[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Meh, I'd do her even if she had a moustache.
=D[/QUOTE]
LooooooL
Thread
Posts in chronological order
She's a retard. That's all. End of subject (doesn't mean you guys have to stop talking. It's just the end over here.)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No, seriously. I'd do things to her that she could never imagine no matter how many porn movies she had watched.
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No, seriously. I'd do things to her that she could never imagine no matter how many porn movies she had watched.
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! William is one of the ventricles of this forum. And Horsinho... well, he keeps things interesting from time to time!
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! William is one of the ventricles of this forum. And Horsinho... well, he keeps things interesting from time to time!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No, seriously. I'd do things to her that she could never imagine no matter how many porn movies she had watched.
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! William is one of the ventricles of this forum. And Horsinho... well, he keeps things interesting from time to time!
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean the people. :P The people are fine.
But the things about "I'd tap that ass" and "I'd do things to her she can't even imagine or whatever"... I don't know, I suppose that's her punishment for putting naked pics of herself on the internet in the first place. :o
Several times.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]wstüssyb wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well....she is over 18...I'd tap that ass.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need these kind of comments? :o[/QUOTE]
Absolutely! William is one of the ventricles of this forum. And Horsinho... well, he keeps things interesting from time to time!
[/QUOTE]
I don't mean the people. :P The people are fine.
But the things about "I'd tap that ass" and "I'd do things to her she can't even imagine or whatever"... I don't know, I suppose that's her punishment for putting naked pics of herself on the internet in the first place. :o
No, I've been thinking that for long before I saw those pics
xD
xD
I'm pretty damn tired of men bragging about 'I would do this or that to her' etc. Sex ain't something a man *does* to a woman...unless he's raping her, which I more or less doubt any of us would openly advocate. Sex, under such circumstances as it is pleasurable to a decent person, involves the man and the woman both (we're talking hetero in this case), each seeing to the other's pleasure.
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex.
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm pretty damn tired of men bragging about 'I would do this or that to her' etc. Sex ain't something a man *does* to a woman...unless he's raping her, which I more or less doubt any of us would openly advocate. Sex, under such circumstances as it is pleasurable to a decent person, involves the man and the woman both (we're talking hetero in this case), each seeing to the other's pleasure.
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex. [/QUOTE]
I'm adding you to my 'favorite queenzoner' list. :)
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex. [/QUOTE]
I'm adding you to my 'favorite queenzoner' list. :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm pretty damn tired of men bragging about 'I would do this or that to her' etc. Sex ain't something a man *does* to a woman...unless he's raping her, which I more or less doubt any of us would openly advocate. Sex, under such circumstances as it is pleasurable to a decent person, involves the man and the woman both (we're talking hetero in this case), each seeing to the other's pleasure.
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex. [/QUOTE]
My two cents:
I've been saying the same thing for years. The seldom times I have had sex, I've been damn grateful. And I can honestly say I've never looked at another woman as an object. But it is a fact of life that women are treated as objects and as such most men have been indoctrinated into believing that this type of behavior is OK.
I'll add you to my friend list as well. Very intelligent post, LozlanTheMage
Sue me, I'm a feminist. As for such comments being ribald and 'joking'...it's quite simple to joke sans supporting the oppression of the opposite sex. [/QUOTE]
My two cents:
I've been saying the same thing for years. The seldom times I have had sex, I've been damn grateful. And I can honestly say I've never looked at another woman as an object. But it is a fact of life that women are treated as objects and as such most men have been indoctrinated into believing that this type of behavior is OK.
I'll add you to my friend list as well. Very intelligent post, LozlanTheMage
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]josedequeso wrote: [/QUOTENAME] But it is a fact of life that women are treated as objects and as such most men have been indoctrinated into believing that this type of behavior is OK. [/QUOTE]
That is, unfortunately, true for some cases. However, I also believe that the way a man treats a woman can depend on the way the woman acts and treats herself. If the lady acts like a slut and sleeps around and dresses/looks like a hooker... (This comes from my very little experience of watching Jerry Springer on no school-days) Then the man will most likely treat her like a trashy, slutty hooker and look at her only as a "Hot 'n' freaky piece of ass"...
But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work.
(Did that even make sense?... :O)
Not that this even has anything to do with anything, but I saw the stupidest shirt ever once... it said, "The Perfect Woman" and had a drawing of a pair of boobs on top of an ass with legs. Whoever made that shirt should be shot. ¬_¬
That is, unfortunately, true for some cases. However, I also believe that the way a man treats a woman can depend on the way the woman acts and treats herself. If the lady acts like a slut and sleeps around and dresses/looks like a hooker... (This comes from my very little experience of watching Jerry Springer on no school-days) Then the man will most likely treat her like a trashy, slutty hooker and look at her only as a "Hot 'n' freaky piece of ass"...
But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work.
(Did that even make sense?... :O)
Not that this even has anything to do with anything, but I saw the stupidest shirt ever once... it said, "The Perfect Woman" and had a drawing of a pair of boobs on top of an ass with legs. Whoever made that shirt should be shot. ¬_¬
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No, I've been thinking that for long before I saw those pics
xD[/QUOTE]
Don't you have a girlfriend?
xD[/QUOTE]
Don't you have a girlfriend?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Cookies?<h6>A Scientist wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]josedequeso wrote: [/QUOTENAME] But it is a fact of life that women are treated as objects and as such most men have been indoctrinated into believing that this type of behavior is OK. [/QUOTE]
That is, unfortunately, true for some cases. However, I also believe that the way a man treats a woman can depend on the way the woman acts and treats herself. If the lady acts like a slut and sleeps around and dresses/looks like a hooker... (This comes from my very little experience of watching Jerry Springer on no school-days) Then the man will most likely treat her like a trashy, slutty hooker and look at her only as a "Hot 'n' freaky piece of ass"...
But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work.
(Did that even make sense?... :O)
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them.
This is a common trope amongst those with little to no awareness of the extremely sexist society in which we live. Have you ever heard of a concept called the virgin/whore dichotomy? It's a fabulous means by which society demands that women both act like decent 'good girls' and simultanously like 'sluts' when it suits mens' purposes. Then men can satisfy their own egos and sexual appetites (god knows we don't critique men for sleeping around) and then decry their partners as whores.
Why should having multiple sexual partners be in any way significant in your judging of a human being? You will find that the human is an incredibly complex creature crafted of innumerable motivations and drives. To generalize and blithely state that all women who sleep around are dirty and whorish is an abominable generalization that deprives women of their agency to act as they please.
Oh, by the way, we live in a patriarchal society that, through various subtle means, has completely encouraged and fed the 'trashy' style of female garb. Don't doubt for a moment that women who dress in a fashion you find inappropriate do so specifically because they are being informed by their culture, which was male forged and is male driven. We live in a world where women regularly vomit up their meals or simply cease to eat in order to emulate airbrushed models on magazine covers. This is a travesty of the gravest sort.
Meanwhile, men snap their suspenders and say, "Golly gee, I like ladies fine, but they shouldn't dress like no slut, no sir." Excuse me...are innumerable women debasing you as a human being based on your clothing choice? I think not. Thing is: you're not a woman. You have no inkling what it means to be woman. I myself am male, and have found my road to feminism long, arduous and occasionally confusing. If you need an example of your own cultural conditioning, just glance at your above post. You associate trashy women with Jerry Springer, a cultural connection crafted by a male society. By watching the show, you then learn to generalize about all people who resemble the incredible minorty of polygamists, sheep fuckers and incestuous so-and-so's.
I am not saying that certain clothing looks terrible on people. However, I am claiming that it is a person's right to choose how they adorn their body, and mistreating another human being because you disapprove of their dress or suspected sexual history is bigoted.
That is, unfortunately, true for some cases. However, I also believe that the way a man treats a woman can depend on the way the woman acts and treats herself. If the lady acts like a slut and sleeps around and dresses/looks like a hooker... (This comes from my very little experience of watching Jerry Springer on no school-days) Then the man will most likely treat her like a trashy, slutty hooker and look at her only as a "Hot 'n' freaky piece of ass"...
But if the woman shows self respect by not dressing like a ho (And I don't mean she has to wear a muumuu every fucking day, just dress with a little more class.. :O) or by not doing things that convey that sort of image, then I think a (normal) man will see that and treat her like an actual person and not just an object that you can bang every night after you come home from work.
(Did that even make sense?... :O)
[/QUOTE]
Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them.
This is a common trope amongst those with little to no awareness of the extremely sexist society in which we live. Have you ever heard of a concept called the virgin/whore dichotomy? It's a fabulous means by which society demands that women both act like decent 'good girls' and simultanously like 'sluts' when it suits mens' purposes. Then men can satisfy their own egos and sexual appetites (god knows we don't critique men for sleeping around) and then decry their partners as whores.
Why should having multiple sexual partners be in any way significant in your judging of a human being? You will find that the human is an incredibly complex creature crafted of innumerable motivations and drives. To generalize and blithely state that all women who sleep around are dirty and whorish is an abominable generalization that deprives women of their agency to act as they please.
Oh, by the way, we live in a patriarchal society that, through various subtle means, has completely encouraged and fed the 'trashy' style of female garb. Don't doubt for a moment that women who dress in a fashion you find inappropriate do so specifically because they are being informed by their culture, which was male forged and is male driven. We live in a world where women regularly vomit up their meals or simply cease to eat in order to emulate airbrushed models on magazine covers. This is a travesty of the gravest sort.
Meanwhile, men snap their suspenders and say, "Golly gee, I like ladies fine, but they shouldn't dress like no slut, no sir." Excuse me...are innumerable women debasing you as a human being based on your clothing choice? I think not. Thing is: you're not a woman. You have no inkling what it means to be woman. I myself am male, and have found my road to feminism long, arduous and occasionally confusing. If you need an example of your own cultural conditioning, just glance at your above post. You associate trashy women with Jerry Springer, a cultural connection crafted by a male society. By watching the show, you then learn to generalize about all people who resemble the incredible minorty of polygamists, sheep fuckers and incestuous so-and-so's.
I am not saying that certain clothing looks terrible on people. However, I am claiming that it is a person's right to choose how they adorn their body, and mistreating another human being because you disapprove of their dress or suspected sexual history is bigoted.
This looks like something fun to debate. I'm almost excited. On a final note - I take no stance on this debate. The only stance I take is anti-ignorance, and pro-objectivity.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them.
[/QUOTE]
Visual appearance plays a strong role in social behavior. One's impression of another will therefore be strongly correlated to his or her appearance. Society is such that _everyone_ is provided with potential acceptable aspirations. "Tasteful dress" does not only apply to women; both men and women are strongly judged by the clothing they wear. You don't provide sufficient objective grounds to validate your argument (i.e. society is biases against women).
It is clear from the beginning of your argument that you are making numerous subjective assumptions that are unjustifiable and baseless (i.e. you assume the argument, "If women do not dress tastefully, they are therefore base creatures lacking humanity," when no such argument was made). You submit to a common logical fallacy known as the "straw man" - you create your opponent's argument (or misinterpret it), and argue against the points you fabricate. I know you're trying to sound intellectual, but this is a big no-no for those in the know.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is a common trope amongst those with little to no awareness of the extremely sexist society in which we live. Have you ever heard of a concept called the virgin/whore dichotomy? It's a fabulous means by which society demands that women both act like decent 'good girls' and simultanously like 'sluts' when it suits mens' purposes. Then men can satisfy their own egos and sexual appetites (god knows we don't critique men for sleeping around) and then decry their partners as whores.
[/QUOTE]
Another fallacy can clearly be seen in this paragraph. You essentially claim that any argument against a sexist society is the result of an ignorance of that society. You then go into a definition without providing a relevant application to it, or how it pertains to your argument (i.e., again, society is biased against women).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Why should having multiple sexual partners be in any way significant in your judging of a human being? You will find that the human is an incredibly complex creature crafted of innumerable motivations and drives. To generalize and blithely state that all women who sleep around are dirty and whorish is an abominable generalization that deprives women of their agency to act as they please.
[/QUOTE]
Just as women have the right to act as they please, do men not have the right to determine whom they deem attractive? You will also find that the opposite works just as well. Attraction is not a choice, or an evaluation. You cannot manipulate attraction to be an "equal opportunity" employer.
Women certainly retain the agency to act as they please. However, just as men act accordingly to satisfy what women find attractive, women act to satisfy what men find attractive. Since attraction is NOT a choice, and never will be, you are making a moot point.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Oh, by the way, we live in a patriarchal society that, through various subtle means, has completely encouraged and fed the 'trashy' style of female garb. Don't doubt for a moment that women who dress in a fashion you find inappropriate do so specifically because they are being informed by their culture, which was male forged and is male driven. We live in a world where women regularly vomit up their meals or simply cease to eat
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Ah. So women are only deserving of respect if they dress 'tastefully.' Otherwise they are obviously base creatures without an once of humanity. This mindset seeks to control women by placing them on a figurative pillar, which we then tell women they should aspire to. By elevating them, we isolate them.
[/QUOTE]
Visual appearance plays a strong role in social behavior. One's impression of another will therefore be strongly correlated to his or her appearance. Society is such that _everyone_ is provided with potential acceptable aspirations. "Tasteful dress" does not only apply to women; both men and women are strongly judged by the clothing they wear. You don't provide sufficient objective grounds to validate your argument (i.e. society is biases against women).
It is clear from the beginning of your argument that you are making numerous subjective assumptions that are unjustifiable and baseless (i.e. you assume the argument, "If women do not dress tastefully, they are therefore base creatures lacking humanity," when no such argument was made). You submit to a common logical fallacy known as the "straw man" - you create your opponent's argument (or misinterpret it), and argue against the points you fabricate. I know you're trying to sound intellectual, but this is a big no-no for those in the know.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is a common trope amongst those with little to no awareness of the extremely sexist society in which we live. Have you ever heard of a concept called the virgin/whore dichotomy? It's a fabulous means by which society demands that women both act like decent 'good girls' and simultanously like 'sluts' when it suits mens' purposes. Then men can satisfy their own egos and sexual appetites (god knows we don't critique men for sleeping around) and then decry their partners as whores.
[/QUOTE]
Another fallacy can clearly be seen in this paragraph. You essentially claim that any argument against a sexist society is the result of an ignorance of that society. You then go into a definition without providing a relevant application to it, or how it pertains to your argument (i.e., again, society is biased against women).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Why should having multiple sexual partners be in any way significant in your judging of a human being? You will find that the human is an incredibly complex creature crafted of innumerable motivations and drives. To generalize and blithely state that all women who sleep around are dirty and whorish is an abominable generalization that deprives women of their agency to act as they please.
[/QUOTE]
Just as women have the right to act as they please, do men not have the right to determine whom they deem attractive? You will also find that the opposite works just as well. Attraction is not a choice, or an evaluation. You cannot manipulate attraction to be an "equal opportunity" employer.
Women certainly retain the agency to act as they please. However, just as men act accordingly to satisfy what women find attractive, women act to satisfy what men find attractive. Since attraction is NOT a choice, and never will be, you are making a moot point.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Oh, by the way, we live in a patriarchal society that, through various subtle means, has completely encouraged and fed the 'trashy' style of female garb. Don't doubt for a moment that women who dress in a fashion you find inappropriate do so specifically because they are being informed by their culture, which was male forged and is male driven. We live in a world where women regularly vomit up their meals or simply cease to eat
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]QueenMercury46 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=0066FF>Horsinho wrote: [/QUOTENAME]No, I've been thinking that for long before I saw those pics
xD[/QUOTE]
Don't you have a girlfriend?[/QUOTE]I used to, now I don't.
(H)
xD[/QUOTE]
Don't you have a girlfriend?[/QUOTE]I used to, now I don't.
(H)
Music Man -
In the 'interest of objectivity' you claim to serve, would you be at all willing to critique the opposing opinion as well? It's all very well to claim that you support an objective stance, but the proof is in the pudding.
I will write up a more detailed response to your bits later. Touche and such. But I would appreciate (purely in the interest of objectivity) that you extended your reasoned criticisms to both sides of the playing field.
Oh, and I never try to 'sound smart. I promise, in those rare instances where I come across as a vaguely intelligent individual, it's usual a typo. Cheerio.
In the 'interest of objectivity' you claim to serve, would you be at all willing to critique the opposing opinion as well? It's all very well to claim that you support an objective stance, but the proof is in the pudding.
I will write up a more detailed response to your bits later. Touche and such. But I would appreciate (purely in the interest of objectivity) that you extended your reasoned criticisms to both sides of the playing field.
Oh, and I never try to 'sound smart. I promise, in those rare instances where I come across as a vaguely intelligent individual, it's usual a typo. Cheerio.