All women are prostitutes apparently.
This was a letter to the Wheaton Wire, my school's newspaper. This kid who wrote it is a freshman, and I actually met him once. He was very strange. And I suppose he has a vague point.... but... but... WHAT the FUCK!?! This barely makes sense in actuality.
Just read for yourselves. Any female or female-friendly person should probably brace themselves.
New meaning to term 'cheap date'
There are whole bushels of students here at Wheaton that are majoring or planning to major in women's studies. I am friends with a few of them, and it brings me great pleasure to make sexist jokes in their presence. This is, of course, all in good fun, and there are plenty of anti-men jokes that get thrown back at me on a daily basis ("Seventy five reasons a cucumber is better than a man," anyone?).
Today I have a question, addressed to any academic (or social) studiers of women at Wheaton; When will the woman stop playing into the traditional gender role, submitting to a hot and steamy smooch on the lips while griping about male dominance in relationships out of the corner of her mouth?
Earlier this week I was sitting on a friend's bed, eating candy corn and watching Moulin Rouge, when somewhere between "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "The Show Must Go On" it dawned upon me. In a surprisingly musical moment of clarity, I realized all women are prostitutes. Not in the strict traditional sense of the prostitute, a woman who trades shiny things for sex, but in a broader, generalized sense. Can you call to mind any serious relationship in which the guy isn't expected to endow the proclaimed love of his life with surprise gifts, anniversary gifts, don't-worry-I-still-love-you gifts, apology gifts, holiday gifts, and any other kind of gifts she can find a reason for beyond "because I said so" and a cute little pout?
When confronted about their lack of action despite their feminist beliefs, almost all of the women's studies types immediately protested, exclaiming, "But I never let him pay for our dates! We split the cost! Doesn't that mean anything?" Yes, it does mean something. It's a good start. But since when is free food the only one-sided benefit a female gleans from a relationship? Lust is nice and love is nicer, but let's be honest. Jewelry, ugly clothes that don't fit, free car rides, ridiculous time commitments (couples shopping is the dumbest idea ever), cuddly things, candy, and shmaltzy gimmicks are the glue that seems to keep most college relationships from fragmenting into a baswillion pieces of sugar-coated rubbish.
If it seems that the majority of relationships these days are failing, it is not, as some assert, because women are taking a more aggressive role in couples, nor is because the traditional manly-man is slowly becoming emasculated by women's rights. In spite of all the hooplah about the modern independent woman, ladies these days are trying to have the best of both worlds by assuming dominant roles but still requiring regular affirmations of love and commitment. The adhesive strength of the love between people in these relationships of jumbled ideals is on par with that of the goo on the back of a post-it, and lasts about as long.
Our generation of women is addicted to using the "gloo stiks" of love, so far from any real cohesive properties that the product name is misspelled for legal reasons. Real, immaterial love, in addition to being free, sticks like your favorite brand of superglue. Everyone is looking for something different in a relationship, but that something should be intangible. If love could be measured in gifts, women would come with price tags.
So yeah, If you feel like responding to this kid. His email is sloane_ian@wheatonma.edu.
Just read for yourselves. Any female or female-friendly person should probably brace themselves.
New meaning to term 'cheap date'
There are whole bushels of students here at Wheaton that are majoring or planning to major in women's studies. I am friends with a few of them, and it brings me great pleasure to make sexist jokes in their presence. This is, of course, all in good fun, and there are plenty of anti-men jokes that get thrown back at me on a daily basis ("Seventy five reasons a cucumber is better than a man," anyone?).
Today I have a question, addressed to any academic (or social) studiers of women at Wheaton; When will the woman stop playing into the traditional gender role, submitting to a hot and steamy smooch on the lips while griping about male dominance in relationships out of the corner of her mouth?
Earlier this week I was sitting on a friend's bed, eating candy corn and watching Moulin Rouge, when somewhere between "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" and "The Show Must Go On" it dawned upon me. In a surprisingly musical moment of clarity, I realized all women are prostitutes. Not in the strict traditional sense of the prostitute, a woman who trades shiny things for sex, but in a broader, generalized sense. Can you call to mind any serious relationship in which the guy isn't expected to endow the proclaimed love of his life with surprise gifts, anniversary gifts, don't-worry-I-still-love-you gifts, apology gifts, holiday gifts, and any other kind of gifts she can find a reason for beyond "because I said so" and a cute little pout?
When confronted about their lack of action despite their feminist beliefs, almost all of the women's studies types immediately protested, exclaiming, "But I never let him pay for our dates! We split the cost! Doesn't that mean anything?" Yes, it does mean something. It's a good start. But since when is free food the only one-sided benefit a female gleans from a relationship? Lust is nice and love is nicer, but let's be honest. Jewelry, ugly clothes that don't fit, free car rides, ridiculous time commitments (couples shopping is the dumbest idea ever), cuddly things, candy, and shmaltzy gimmicks are the glue that seems to keep most college relationships from fragmenting into a baswillion pieces of sugar-coated rubbish.
If it seems that the majority of relationships these days are failing, it is not, as some assert, because women are taking a more aggressive role in couples, nor is because the traditional manly-man is slowly becoming emasculated by women's rights. In spite of all the hooplah about the modern independent woman, ladies these days are trying to have the best of both worlds by assuming dominant roles but still requiring regular affirmations of love and commitment. The adhesive strength of the love between people in these relationships of jumbled ideals is on par with that of the goo on the back of a post-it, and lasts about as long.
Our generation of women is addicted to using the "gloo stiks" of love, so far from any real cohesive properties that the product name is misspelled for legal reasons. Real, immaterial love, in addition to being free, sticks like your favorite brand of superglue. Everyone is looking for something different in a relationship, but that something should be intangible. If love could be measured in gifts, women would come with price tags.
So yeah, If you feel like responding to this kid. His email is sloane_ian@wheatonma.edu.