He gripes about the message he perceives in religionist circles that women exist to pleasure men.
Wonder if he intends to address the error in the circles he orbits in that men exist for little reason other than to be a woman’s wallet and pack mule.
In the tirade, he condemns what he perceives as the fundamentalist tendency to condemn any attraction to the opposite sex.
How is that any different than feminist dogma and praxis such as propaganda in condemnation of the male gaze or these trollops in tight pants that go into online conniptions that a man looked at them?
If women are supposed to be allowed to say “no” to husbands regarding carnal relations, does that mean men have the right to tell women “no” in regards to unnecessary purchases or as to when household tasks get completed such as taking out the trash?
No comments:
Post a Comment