this is another letter of complaint from my website of (homo)sexual assault that is
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
back to the menu
dear sir or vagina:

as the "traumatically brain-injured" webmaster of, i realize how i am apt to appear stupid and i will try not to MURDER the english language through misuse of punctuation as i express the desire to MURDER feminists and homosexuals and blacks id. look at that, without any apostrophes to turn those three nouns into possessive nouns, one might read that i have a desire to murder feminists and homosexuals and blacks...especially given the fact that there are no periods to differentiate what could be construed as a typo ("id") from "i.d." (or identity). well, as the white house-negro says, "let me be clear". let me be clear that i do not have any desire to physically murder these defenseless children (ie, feminists, homosexuals, blacks, or any other group of people whose "protected class" status nearly criminalizes any criticism of them - and therefore shields their egos from realizing the realism of reality and of any "lesser" aspect about themselves). i'm just here to murder feminists' and homosexuals' and blacks' i.d. (or identities).

to begin, let me just say that i am a victim of the bigotry that society outright CONDONES, and i am sick of closed-minded bigots who want to make everyone think like them.

why is it always "anti-gay bigotry"
why don't people recognize "pro-gay bigotry"

a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

the little gays are prejudiced bigots who litter the world with their pro-gay propaganda (while hypocritically wanting to silence any anti-gay criticism of their lifestyles). the little democrats are prejudiced bigots with their "hush rush" priorities which are meant to silence conservative talk-radio (while democrats are hypocritically spreading their own anti-conservative viewpoints through every other avenue of the media) . the little blacks are racist bigots because they relish in the reliance of "affirmative action" programs to get their ape-like intelligences into college, when these very programs are meant to combat racism but are achieving just the opposite because they have been created solely for the sake of race. furthermore, if blacks' minds were known to be superior or even equal to whites' minds, then race-based compensations would not have been made to any college's admissions department. this evidence of compensations given to the lesser race lends itself to my next point regarding compensations given to the lesser gender.

feminists are prejudiced bigots with their "a woman can do anything a man can do" propaganda which flies in the face of reality and mens' superior heights and superior widths and superior strength-levels and superior sex-drives and superior appetites and superior physical abilities. feminists are wholeheartedly against any notion of one gender being superior to another gender, even when this "gender superiority" is evidenced by 1) gender-based sports teams (which suggest that a lesser gender would serve as a "handicap" that would lessen the integrity of any team) and 2) gender-based military requirements (which suggest that compensations must be made in order to allow a lesser gender into the military). i've read how feminists are trying to paint the masculine gender as "the weaker gender" by saying that testosterone makes men take dangerous risks. now, if that's not grasping for straws, what is? furthermore, if the "strong woman" regards risk-takers as "weaker," what does that say about Strongwoman's concept of a righteous life? stress-free, on the couch, eating bon-bons all day? leisurely feeding baby from her milk-spewing MOMmary glands while sticking a tampon in her egg-bleeding vagina to hide any eggxact proof of the intended role of females?

it is just bigotry for gays and feminists to want to rid the world of any notions of reality-based "masculine superiority" and "heterosexual superiority," especially when the fruits of both mens' superior physical make-ups and heterosexuality's life-making reproductive sex-acts would trump both the fruits of the lesser physical make-ups well as the whoopie-making non-reproductive sex-acts.

it is hypocrisy for gays and feminists to taunt anyone's reality-based feelings of "masculine superiority" and "heterosexual superiority," while not wanting to rid the world of fantasy-based "girl power" and even gay "marriage". furthermore, "girl power" and gay "marriage" - and anything else that puts a spotlight on something that's not fully accepted by society - is only an attempt to legitimize it. anything that is publicly recognized and/or celebrated (be it "girl power," gay "marriage," or blacks portrayed as responsible/productive members of society) leaves an impression of its superiority over its counterpart which is not celebrated. furthermore, when was the last time that heterosexuality was not just represented but celebrated by the media? in the words of nanny fine, "i'll give you a hint, it starts with an N and ends with an A. - NE-VA". when are men the spokespeople for gold's gym or for the military or for anything suggesting a superior level of strength? NE-VA. when was the last time that members of the lesser gender were regarded as anything but "strong women" or "women," while members of the greater gender were not slighted by being referred to with a term as androgynous as "guys"? NE-VA. it just doesn't not happen. vaginas always are kowtowed to with the word "woman" or "Strongwoman," while men are referred to as "guys".

"guys" does not always signify men or boys, it can be used on the lesser gender of vaginas. "hi, guys" is commonly spoken to more than one person, regardless of gender. it is therefore a slight to regard men as "guys" while referring to vaginas as "women," especially when "women" is so obviously derived from "womb" and "men" if to suggest that women are simply man-like with wombs in the place of testosterone. i guess one could argue my woman-belittling point by saying that men are woman-like, but if the original (superior) word was "women" and if an inferior masculine gender was modeled after a supreme feminine gender, then there'd be a prefix added instead of letters dropped from the word "women". case in point: "husband" was the original intention and "ex-husband" is a spin-off. "tomato" was the original and "cherry tomato" is a spin-off. like the "rope" and the "jumprope," "man" was the intention and "woman" is a spin-off. womb+man. silent B removed, quite possibly to signify a lack of Balls.

i understand how females (i will refer to them as "vaginas") don't seem to have a problem with being referred to as "guys," and why should they have a problem with society virtually upgrading their gender? the little vaginas are always taking pride in being "just one of the boys" by invading any "boys' clubs" and thinking that femininity has some kind of superiority over masculinity...but a man wouldn't feel as uplifting a feeling being "just one of the girls" by invading any "girls' clubs". this is because a gender full of pipsqueaks has to work diligently to be "just one of the boys" if there are no "girlie compensations" to help the wannabees achieve like men achieve, while "it ain't no big thing" (in the words of lita ford) for men to equal and surpass the physical abilities of any wombn.

i've read many times online that the pain of childbirth is what makes the lesser gender "strong" and "tough," but it's not like the vagina has any choice. maybe if the vagina wasn't screaming like a banshee enough to make one think that she's slowly being beheaded by a muslim, then she'd have a valid point about being tough and possessing (inner) strength. so, how many vaginas are not in pain during childbirth - and what choice do they have but to endure the pain that the painkillers they take (ahem) can't nullify? and how does enduring pain make someone who's not lifting weights strong? i know that i was a bona-fide, 16 year-old wimp when i was thrown through the windshield and onto the road, and though i may have been knocked unconscious, i'm sure that the pain felt beforehand was 100 times worse than the stretching-pain of childbirth. if not, though, i'm sure that all of my fingers being locked in a fisted position felt a stretching-pain much worse than the stretching-pain of childbirth...because two hand-splints stretched all of my fingers as the splints were slowly wedged in to keep my fingers outstretched and to keep them from closing back into the fisted position. unless one is working their muscles, pain doesn't make anyone stronger and pain doesn't make anyone immune to more pain.

vaginas are on a misguided quest to be manlike, much like eve's misguided quest to eat the apple and to become godlike. vaginas are spiteful of the masculine gender, their spite keeps them stuck in a state of contempt regarding masculine superiority - as evidenced by the aforementioned "no man could handle the pain of childbirth" sentiments given by vaginas online and offline. vaginas cannot accept the reality that deems their common gender as the lesser gender, vaginas are too proud to realize the eggxact role of femininity, vaginas are not strong enough to be weak or to admit defeat, vaginas rely on SPIN (and gender-based physical competitions) to justify their physical strength, and your average "strong woman" can't budge an actual 100-pound barbell...though her (self-proclaimed) "strong will" can envision doing so. i can hear mariah carey now: "i had a vision of strength".

as madonna once sung, "all you need is your own imagination"...from a song about striking poses...gee, dad, she's a feminist.

dylan terreri, i
sheldon cooper, ii
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna

check out my site, , unless you're there now