The reason fathers hope for sons is because they’re too dumb to handle daughters.

Little girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, right ?

But young women… now that’s a different story altogether. On the one hand, for a father to be protective of his children is as natural as snow in the arctic or butter on toast ; but on the other hand, there’s a very real tendency – particularly in the justifiably maligned USistan, that backwards state of widespread confusion and socialistic metatardation – to limit your child’s opportunities because of your pathetic feelings : ie. that you’re deathly uncomfortable with the mere suggestion of your precious little filly having the unwarranted insalubriousness and unjustifiable salaciousness to engage in voluntary sexual relations. This reaction is at once adorable and at the same time so, so incredibly naive of the proclivities of nature and the workings of power in the world. In fact, this puritanical/protestant modesty resulting in unequivocal carnal aversion not only fails to impress, but it’s no hallmark of fine breeding either, and worst of all, it does one’s poor daughter no favours whatsoever. OMIGERD SHE’S A GATOR GETTER !!1 Shouldn’t you be proud that she’s anything at all ? WTF are your expectations, that she was going to be a man ?i

Relatedly, I’m not in the habit of visiting (much less commenting) on a great many non-WoT blogs, but as you may recall, I’ve held Jack Baruth in some esteem for a number of years now and I visit his site with some frequency. While I generally prefer personal blogs for their consistency – which Jack’s was - he recently brought his younger brother on board as a regular contributor and it’s upon one of these other Baruthian articles that I recently stumbled upon… and pounced.

The topic of the article wasn’t of such spectacular personal interest but one line in particular caught my eye, so I dropped “Bark M,” the younger Baruth, a comment on this article. An entertaining, if not overly surprisingly, conversation ensued ; one that highlights how hard it must be to raise daughters when you’re head’s full of sand. And feelings.ii Enjoy !

Gator Getters comments

Don’t beat yourself up, Bark, smarter men than you have fallen just as hard.

___ ___ ___

  1. The reader will note that this gender soup philosophy is a direct result of democratic socialism. Men can’t be men because it’d be too unfair, so they become confused and unhappy faux women who ironically visit gay clubs and ironically hook up with other dudes, and women can’t be women because then they wouldn’t be seizing upon the opportunities to work longer, harder hours and spend even more time away from the families that they prize MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD, so they become confused and unhappy faux men who are “in tech” and whatnot. Tis a mess, really.
  2. Hell, it’s probably a challenge to raise daughters with a clear head ! Not that philosophers generally have children. They’re too smart for that trap.

11 thoughts on “The reason fathers hope for sons is because they’re too dumb to handle daughters.

  1. The sexually repressed female is generally pretty irritating, however the sexually liberated female can be just as irritating. You don’t put out, you’re a prude, you put out too much you’re a slut. But these are rare archetype generally reserved for the college years, I’ll get to that though.

    Call me a nerd, but I’m a true believer in Uncle Ben’s mantra, “With great power comes great responsibility”. I would say power derived from sex is no different.

    If you observe a post college work environment (“The Office” or sorts), most of the 24-32 year old females are: have a long term boyfriend; are engaged; are married. It’s very rare you’ll find an attractive female in an office environment who is single. It’s as if after college, “white picket fence mode” is triggered. Girls tend to grow out of the sexual experimentation phase once college comes to an end.

    In college however most girls are still coming to terms with the power their sexuality provides. This tends to be particularly difficult for girls who got very little to no male attention in high school. This experimentation phase is generally short lived. It’s interesting, because many surveys of university students involved in hook up culture, show regret in many instances of “hooking up”. It’s also even more interesting that as the number of sexual partners for a female increases, the likelihood for them to maintain monogamy (for whatever reason) in the future decreases. I’ve read many stories of the chick being dumped once the guy finds out she was a fraternity’s cum-slut back in college.

    Given American sex education amounts to “don’t have sex until marriage”, it would seem that the knowledge necessary to take responsibility for sexual power is non-existent in early adulthood. Which is where I think the “I will NEVER allow my daughter to be a Gator Getter,” comes into play. Perhaps a bit contrived, but if I had a daughter with femme fatale looks I would only want her to use seduction responsibly. To use such power with responsibility.

    • Pete D. says:

      The reason the office chick with femme fatale looks is in a stable or long-term relationship is precisely because she used her power responsibly in college. Had she never hooked up with a potential suitor, had she never risked regret, she wouldn’t be in a staid but safe office environment in the first place, she’d still be out in the world exploring her possibilities, not building her nest.

      And that the braindamage inherent in American sex education results in equally confused parents who over-compensate for the lack of balanced perspective outside of the home comes as no particular surprise. Uncertain parents will always choose over-protection over under-protection.

  2. Robert Jones says:

    No one backs up Pete in the comments section at Jack Baruth’s site, even though he tried to sound oh so intelligent, so he whimpers about the whole thing on his own blog, where the single comment left still does not agree.

    Not to mention that he edited his own conversation to not include the most asinine of his comments. That eagle and earthworm stuff was inspiring.

    Must be hard to pretend to be so smart when all you have is a firm grasp of language. Unfortunately, you need to have real ideas behind all of those big words, or else you’ll end up… well… you’ll end up being you!

    Did you manage to get yourself out of that locker yet?

    • Pete D. says:

      Oh woe is me who doesn’t have the support (and real ideas!) of the fucktarded “community” who’s too fucking stupid to even read timestamps before opening its dumb fucking mouth. “Hurr durr he edited his article to not include things that happened in the future. Impossibru!” Seriously, I need your bovine consensus like a need a hole in the head.

      Anyways, cheers for the “firm grasp of language” props. It’s always nice to be recognised.

  3. […] it’s no mystery that I consider myself both free of mind, free of mouth, and free of crayon, but let’s see if we can find similarly expensive behaviour from men who […]

  4. […] in the statistically likely event that this seems either novel or even “offensive,” it just so happens that the reason you can’t recognise plain facts and verbalise them […]

  5. […] It’s no startling confession, then, to say that I have more respect for him than, say, his cocksure younger brother, for Jack is one of the more erudite, culturally cognisant, and psychosexually aware bloggers out […]

  6. […] cracks in gender soupism being always and everywhere apparent to the keenly trained eye, and almost endlessly amusing to […]

  7. […] little difference at this point. Americans are criminals for the simple fact of having been born to stupid parents. Nature’s cruel like that. […]

  8. […] might be “representing” Nonamesville FL but he runs that swamp about as much as the gator-getters do. […]

  9. Pete D. says:

    I was gonna say “gator getters ftw!” but this NYT piece of cheerleaders as “influencers” is just fucking tragic. Then again, what piece about US college life isn’t these days?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>