes, they -really do- believe they should be able to tell you who to date. And when you see them demonstrating for HamAss, you better believe they are serious about that too.

      Margaret Sanger believed that too. It’s not a rare thing. They’re serious.

      1. There’s no practical way to make people accept people they are not physically attracted to, short of arranged marriages. Even the most delusional totalitarian regime would not set up bureaucratic Department of Quota Based Coitus and Diversity Dating…

        1. They would though. It would be stupid and ineffective just as you say, but they would still do it. You want to bet they wouldn’t try it just to see the look on your straight/white face when you get dragged to your mandatory tranny date?

          What’s worse, LC? Department of Dating Diversity or MAiD?

  6. More craziness please,,,
    cause at this point, they’re jumping the shark,,, and even more people will say What The Hell !
    This type of push will cause “them” to lose more support, than they’ll gain.

    1. They jumped the shark in the ’80s. This is them jumping a hundred sharks with a monster truck, plus ring of fire.

      I love this. They come right out and say what they really want, finally. “You WILL date the weird horrifying pervert!”

      Uh huh. Sure.

  7. It’s a very short step to go from “You can’t have gender preference” to “You can’t say no to me.” Just as the trans movement is the stalking horse of pedophilia, so it is also the stalking horse of nonconsensual sadistic rape and torture of adults who did not consent.

    1. Yes. That is their abhorent goal. And the media and political class are absolutely complicit in this.

    2. justin Burch
      At the start of the article it explains that it is a divisive tactic. I can’t understand why that is so hard for some in here to grasp, KATE included!

        1. Good Lord, I hope not. Difficult to believe they’d enlist him. Almost as sad as the guy here who claims to be satan.

          1. Old Bob Hope joke. They’ve made homosexuality legal. I’m waiting on it being mandatory! (Something like that, but you get the gist!)

  9. I have to agree with the Lesbos on this. I wouldn’t want to go to bed with a woman with a slong even if she looked like a young Ann-Margret.

  10. No I’m not happy to see you. But I will be once I pump up my arm sausage, give me a minute to get my sausage pump out.

  11. // The important thing, that almost everyone understands, is that you can’t force someone to like you or love you. //

    That’s right. That way leads, for example, to the incel subculture.
    An article;
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex

    But there’s a difference between not being interested in sex with say, Mike Tyson and
    saying that you wouldn’t date a black man; that is, a whole category of people.

    Perhaps that is what the people are objecting to.

    1. I think a person has the right to choose, regardless if others think their reasons are repulsive. Why would group ‘X” want to be in a relationship with someone who dislikes or is not attracted to group X? Group X might be a racial group, a religious group, a political group or any other “whole category of people”. Intimate relationships between consenting adults are not an area where you should have to justify your personal preferences to anyone.

      1. // Intimate relationships between consenting adults are not an area where you should have to justify your personal preferences to anyone. //
        That’s a not uncommon view. Hannah Arendt distinguished political from social relations; the first being
        between equal citizens, the second allowing for personal preferences, including bigotry, one assumes.
        e.g. A protestant not considering marrying a catholic [definitely a “whole category”]
        She got in a spot of bother when suggesting that school segregation was a valid example.

        Dating services are this view run wild.
        I still consider it bigotry.

  12. Just define yourself as Super Straight. IE you only date natural women. Hey, that’s how you define your sexuality, nobody can give you crap about it. Their rules. Plus, you can always say that’s the “2S” 2SLGBTQ+. Make sure you write that down any time there is a silly question about your “gender” in surveys if there are more than 2 choices.

    1. 2S is “Two Spirit”, which seems to be a nod to mental health issues among Native North Americans. Using 2S for your proposed Super Straight would be cultural appropriation. You almost certainly do not want to use SS for Super Straight, even though General Motors branding history might support you. Might I suggest Damn Straight?

      2. Nah, it’s just that if somebody is using the 2S thing in their recitation of the 2SLGBTQ+ mantra, you congradulate them in including SuperStraights in the whole mess. Then they lose their shit trying to explain 2S and hilarity ensues. Like it did before.

        https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/super-straight

        It drives the crazy people crazier.

  14. These people are clearly insane. Best to point and laugh at them otherwise there might be some people to take them seriously.

  16. Transgender, cisgender, intersectionality, queer theory … does anyone speak plain English anymore?

  18. A phobia is an unreasonable fear. I’m not afraid of these creeps; I’m repulsed and disgusted by them.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation