Dave Chapelle said "men and women USED to get along, not any more" so they did and not any more. Yes, inter-gender relations are idealised to children, but Dave Chapelle is obviously still not a child. I didn't take ANYTHING out of context on Dave Chapelle's "100 ways to please a man" joke, as his very next line - the punchline - was that she could just suck his dick. The joke is why try all these silly 100 ways when IF SHE WANTED TO DO WHAT HE WANTEDSmeatza said:
This is not the magazines using dry humour or sarcasm, they are being discrete. They know the husband just wants his dick sucked but she just doesn't want to do that but don't want to address that issue but still accommodate for it. The women know what men want, but in these magazines they put their heads together thinking how to avoid it and have as platonic relationship as possible.
I get the impression that women are treated like property by an extremely well revered book, The Bible and how law enforcment has operated since 2nd wave feminist action. The bible describes women and slaves in the same term of subservient to their father/husband or owner respectively and orders them to obey them. Under the law violence against women committed by strangers is rigorously investigated yet when the father is the abuser or the husband is the sexual abuser the law is timid. Not till the 1960's was wife beating made unacceptable. Remember "straight to the moon".
You don't understand my analogy with the lions. Lioness doesn't get the chose her mate, the power of the lions does. It kill all the competitors and the lioness has no but to be forcibly impregnated, and the lions kill any of her cubs that were not his own. Now how familiar does this sound to how men have acted in human history? Don't men act like lions without laws to restrain them. Only till comparatively recently in history have women been able to chose their partner.
To MEN, the evolutionary pressure with breast may be for pleasure and feeding babies, so a prostitute of son-making-machine. But to women they don't have that purpose, they have the purpose of the aesthetic. Women clearly are not DRIVEN to like their beauty and breasts for attracting men as it exists even without men. Like how in women's prisons the main contraband after drugs is make-up cosmetics, they want to look good even to each other even without men. Same in other all-female environments.
Dave Chapelle's comment on "whore's uniform" doesn't explain my hands. As he is showing his hands and physical ability yet he wouldn't be described as wearing "a labour's uniform" and would be insulted if he was hastily recruited to work manual labour. Yet a woman even showing her body, her own body is a "whore's uniform" like a policeman's uniform defines his role as a law enforcer. That's a problem right there, it defines women as whores UNLESS they dress conservatively.
The sensation of hunger may not be an "emotion" only if you are being pedantic, as you can feel hungry when not in lack of nutrition and vice versa. Don't talk semantics over "emotions", especially after I specifically mentioned "afraid of starvation". Is fear an emotion? Hunger is definitely a "feeling". My point still stands about how men and women simply deal with feelings differently. Men seem to be in denial how their feelings, emotions and instincts drive them. Women actually try to organise their feelings and address how they affect their decision making while men act like its a foregone conclusion.
