BratFree.com

SelfishHeathens.com

Bingo Card #1

Bingo Card #2

The Stained Apron

The Bitchy Waiter

 

Time Magazine CF Cover Story

Posted by essuredly 
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
They don't know TWUUUEE HAPPINESS! Only MOO HAPPINESS is TWUUUE HAPPINESS! Bull
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
Quote
jezebel_daisy
I've been following the reaction of this on a couple of websites and thought I'd share some choice moo-quotes from the comments section.
...
Moo Three Lows:
Their lives are so lonely that they have to spend their money on beaches and fancy vacations to fill it with something meaningful. I don't envy them at all.

Head-Brick

Re: Moo Three.. Well I don't see how going on a vacation isn't meaningful. I know for a fact that each and every moo and duh out there loves vacations, as do most people. So we're the ones who don't want something meaningful and they do? So I guess wanting to relive the past by reliving your fucking spawn days and teaching jr or jrette to play sports you wanted to play or do activities you wanted to do...that's all meaningful. These moohats aren't taking their precuouuuus spawn into their ideal childhood...they're forcing their wants and needs into the spawn's life, essentially making it moo and duh childhood - the special effects remake! They have no say in what we do when they do as they please willy nilly.

So by moo logic..I guess anyone who doesn't have spawnlings is so lonely that we have to spend our days grasping at straws to try and fill the spawn-sized void? This means spawn themselves, spawnless teenagers, wannabreed-moo and -duh who haven't had spawn *yet*, us CF men and women, grandmoo/grandduh...So every single one of these groups of people are so lonely? I beg to differ. If this were the case and we were so lonely because we don't have to clean up shit and drool and hear the loud piercing screams of shitlings all fucking day long, then we should just kill ourselves because missing out on all that sensory overload is just torture.....torture I tell you! Give me a fucking break. Chain Saw Fuck
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
Quote
icyveinedcfguy
So by moo logic..I guess anyone who doesn't have spawnlings is so lonely that we have to spend our days grasping at straws to try and fill the spawn-sized void? This means spawn themselves, spawnless teenagers, wannabreed-moo and -duh who haven't had spawn *yet*, us CF men and women, grandmoo/grandduh...So every single one of these groups of people are so lonely?

Indeed, what vapid, shallow, lonely lives their young children must live, all because they have not reproduced.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
i don't consider being child free much of anything like a movement or a lifestyle choice or anything of the nature. I chose to not have kids. I don't have an agenda on it. I don't want people preaching to me on it like I am in a gang or sacrificing animals in my backyard.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
The issue I have with the Time cover is that it promotes the wrong sort of values that the childfree actually possess. I think what most of us value is freedom, whether its reproductive freedom, financial freedom, or freedom of spontaneity/general freedom.
So the Time image of the couple on the beach is not necessarily wrong: that couple may in fact be a couple enjoying all three of those freedoms in that particular setting. But our settings don't have to be sumptuous for us to enjoy those freedoms, and I think the Time article should have used an image and an article to convey that.

——————————————————————
"Yes, fellow readers, nothing says 'devoted father of a special needs kid' quite like drinking, snorting cocaine, and then taking the boat out for a spin."
- Tiquer
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
I'm wondering if it hasn't been discovered that publishing online articles about the CF - like on HuffPo, Daily Fail, and such - gins up a lot of page hits and interest, so this is the reason Time decided to do the CF cover story - because it will sell copies out of controversy. It's probably not going to be breaking any new ground. Expect lots of stereotypes, the word "selfish" to be bandied about, interviews with breeder pleaser CFs, the usual.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
Quote
lorelei_diangelo
The issue I have with the Time cover is that it promotes the wrong sort of values that the childfree actually possess. I think what most of us value is freedom, whether its reproductive freedom, financial freedom, or freedom of spontaneity/general freedom.
So the Time image of the couple on the beach is not necessarily wrong: that couple may in fact be a couple enjoying all three of those freedoms in that particular setting. But our settings don't have to be sumptuous for us to enjoy those freedoms, and I think the Time article should have used an image and an article to convey that.

Several people have mentioned that and I sort of agree, but I really can't think of what kind of photo I would have wanted them to use. Being CF, like being anything else, means an infinite number of things so there's really no "right" way to convey it in a single image.

Since there's no way to convey a CF lifestyle (because that means so many different things) in a photo, they chose to convey it in an easy, stereotypical way. I keep thinking about it and I really can't come up with a good idea. Anything that you can show a single image of a CF couple or person doing is something that people with kids can do also, at least for a minute. The only practical thing I can come up with is that they should have at least used a photo of a real CF couple. Or they could have opted for a group shot of several real CF couples of different ethnicities and ranging in age from 20s to 60s or 70s.

If they had to use models, maybe the shot could have been wider, or taken from a vantage point so that it also took in a family a few yards away, surrounded by all the clutter and chaos that taking kids to the beach entails.

Apparently, they did consider a few other ideas for the cover photo.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
Quote
spinstar

If they had to use models, maybe the shot could have been wider, or taken from a vantage point so that it also took in a family a few yards away, surrounded by all the clutter and chaos that taking kids to the beach entails.

This perfectly describes the photo that accompanies the Time story (I subscribe.) It would have made a better cover shot, IMO.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 04, 2013
"but I really can't think of what kind of photo I would have wanted them to use"

George Clooney?

"Or they could have opted for a group shot of several real CF couples of different ethnicities and ranging in age from 20s to 60s or 70s"

Thumb Wink
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
lilin_unite
Quote
thursdaynext
The wannabreeders are crying.

May be the saddest little childless I've seen in quite some time actually.

What pathetic people.

This one really gets me:

Quote
HuffPo
Joanna, a single 38-year-old attorney who left the partner track to move into the less demanding (and lower paying) role of legal marketing in order to attract men who did not find her profession competitive with theirs, is frustrated.


She expects me to feel bad for her? Women like her are the reason this country is still so fucking sexist.

She GAVE UP HER CAREER PATH because a bunch of dickness, misogynistic troglodytes felt threatened by a supposedly smart woman? She didn't even do it for a jerk she was actually with. She did it to GET a jerk. What the fuck.

This is why it's 2013 and people still get away with treating women like chattel. Because dumbasses like this ASK to be treated like chattel. She's so desperate to shit loaves that she voluntarily demoted herself to attract the attention of some drooling Og Dik Worx.

This is the thing that always gets me about the breeder mentality. They don't even think of themselves as people -- or others, for that matter.

She is basically BEGGING to be devalued and objectified as a woman by validating these sexist morons and giving up her dreams so she can be with one, and she wants me to pity her?

Fuck not given.

Thanks for making it worse for the rest of us, you stupid wanna-moo.

bed.made.lie

I was blown away by this too. She did not even have Ogdickwerx in her life; she dropped her partnership for an Og who never was in her life in the first place.

Women have to realize there are some career paths that will immediately scare away Og. Law, medicine (doctors) and STEM jobs come to mind. My mom wondered why so few women, even today, want to major in engineering. I said because men won't want to marry them. Those that will are the rare exception, or looking for a sugar mama. In the military I noticed not too many female pilots. If they were married, it was to other pilots. I noticed throughout my dating life that I found the "not ready for a relationsip" guys who married within 6-9 months of breaking up. Inevitably, it was elementary school teachers, nurses and secretaries that snagged them. One was an engineer, but chose to "telecommute" so she can sit at home and squeeze out kids.

One of the men who commented on the lawyer said in stepping down, she still hurts her chances of finding a relationship. She stepped down to a lower level...the men in that level are still beneath her and the men above her (at her old level) are not likely to be interested as they would be if she was an equal. Her job suffers and her relationships will probably never happen because she will resent stooping and settling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tranquilizers work only if you follow the advice on the bottle--keep away from children.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
voodoodarling
I’d like to say a word or two about the cover. This is TIME magazine. It’s supposed to be ICONIC. But this cover, as many others in recent years, is just fluff. Actually, the only thing I can think of to say is “It’s nice”. “Nice” is an interesting adjective. When you can only describe something with the word “nice”, it means it’s really rather bland. While their last year’s “Are you MOM enough?” cover was highly provocative in that it featured a blond hottie mom breastfeeding a he-brat almost old enough to be having sex (the way kids are these days, it wouldn’t surprise me – according to Guinness World Records, world’s youngest dad Karl Corr was only 7 when his daughter was born), this cover is merely pleasant to the eye and so nondescript that if it didn’t say “CHILDFREE” right there on the cover in big fat bolded black block letters, I doubt anyone would have guessed that the couple in the picture was in fact CF. It also reinforces the stereotype that the childfree are hedonistic, rolling in cash and spending all their free time vacationing in exotic locations. What is the percentage of CF couples who can actually afford to live like that? Projecting this image of the CF is dangerous because it inspires jealousy and teaches the moral majority that it’s OK to abuse us. The cover photo is really a portrait of the “average” (and there’s really nothing “average” about us) CF couple as seen through the eyes of the general population who is largely ignorant about the childfree lifestyle, and therefore I find this image offensive. How about featuring photos of real-life childfree couples instead of posing some models on a beach?

I absolutely agree with this!!!!! Thank you.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
spinstar
Since there's no way to convey a CF lifestyle (because that means so many different things) in a photo, they chose to convey it in an easy, stereotypical way. I keep thinking about it and I really can't come up with a good idea. Anything that you can show a single image of a CF couple or person doing is something that people with kids can do also, at least for a minute. The only practical thing I can come up with is that they should have at least used a photo of a real CF couple. Or they could have opted for a group shot of several real CF couples of different ethnicities and ranging in age from 20s to 60s or 70s.

If they had to use models, maybe the shot could have been wider, or taken from a vantage point so that it also took in a family a few yards away, surrounded by all the clutter and chaos that taking kids to the beach entails.

Apparently, they did consider a few other ideas for the cover photo.

They didn't have to use models. They could have taken any number of pics of real cf people. That photo just fuels controversy and confirms that we have tons of easy breezy free time and can afford to pay higher taxes.

How about some cf people working on their farms, or doing their taxes with a look of horror on their faces. How about some cf woman taking care of her sick parent. How about some cf employee working on a holiday because the moos got preferential treatment. How about a cf person working a low wage job or two jobs as we know many of us do. That just says we have the same problems everyone else does, except no one gives a crap, there is no relief just more pressure to give even more whether we have it or not. But that isn't "having it all", no we can't have it all if it is being taken.

There is no magical picture of a typical childfree person because we aren't a different species. We just haven't bred. I totally agree about the group shot of real cf people, that would have kept it more real but it would not be stirring up the moos like the beautiful people photo.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
navi8orgirl
I was blown away by this too. She did not even have Ogdickwerx in her life; she dropped her partnership for an Og who never was in her life in the first place.

Women have to realize there are some career paths that will immediately scare away Og. Law, medicine (doctors) and STEM jobs come to mind. My mom wondered why so few women, even today, want to major in engineering. I said because men won't want to marry them. Those that will are the rare exception, or looking for a sugar mama. In the military I noticed not too many female pilots. If they were married, it was to other pilots. I noticed throughout my dating life that I found the "not ready for a relationsip" guys who married within 6-9 months of breaking up. Inevitably, it was elementary school teachers, nurses and secretaries that snagged them. One was an engineer, but chose to "telecommute" so she can sit at home and squeeze out kids.

One of the men who commented on the lawyer said in stepping down, she still hurts her chances of finding a relationship. She stepped down to a lower level...the men in that level are still beneath her and the men above her (at her old level) are not likely to be interested as they would be if she was an equal. Her job suffers and her relationships will probably never happen because she will resent stooping and settling.

It's ridiculous that men out there don't want strong, intelligent women. I would hope that most of these 'DON'T EMASCULATE ME' men are duhs or duhs in training. Do these duhs really want some welfare or fastfood lifer bimbo who can't even speak correctly, let alone use their mind? I guess that leads into the desirability of dumb women who are only seen as wombs and booty calls. It's bad enough that these single moos and wannamoos give into the duhmands and perpetuate these views of women. I've even heard men say that they don't want someone who could be more intelligent than them. Why? So you can get them into bed and inpig quicker? Then they complain that they were stiffed into becoming a duh or wallet duh. It's your own fucking fault, live with it. That's what you get when you choose a bimbo. Head-Brick
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
icyveinedcfguy
Quote
navi8orgirl
I was blown away by this too. She did not even have Ogdickwerx in her life; she dropped her partnership for an Og who never was in her life in the first place.

Women have to realize there are some career paths that will immediately scare away Og. Law, medicine (doctors) and STEM jobs come to mind. My mom wondered why so few women, even today, want to major in engineering. I said because men won't want to marry them. Those that will are the rare exception, or looking for a sugar mama. In the military I noticed not too many female pilots. If they were married, it was to other pilots. I noticed throughout my dating life that I found the "not ready for a relationsip" guys who married within 6-9 months of breaking up. Inevitably, it was elementary school teachers, nurses and secretaries that snagged them. One was an engineer, but chose to "telecommute" so she can sit at home and squeeze out kids.

One of the men who commented on the lawyer said in stepping down, she still hurts her chances of finding a relationship. She stepped down to a lower level...the men in that level are still beneath her and the men above her (at her old level) are not likely to be interested as they would be if she was an equal. Her job suffers and her relationships will probably never happen because she will resent stooping and settling.

It's ridiculous that men out there don't want strong, intelligent women. I would hope that most of these 'DON'T EMASCULATE ME' men are duhs or duhs in training. Do these duhs really want some welfare or fastfood lifer bimbo who can't even speak correctly, let alone use their mind? I guess that leads into the desirability of dumb women who are only seen as wombs and booty calls. It's bad enough that these single moos and wannamoos give into the duhmands and perpetuate these views of women. I've even heard men say that they don't want someone who could be more intelligent than them. Why? So you can get them into bed and inpig quicker? Then they complain that they were stiffed into becoming a duh or wallet duh. It's your own fucking fault, live with it. That's what you get when you choose a bimbo. Head-Brick

Exactly. You're right, Navi. A well-employed woman will scare off all the insecure little boys.

But why the fuck would any self-respecting woman want them anyway? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they're scared of me does me favors. It means I don't have to weed through them myself.

"Men" who feel threatened by a woman who's on par with their own intelligence aren't worth the time of day anyway.

As to why some guys are like that, iceyvein, I think it's because they center their concept of "manhood" on being able to control and break down women. They're such small, insecure, useless people that they don't have anything else to define themselves by.

I find it incredibly funny when these kinds of neanderthals land the "dumb little woman" they've been searching for, and then bitch and complain that she expects him to take care of her like a child and be her wallet. Well, what the fuck were you expecting, dumbass? Roll-Eyes

These kinds of people deserve each other, and I'm glad that I have basically no interaction with them.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 05, 2013
Quote
lilin_unite
Quote
icyveinedcfguy
Quote
navi8orgirl
I was blown away by this too. She did not even have Ogdickwerx in her life; she dropped her partnership for an Og who never was in her life in the first place.

Women have to realize there are some career paths that will immediately scare away Og. Law, medicine (doctors) and STEM jobs come to mind. My mom wondered why so few women, even today, want to major in engineering. I said because men won't want to marry them. Those that will are the rare exception, or looking for a sugar mama. In the military I noticed not too many female pilots. If they were married, it was to other pilots. I noticed throughout my dating life that I found the "not ready for a relationsip" guys who married within 6-9 months of breaking up. Inevitably, it was elementary school teachers, nurses and secretaries that snagged them. One was an engineer, but chose to "telecommute" so she can sit at home and squeeze out kids.

One of the men who commented on the lawyer said in stepping down, she still hurts her chances of finding a relationship. She stepped down to a lower level...the men in that level are still beneath her and the men above her (at her old level) are not likely to be interested as they would be if she was an equal. Her job suffers and her relationships will probably never happen because she will resent stooping and settling.

It's ridiculous that men out there don't want strong, intelligent women. I would hope that most of these 'DON'T EMASCULATE ME' men are duhs or duhs in training. Do these duhs really want some welfare or fastfood lifer bimbo who can't even speak correctly, let alone use their mind? I guess that leads into the desirability of dumb women who are only seen as wombs and booty calls. It's bad enough that these single moos and wannamoos give into the duhmands and perpetuate these views of women. I've even heard men say that they don't want someone who could be more intelligent than them. Why? So you can get them into bed and inpig quicker? Then they complain that they were stiffed into becoming a duh or wallet duh. It's your own fucking fault, live with it. That's what you get when you choose a bimbo. Head-Brick

Exactly. You're right, Navi. A well-employed woman will scare off all the insecure little boys.

But why the fuck would any self-respecting woman want them anyway? As far as I'm concerned, the fact that they're scared of me does me favors. It means I don't have to weed through them myself.

"Men" who feel threatened by a woman who's on par with their own intelligence aren't worth the time of day anyway.

As to why some guys are like that, iceyvein, I think it's because they center their concept of "manhood" on being able to control and break down women. They're such small, insecure, useless people that they don't have anything else to define themselves by.

I find it incredibly funny when these kinds of neanderthals land the "dumb little woman" they've been searching for, and then bitch and complain that she expects him to take care of her like a child and be her wallet. Well, what the fuck were you expecting, dumbass? Roll-Eyes

These kinds of people deserve each other, and I'm glad that I have basically no interaction with them.

I guess they just can't see anything farther ahead than the length of their "manhood". And you're right, that leaves all the actual women who are worth the time for us CF guys! Jump!
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 06, 2013
Here's a moo blogger's response to the article. It actually didn't infuriate me, but I can't wait to see what kind of tripe the comments hold:

http://www.mom-101.com/2013/08/can-you-be-happy-without-children.html
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 06, 2013
I admit the cover is misleading but I've decided I'm all right with it. The only reason I'm all right with it is because my husband and I are soon to be the CF couple relaxing on the beach. We have our vacation coming up.
Re: Time Magazine CF Cover Story
August 06, 2013
Quote
writer44
Here's a moo blogger's response to the article. It actually didn't infuriate me, but I can't wait to see what kind of tripe the comments hold:

http://www.mom-101.com/2013/08/can-you-be-happy-without-children.html

She actually called the bingoers on the carpet. Rare!

_______________________________________________
'Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.'
Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
We're also "selfish" and "narcissistic", in her opinion. LOL!

You're damn right I'm selfish! I don't want my time, energy and cash spent on a brat when it could be spent on a new game that I want, some loved ones, and a partner, if I so choose.

I want to sleep a lot, go where I please, and not have my nice game consoles slathered in dirt and stickiness from a brat's hands, appendages that they are incapable of keeping to themselves.

I don't want to sacrifice 18 years of my life that I'll never get back taking care of someone else, wiping their ass, cleaning up their puke, spending countless hours on their homework, listening to whining, etc.

I don't hate kids but that doesn't mean that I want any.

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/is-being-childfree-selfish--debating-time-magazine-s-touchy-new-issue-204219641.html
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
Yes, some CF people are-- but not nearly as many as perceived. That idea is due to the "mind"set out there that all CF are blinged-out, cashed-up hedonists. I'd say the article speaks much more about the author's filters than it does about realilty.

Before we go throwing stones, Miss Author Person, how about those yuppified breeders who squirt out the requisite kid or three, then plop them in front of a TV every day and/or hand them over to a daycare provider? Or who make every attempt to continue living their pre-kid lives while the little squab are just sort of dragged along for the ride? Or who expect everyone around them to deeply admire their sprog, but never EVER attempt to discipline them? Honestly, I could go on all day.

Pro-breeders calling the CF "narcissistic" is projecting just a wee little bit.



"Although I cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes."
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
Why does it bother breeders so much that I spend my free time seeking personal enjoyment and enrichment rather than wiping shit-covered asses?

I agree that the stereotype that all CF are just rolling in it, partying all night, needs to die in a fire. It's not at all true. We have people all over the introvert/extrovert scale, and also all over the economic scale. Plenty of CF'ers would rather read, and plenty of CF'ers struggle to make ends meet.

But you know what?

For those that like to party or live nicely, why the hell should we apologize for it?

For those that do love a good party, who the fuck cares? Why is that "selfish," and why is it their business? I see breeders out getting shit-faced all the time -- usually to escape their brats. If anything, the CF'ers who like to party tend to be a lot more dignified about it. Unlike the breeders, they aren't trying to drink their lives away. They've just got some extra energy to burn. And good for them. Have fun. Life's short.

For those of us are who are doing ok financially, again, what the fuck is their problem? I worked hard to get in the place that I'm at, and I did so serving others. I work hard and serve others every day. I'm allowed to enjoy my spoils by going on vacation to somewhere new and interesting, which I'm presently planning. I'm allowed to go the art fair and get something nice for my home, as I did today. How does that make me an inferior person? How am I "selfish" simply because I don't spend money on a brat? Breeders blow all kinds of money they don't have on stupid consumerist shit they don't need. At least I live within my means and spend money on things I truly value.

So what if some of us like to party? So what if some of us like to enjoy the lifestyle we worked for? And how do either of those things mean that we never think of others? Sometimes, I like to do something nice for myself. So what?

We aren't the ones who forced other human beings into the world, destined to suffer and die, simply on our own whims. We're hardly the "selfish" ones.
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
Yes, breeders, I am a selfish, narcissistic hedonist living for the flesh and the thrill. What are you going to do about it?

May I suggest breastfeeding your preschooler while wearing your preteen? Having your overgrown, equally worthless spawn on your body should remind you of your self-imposed little burdens.

Me? Don't worry your empty, little heads. Somewhere, someone out there who didn't follow the herd is, indeed, living a willful life.
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
Quote
lilin_unite
Why does it bother breeders so much that I spend my free time seeking personal enjoyment and enrichment rather than wiping shit-covered asses?

I agree that the stereotype that all CF are just rolling in it, partying all night, needs to die in a fire. It's not at all true. We have people all over the introvert/extrovert scale, and also all over the economic scale. Plenty of CF'ers would rather read, and plenty of CF'ers struggle to make ends meet.

But you know what?

For those that like to party or live nicely, why the hell should we apologize for it?


For those that do love a good party, who the fuck cares? Why is that "selfish," and why is it their business? I see breeders out getting shit-faced all the time -- usually to escape their brats. If anything, the CF'ers who like to party tend to be a lot more dignified about it. Unlike the breeders, they aren't trying to drink their lives away. They've just got some extra energy to burn. And good for them. Have fun. Life's short.

For those of us are who are doing ok financially, again, what the fuck is their problem? I worked hard to get in the place that I'm at, and I did so serving others. I work hard and serve others every day. I'm allowed to enjoy my spoils by going on vacation to somewhere new and interesting, which I'm presently planning. I'm allowed to go the art fair and get something nice for my home, as I did today. How does that make me an inferior person? How am I "selfish" simply because I don't spend money on a brat? Breeders blow all kinds of money they don't have on stupid consumerist shit they don't need. At least I live within my means and spend money on things I truly value.

So what if some of us like to party? So what if some of us like to enjoy the lifestyle we worked for? And how do either of those things mean that we never think of others? Sometimes, I like to do something nice for myself. So what?

We aren't the ones who forced other human beings into the world, destined to suffer and die, simply on our own whims. We're hardly the "selfish" ones.

Well-typed. I am not a partier, even though I am only 25 -- I rarely drink -- and hardly socialize.

I especially like the part about shit-covered asses.
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
Quote
grammarnut
Well-typed. I am not a partier, even though I am only 25 -- I rarely drink -- and hardly socialize.

I especially like the part about shit-covered asses.

Yeah, I'm pretty much the same, at 24. If I am going to drink, give me a quiet night with a gin and tonic over a party any day.

But that's just me. I'm not "superior" for being a more introverted person, just like breeders aren't "superior" for spending all their time and money on a brat they obviously resent. If they didn't, why would they care what we do?

That's the reality. They're mad that we get to spend our free time doing other things. And even if we spend that free time feeding the homeless, we're still "inferior" because we haven't bred.

They'll spew anything about us to try to justify to themselves why they made the choices they did.
Re: Certain child-free couples look like "lazy yuppies", according to writer Sarah Weir.
August 04, 2013
I would rather be a lazy, yuppie CF rather than being a miserable moo who pretends she's a writer. fuck your life, moo.

I would be very happy if I make enough money to be considered a yuppie!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login