I literally did not say that, I was making a historical reference to OP’s use of the word “hysteria”. And it isn’t getting laid, it was manual stimulation done by a medical professional. Seriously?
Also, people like her deserve neither respect nor decency. Those have always been reciprocal social contracts. She is obviously not instigating her side of the contract, so why am I being expected to hold up mine. We should be rude to her. We should spit on her and she should be a social pariah for even suggesting something like this bill. It is more vulgar and insulting than a tacit insinuation that “she just needs to get laid”, which I didn’t even make. In my book, no penis should go near that hole for a LONG time. Tolerance only means something if we do not tolerate intolerance. Giving quarter to blatant fascism is complicity.
So you literally just don’t know what you’re talking about. Brilliant. Go read a book that explains how to read between the lines in cases like “Victorian women going to the doctor for a medical orgasm”.
So her ruling until 1901 counts as reigning “into the 1900s”? Interesting. Also, the practice persisted in varying degrees of comonality into the early 1950’s when it finally died as it should have.
Also, this is a very strange hill to die on. It really seems like you are more concerned with a satirical statement made in jest utilizing a historical context than you are the very real threat that this woman poses to the rights of our fellow citizens. She isn’t going to see this conversation, she will never know of my rudeness, she will never know nor care of my, or your, or anyone else here’s opinions of her or her policies. You fight a battle on behalf of a woman who would likely use your body as a bridge to cross a puddle you were drowning in rather than help you to stand, then blame you for there being a corpse in the road. I’ll even admit that that was ad hominem, but in this case I don’t really care. You obviously don’t care about making valid good faith arguments, so why should I? See, reciprocal social contracts in action.
Yes. It took a while for the hysteria to end
She should have visited her doctor so he could administer a hysterical paroxysm.
(For those who don’t know)
You know it’s rude to say “she just needs to get laid” no matter how clever you think you’ve couched the sentiment.
I literally did not say that, I was making a historical reference to OP’s use of the word “hysteria”. And it isn’t getting laid, it was manual stimulation done by a medical professional. Seriously?
Also, people like her deserve neither respect nor decency. Those have always been reciprocal social contracts. She is obviously not instigating her side of the contract, so why am I being expected to hold up mine. We should be rude to her. We should spit on her and she should be a social pariah for even suggesting something like this bill. It is more vulgar and insulting than a tacit insinuation that “she just needs to get laid”, which I didn’t even make. In my book, no penis should go near that hole for a LONG time. Tolerance only means something if we do not tolerate intolerance. Giving quarter to blatant fascism is complicity.
So you literally just don’t know what you’re talking about. Brilliant. Go read a book that explains how to read between the lines in cases like “Victorian women going to the doctor for a medical orgasm”.
It was a practice that persisted into the 20th century, maybe you should be the one to read a book.
Victoria reigned into the 1900s
So her ruling until 1901 counts as reigning “into the 1900s”? Interesting. Also, the practice persisted in varying degrees of comonality into the early 1950’s when it finally died as it should have.
Also, this is a very strange hill to die on. It really seems like you are more concerned with a satirical statement made in jest utilizing a historical context than you are the very real threat that this woman poses to the rights of our fellow citizens. She isn’t going to see this conversation, she will never know of my rudeness, she will never know nor care of my, or your, or anyone else here’s opinions of her or her policies. You fight a battle on behalf of a woman who would likely use your body as a bridge to cross a puddle you were drowning in rather than help you to stand, then blame you for there being a corpse in the road. I’ll even admit that that was ad hominem, but in this case I don’t really care. You obviously don’t care about making valid good faith arguments, so why should I? See, reciprocal social contracts in action.
Yes, 1901 is the 20th century. 2 plus 2 is also 4.