scoobdog

I don't think any reasonable woman would ever expect a man to be a sugar daddy as the paragon of manhood: either such a man is emblematic of how useless men are in general or the man in question is an easy mark that bridges her relationship status until the undefined "right" man comes along. That's not to say the women you've had in your life treat you like andexpendable object, just that the attitude is rooted in the same toxic masculinity it's supposed to be refuting. As for the dudes, those are INCELs by any other name. The point is that in either, the reference is invariably the traditional gender role for men, and you're not really redefining anything. This is the heart of the issue. We've taken as fact that gender roles don't need to exist when, in fact, they do, and that comes about because the roles have far fewer rules and far broader expectations.

Flipping through my Apple News feed this morning, there was an spotlight tab titled "What does a 'good man' look like?" Since I'm a deep thinker when it comes to doing anything other than what I'm actually supposed to be doing at the time, I decided to read through some of it. There was a WaPo opinion piece in there that I'm not going to link but is worth reading if you can find it. In essence, the opinion's author did a lengthy and details analysis on how men have essentially languished in an age where the traditional definition of masculinity has been exposed as toxic while a replacement has not been forthcoming. Part of it is the justifiable fear that spending time talking about how men need support can divert attention from the real gains that women have made in the post "MeToo" world, but part of it is also the fact that no one really knows what a man should be in this age. It doesn't seem that complicated to me - a man should be able to freely discuss his needs in terms of how they better everyone around him. That, however requires a man who knows what he can do and how he can use those skills to help others; a lot to men have defined themselves entirely on their ability to "provide" for their family. Naturally, there are the misogynists of the world who fill the gap by pushing for return to the old "manly" ideals which, zeros sum as they are, completely invalidate women. However, on the opposite side, some women also refuse to discuss what kind of support a man needs because it sucks the oxygen out of the movement and it caters to men not taking responsibility for themselves. There isn't really any proper discussion about what a man should be, what should be expected of him, and what he can expect in returns. So, let's start with the difficult question: what should a modern man look like? What does he do? How does he contribute?

Can’t beat that,

A no would have been fine, Ghosty. I've been over here for a week waiting for my special coffee. It was getting lonely.

I work half a day at home so I get the best of both worlds.

Those aren’t Catholic values.

I think I was just compelled to swear off micheladas....

More like a one-album wonder, but, yeah, it's similar phenomenon to Tupac - she was talented, but her work gets played up more than it might deserve simply because she died reaching her potential.

I guess I'm glad someone is documenting this so I know what not to look up.

You're telling me 1 guy 1 jar was actually something?

It’s originally a movie, I think. I thought there was a related website at some point, but it looks like it might have been something else called Rotten, maybe? I wasn’t going to mess around with that shit.

Freud might have something to say about this.

Somewhere, there's lonely butthole.

I'm no help because I am also an old man and I haven't heard of half the things you brought up. Would the whole "Faces of Death" bullshit be part of this?

Rigatoni with bracioli. Homemade.

To be more specific, the strokes circle and undulate like puffs of smoke. Not a haze so much, the invisible ringlets almost literally obscure Charles from the gaze of the viewer or cloud Charles’ view of his world. It’s hard not to look too deeply into this portrait because it’s so discomfiting. You don’t get even a humorous place to view this portrait due to the violence it projects.

I kinda doubt that. There are other indications in the paint strokes that suggest the turmoil just below the surface.

But seriously, it’s important to note that King Charles gave his blessing to this portrait. It may say less about the institution of the monarchy and more about the man himself.

It didn’t turn out so good the first time France abolished the monarchy, they should just keep the king and turn the queen into a memetacular.

They’re eye catching, even though they’re hideous.

I like it. Really captures the vibrancy of the flames of hell.

Can you make it special for me?

Does it make special coffee?

I’m not sure how that’s possible. Exchange servers don’t work on the Office 365 Outlook app.