On April 24th, I asserted that this man is a Tammy based solely on the muscle shirt and mustache, ignoring the obvious clues that this man is in fact a Mandy [I have since then removed the picture from the post]. I now know how some married women feel when their husbands come out of the closet. All the signs were there; I just didn't want to see them.
My sister successfully argues the case:
"i'm a little bit concerned that the man holding an enormous palm frond has been classified as a "tammy." the course guidelines established early on in this endeavor make it clear that tammys MAY in fact become attached to inanimate objects (this includes plants, which live but do not move) that they cannot fuck, drink, or destroy. however, the nature of a tammy's attachment to an inanimate object is always practical, not sentimental. this guy obviously loves that palm frond. he wants to caretake it--tuck it up into his mandy-ish vagina. i'm wondering if you could clarify your thinking for me in classifying said dude as a tammy. is there a feature of the photograph i'm missing? do you think it's important to adhere to set guidelines in identifying tammy and mandy, or is it more appropriate to allow ourselves flexibility and, perhaps, gut instinct?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment