Tuesday, December 15, 2015

More Random Thots

Foreword: My last post garnered a whopping 2 responses, both women asking why the term "Thot" is misogynistic. My response:

The post was only part one of a two part special. So to answer both of my cherished readers;

We previously talked about how the term "Thot" is scientifically unsound. But why misogynistic? Let us count the ways.

We used an arbitrary value for the "Ho Factor" to determine feasible Thots in our previous exercise. But where do we obtain our Ho Factor? What exactly is a Ho? Let's let our good friend Merriam-Webster take the wheel on this one:

Definition of HO


:  whore 1

....Well that was short and to the point. How about whore?
:  a woman who engages in sexual acts for money :  prostitutealso :  a promiscuous or immoral woman
:  a male who engages in sexual acts for money

Wow. Damn. Ok Merriam-Webster, you asshole(s). Let me guess their definition for adulterer:
:   a married woman who has sex with someone who is not her husband : a woman who participates in cuckoldry; also : cheating whore; also : homewrecker; also :conniving bitch; also Ad Nauseam 
:  a married man who has sex with someone who is not his wife
I digress (even though Merriam-webster has already done most of the work for me). So unless you're a prehistoric caveman preserved in an ice prison that melted in proximity to a discarded iPad already open to this blog, I'm going to assume you are up to date with current lingo and we'll go ahead and define Ho as a promiscuous or immoral woman by induction, seeing as per Merriam-Webster it is impossible for a ho to be a promiscuous or immoral man.

The accepted term is "playboy"
Going back to the fact that you, the readers, are probably not god damned cavemen, we'll cross out the option of an immoral woman being a criteria for a ho. What morals are we talking about? Do you call a murderer a ho? A predatory lender? The guy who made the third Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie? Probably the latter but generally we do not call those people hoes.

We're left with our final criteria, promiscuity (fuck you Merriam-Webster). How do you determine if a person is promiscuous? That requires intimate knowledge of a person's sexual activity. It would require that person to be extremely open with their sexual activity, their multitude of sexual partners to be extremely open with their sexual activity with that person, or the observer to be omniscient. So unless you've had sex with that person and discussed their previous activity with them, or you're some type of magical being, it's impossible to determine how promiscuous a person.

"They're good, lol"
Narashima: Avatar of Vishnu, Devourer of Demon Baby's Mamas.
Considering a vast majority of people are, in fact, not creatures of legend, we will assume that to properly define someone as a ho you must have intimate knowledge of the person. Since we don't have intimate knowledge of this fact most of the time, we'll have to do what any pure blooded american would do: make a decision with hearsay and with information taken at face value!

I performed a cursory google search regarding the visual identifiers of a ho, and here is a summary of the results I received:

  • Curvy body
  • Big Lips
  • Flirty
  • Likes certain drinks
  • Wears certain clothes
  • Talks in a certain way
  • Dances in a certain way
  • Currently has someone else's genitals in or on her person.
Hmm.... This all sounds awfully familiar.

Through my observation and research, I can only come to the following definition:

A "Thot" is the woman in proximity who appears to be an easy lay.

You can dress it up all you want, but Thot's just another negative term to judge a woman simply based upon her outward appearance, her personality, or her social status. We already have enough of those. Let's start working on positive ones. Like Twat. (That Woman's All That). We need more twats in the world.

No comments:

Post a Comment