There are three types of women in this world. If you believe in stereotypes, then you’ll agree:
1) Nice girls
2) Not nice girls
People flippantly use the word ‘skank-whore’ to describe anything intrinsically connected to ‘sex’, ‘loose’ and nounage thereof.
However, one mustn’t undermine or disregard the term ‘skank-whore’ if one is to be taken seriously.
A skank-whore doesn’t study beauty therapy, a skank-whore, however inclined to stretch a single piece of cloth over her nethers, is actually one of the boys.
Man on the street doesn’t know this.
This is where everyone is genuinely surprised on finding out she’s actually given all the men within her proximity head.
Nice girls and not-so nice girls shouldn’t. find this threatening.
Skank-whores are easy to distinguish if one only has the relevant tools. Don’t be confused by distant and similar cousin, the skank-ho. This determinable species is far less manipulative, far less dangerous. In their natural habitat, they’ll be found in rayon and other unnatural fabrics, have had a humble edumacashun, and won’t hesitate to use their nails in combat, often with other skank-hos. They also don't need to be asked twice, and a plethora of head is at your mercy.
Nay, nay. Remember that there’s always a soupçon of challenge with the skank-whore when it comes to sexual favours. I say soupçon, it’s never completely out of the question.
Skank-whores are the one’s to be weary of, and they will make you weary. They’re smart and will use limited sexuality to get what they need through Machiavellian means.
Machiavelli’s philosophies surrounding his most popular transgression, The Prince, is easily recognised as one of the most self-pleasing immoral works of that time. He was a skank-whore himself, of course.
In a nutshell: he reckons the end justifies the means, one does whatever one needs to do for themselves, no matter the consequence. Do evil for the greater good. That’s skank-whore if I’ve ever read it.
I digress, The Prince should be renamed The Skank-Whore to accommodate recent times.
Some call him evil.
I’d disagree on the pretence of him being evil – for I have witnessed more evil things than Machiavelli myself – but in sum-up, skank-whores, unbenknownst to him, were the very thing he was writing about.
I know a couple of skank-whores. But, who cares? Believe it or not, that is not my point today.
The actual point is I have managed to use skank-whore and Machiavelli in one post. I even linked the two. Thanks Kyknoord for the challenge.
Could you send me a tequila now please?