Who is the more despicable a character: the thieving hound who hides out in the basement or the stairways till the husband shunts off to work or the adulterous bitch who hurriedly kisses her children and bundles them off to school? OR, or the husband who drops off the commuter train to bounce some other babe on the way home?
Unquotable quotes: Gals, Dolls, Bitches and Broads – XXXVII
[ No aspersions are being cast here, willingly or otherwise, on the fairer, stronger and infinitely more sagacious sex. Even if these over-used words are somewhat overloaded with derogatory connotations, depending on the circumstances, their use here in these “effete efflorescences” are not meant to affirm or deny the original sacred conception of womanhood which is made up of the qualities of the most refined, and, not to mention, the most beautiful “creatures” among the human or even animal species. No attempt is made to sidestep the issue: the spectrum of life forms include the best and the worst specimens, of course.]
No apologies are tended, here, for the use of these terms: gals, dolls, bitches and broads since what they represent are the salt and spice and also alas! the vinegar of our daily existence: take a pinch or sip and feel the itch twitch for the rest of your days.
Given the traditional roles of “Mother” and “Sex-Object” that gals are called upon to assume, it would only be fair to remind them: You can’t have your banana and milkshake it as well!
The choice is plain: Either you opt out of being a mother or you make the ultimate sacrifice – multiply the population of the world, but PaLEASE! Stick to one or the other!
The quality of human life and the human race depends on your choice.
All forms of morals and the enduring values of human existence depend on/await your choice.
Not to make the choice by continuing to assume both the roles is the fatal error: you can’t be a virtuous mother and loyal wife and – let’s admit it – a “bitch” as well.
Life would be an interminable Sunday morning liturgy on TV if gals, dolls, bitches and broads didn’t make us sink deeper into the quagmire, that is, late Saturday night - only to wake us up early the next morn.
Who is the more despicable a character: the thieving hound who hides out in the basement or the stairways till the husband shunts off to work or the adulterous bitch who hurriedly kisses her children and bundles them off to school? OR, or the husband who drops off the commuter train to bounce some other babe on the way home?
If you’re a gal and some guy called you “bitch”, or even – excuse the word – “bloody bitch”! What would you do? Take it all lying down like a putdown paid broad? Or would you mount your charger and pound the guy in broad daylight down your street, cheered by all the dolls in your neighbourhood?
Why is it an axiom that a really stunning-looking gal when ogled at would be generous with her poses and rewarding with her smiles whereas the opposite is the case with the passably pretty bitch or broad?
Wouldn’t wives give half their gold reserves to know what their husbands tell broads about themselves?
Doll-makers know as much about the art of sowing wild oats as dolls about dark matter.
If dolls can bitch about what kids did or do to them in a year, even a broad’s ear will shrink from shame.
Even if guys who play with dolls all day long keep bitching about it all, they’ll sooner or later get them enthralled.
Guys who fall for gals but refuse to tie the knot tend to make their dolls bitch, look and talk like sods.
An adulterous couple soon make lying, cheating and downright treachery (not to mention their role as carriers of germs within the orbit of the family) the principal characteristic of an ethic which is underwritten and buoyed by hypocrisy. It may appear legitimate for the Sartre-Beauvoir tandem to have advocated the tolerance of one another’s emotional and sexual lives, but they should also consent to bearing the responsibility (since they became, whether they wanted it or not, the role models for the intellectually-inclined youths all over the Western World which the East replicates apishly) for the wanton rot corroding societies all over he world.
Being or becoming “intellectual” is not necssarily the hallmark of the possession of “intelligence”: it’s everybody’s responsibility to everybody else to foster the “health” of mores and morals in every society.
It would therefore follow that sexual freedom is perfectly alright for those who don’t have or don’t want children, provided those who practise this art form don’t impinge or impose their craft
on those who accept the responsibility for the upbringing of children.
The Reich-ian Sexual Revolution, to all intents and purposes, aimed at undermining and dismantling the authoritarian state’s strangle-hold on the defenceless individual without proposing a substitute to replace the family-unit structure as the principal incipient force in the shaping of individual character.
The Reich-ian solution of the orgasmic release as a cure for emotional blockages and all sorts of other psychological ills and phobias and neuroses has also accentuated the spread of venereal diseases, indulgence in perversions and sadistic behaviour which continue to find a repetitive crescendo echo in films from all over the world.
Whether we like it or not, we have a duty, first and foremost, to ourselves, even if Nature has already devised its own overall plan for us in the long run.
GOU - Hexagram 44: “Coming to meet.” One Yin associates with five Yang (might even mean more). Beware of the lean pig in June hoisting and flaunting her haunches in mid-autumn. The Yin’s shoes fit the male’s feet as well. Whatever fascinates makes you forget your own embattled situation. The quality of life depends on who is mother.
No child can outlive the reputation of a mother gone totally or even partially astray.
Curiously enough, though, if it were not for gals, dolls, bitches and broads, LIFE – as we know it – would not be perpetuated on earth. They are the principal drivers of the Yin’s motor: they entice, rivet, pollute, distract and entertain and sap the Yang forces, and all they have to show for it is their ephemeral flicker of
fun and release from the cares of the world; all to no purpose for they are made to self-destruct themselves unless they drag the Yang down with them, too; their saving grace being their role in the perpetuation of the human race, for better or for worse.
Nature makes certain they don’t wreak havoc all their living days. They may and do reign supreme between the ages of fifteen and, say, thirty-five, leaving them alone to their abject fate and their wiles in managing their own pleasure and pain thereafter. A sad plight! A very sad fate!
How astonishingly flabbergasting, Monseigneur Don Ron !!! These "quotes" which are all "unquotable" were - while you were not looking, for you were, I believe, looking the other way at gals or was it broads - stolen from your own memorably mindboggling archives by you know WHO !!! My eternal gratitude, of course, to your Lordship. Best, as always. TW
You claim these are quotes but I have no way of knowing who first wrote or stated them.
And I'm unable to understand the relevance of some of the statements offered.
While many women accept the word, gal, with no particular reference, I found out the hard way, that southern black women resent the word very much because it was equivalent to boy when referring to black women, generally considered, as owned, as willing to have sex with their masters at any time the master required, or else!
Share
Print
Save
Follow
And I'm unable to understand the relevance of some of the statements offered.
While many women accept the word, gal, with no particular reference, I found out the hard way, that southern black women resent the word very much because it was equivalent to boy when referring to black women, generally considered, as owned, as willing to have sex with their masters at any time the master required, or else!
Ron