snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Rantidote » Male/Female attractiveness. (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  16  17  18   
Author Topic: Male/Female attractiveness.
Ryda Wong, EBfCo.
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   E-mail Ryda Wong, EBfCo.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
[qb]
[QUOTE]The way we see sex thrown at us now, it's all about the false and covered. Appearence, dialogue, interaction, gaze: none of these things are natural. And then, in an odd disconnect, the unnatural becomes the common, and the inaccurate the best understood and the most pervasive form.

Could you maybe re-state this using different words? I think I get what you're saying, but I'm by no means sure.
Yeah. That was a bit floaty, wasn't it?

First, let me make it clear that I understand that we, as a species, have a tendency to fantisize (hence religions, mythologies, and complex emotional or sexual connections to constructs). That will never be eliminated, nor should it. What bothers me is when our first contacts with sexuality so very rarely resemble any sort of mature interaction, and mature interactions between people are hidden and disregarded. As a society, we very rarely see the complex set of variables involved in negotiating partner choice, preferred methods of sexual expression, realistic bodies, realistic problems.

What we do see is idealized and commercialized. It's airbrushed, lit, and edited to a glossy smoothness. And without a dose of reality to contridict that, I think we grow up with the wrong idea surrounding sex and sexuality and attraction.

Perhaps if there was realistic and open discussion in addition to our glossy idealization, that would be one thing. But in terms of culture, we've been presented with basically two choices in this country: Be a virgin (i.e. wait until marriage, have one partner, etc.) or be a whore (have sex indiscriminatly, without concern for your partners and often your own well-being, make it into a compitition and a way of gaining popularity, make it a commodity).

There's more choices than that, and I'd love to see those represented.

--------------------
So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus:

Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:
Be a virgin (i.e. wait until marriage, have one partner, etc.) or be a whore (have sex indiscriminatly, without concern for your partners and often your own well-being, make it into a compitition and a way of gaining popularity, make it a commodity).

There's more choices than that, and I'd love to see those represented.

This could, in fact, be where our experiences differ. I am not in the same country that you are. I think that Britain is going more towards complex and realistic portrayals of sex and sexuality - I've recently praised the programme How To Look Good Naked, for example, for taking women who are so ashamed of their bodies that they never look at themselves in a mirror and, instead of convincing them that they need surgery or anything, build up their confidence by showing that their body image is skewed and that people see them as more attractive than they think they do, even though they're not teh typical image of Hollywood "perfection", and give them the confidence to do a naked photoshoot.

I don't think that a realistic and complex portrayal of sexuality in an advert is ever going to happen, though, not least because there simply isn't the time. And I don't think that the portrayal of sexuality in adverts is ever going to go away, either. Given those basic truths (or what I consider to be truths), I think that it's better to have both men and women portrayed in the same way within the medium (within the "glossy idealization") than it is for things to remain the same. It may not be all the steps forward that are required, but it's certainly one of them.

I think that mainland European countries have got it more right than we have in the UK, too. But then it often seems like we're playing a very slow game of cultural catching up to mainland Europe.

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
ETA: It is, oddly, those occassional newcomers who choose to lecture about behavior who are the ones who think they are better than those they choose to lecture.

Or perhaps it's just that people coming from an "outside" perspective can see things that those on the "inside" have stopped noticing.
**shrug** I just assume that when it gets snarky and nasty, the ones involve know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. How it looks is exactly how it is intended.

Self policing of the community by the community.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bthyb
WiFi Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bthyb   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:

Self policing of the community by the community.

But that's exactly the point. I was going to stay out of this, but that's exactly what Rixel was trying to do. He's a member of the community who was pointing out something that was not cool. I certainly don't think he deserved to be undermined for what he was trying to do, which is have everyone obey the Golden rule. (You know, do unto others...) There certainly seems to be a lot of defensiveness about the name-calling.

I've noticed it too, in several threads. After arguing a while with someone who is posting what others consider to be ridiculous view points, the name calling and teasing comes in.

The points made on this thread about how we're better about that here on Snopes than on other bulletin boards - so what? It's still mean.

And I didn't get that he was on a high horse either. I don't think being mean on here is right. I don't do it. I don't think I'm better than you because of that.

I had a whole justification for why I hadn't spoken out on this earlier - I even sent it to Rixel. But hell with it, I'm going to say what I think:

We can all disagree, but there's no reason to make fun of someone. If someone is being ridiculous or otherwise troll-ish, ignore it (or report as needed).

So that's my thoughts - they're not orders.

--------------------
If you say you love ice cream, you better be dreaming of an orgy with Ben, Jerry, and one fine-ass chunky monkey.

-- My sister and poet extraordinaire, Joanna Hoffman

Posts: 1475 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I rarely try to be sharky, and I attempt to post in relatively calm manner, but often I find it difficult to post my views or argue them when 6 different people are arguing against my arguments in the previous post, on multiple levels. As a result, my grammar and general English become mixed and damaged as I try to answer as many posts as possible.

But I find it incredibly hard to make any kind of point when I’m not arguing with one person, but that person and their friends. I originally posted on this thread because I was disgusted by the manner you where treating Snafu’s views. The view first post on this thread was Sara at home stating: Popcorn! Get yer popcorn here! and the rest of the posts followed in the same manner, the whole first page is basically ‘respected members of snopes message board’ bashing someone for they views. Only one or two of you even try to discuss the thread’s topic.
In fact, Ryda posted that Snafu was ether a MRA, a troll or simply clueless. Later she bashes him on the incorrect use of ‘bear’ of ‘bare’, something I’m pretty sure is one of those obscure things in the English language. In the same post she exclaims, “You don’t get to judge just how often a class differing from yours gets to bitch” but the part she was quoting just states that: He, all too often, hears women complaining that too much emphasis is placed on their body and look in an uneven to what is put on a man’s body and looks, which he disagrees with. I must agree with him, I’m a normal male and I don’t find supermodels attractive on anything but the most basic level, too me, a women’s mind is far more important, but I won’t deny that I find the female body attractive.
Even farther into this post, Ryda writes what men want or at least, what and ‘acceptable’ body is. But I have no idea what’s she’s talking about, this is her list:
  • no body fat
  • no cellulite
  • no jiggly parts
  • few prominent muscles
  • medium-large breasts

First, in order to have breasts, a woman must have a) body fat, and b) breasts tend to jiggle.
I find it distressing that a woman would try to be any of those, because having no body fat, etc, is clearly not healthy, and that’s what I’m sure most men want: a healthy, kind women who they can share the rest of their lives with. Most women can stay healthy by eating right, and getting a little bit of exercise, as Snafu said.
I find it ironic that most of the women where disagreeing with his sentiment that ‘slim’ (etc) was not unrealistic, because most women are not slim ‘naturally’. But earlier this summer I traveled to Costa Rica, for 18 days. The women where ‘slim’ but not unhealthy, not by a long shot, they may live in a third world country, but that hardly means they’re on the level African countries. In fact they live pretty long down there (no doubt because of their laid back outlook to the world). It makes me question the opinion that it’s unrealistic to be slim/trim/healthy body mass. It’s very possible that the lifestyle lead in First world countries/western world (USA, Canada, England, Australia, etc) is the real cause behind the unrealistic body that Snafu proposed, not any biological reason.
But the most Ironic part is: “You must be speaking to the wrong women. Really. I know very few females who are attracted to this type of physique.”

Look who’s calling the kettle black…. I know very few males who are attracted to this type of physique (as in the perfect women that Ryda kindly outlined.)

Now, back to the issue of the bashing of users, Lainie replied to Joe’s Post about pre-staging drama, where she tells him to “stop wandering into threads to play hall monitor” but I don’t see where Joe was wrong.

Fast forward 6 pages. A user named Rixel appears. You bash him because ‘you don’t think someone with 53 posts should be lecturing us on the nature of our posts. You might want to check how many posts the people you are lecturing have.”

But why would the number of posts he has affect his intelligence? Why do you have to be a spam artist or been on the board posting everyday for 3 years to have your opinion listened too?

I find it very hard to post anything that anyone disagrees with because you’ve all been here so long that you’ve all become one entity, it’s not really a board anymore as it is a handful of users who A) share the same views and B) are intolerant to any opinion that is different then theirs. And C) they feel that they are better then anyone else, especially users who disagree with them or don’t have the posts to be respected.

Originally I posted because I felt that, to my great shock, the snopers that I respected (on some level) had lost all self-control and were bashing for no good reason, and especially, I was pissed at Ryda’s offhand dismissal of MRA. One blog doesn’t represent the whole MRA movement, in the same way that extremist feminists doesn’t represent the whole of feminism.

As for self-policing, this rarely works, I’m forced to remember an episode of Mayday! (Discovery channel) in which two planes are on a runway. One of the plane’s Capitan is the best there is in that company. Hundreds of hours of flight time. He was also arrogant, full of himself. He trained the Co-pilot and Navigator; they knew he was making a very big ‘no-no’ when he started to take off with out permission. But they said nothing, because they feared him, they respected him, they knew he was doing wrong but couldn’t say: “sir you’re doing that wrong”.

I get that feeling from these boards, the big daddies are talking and you shouldn’t interrupt, and if you do: woo be you who incurs the wrath of the board. Even if you know they’re wrong.

Anyways, I apologies for my behavior towards feminism, and on this thread, but I do feel that it’s time for it to stop forcing on just women and try to get equal rights for every man, woman, homosexual, Heterosexual, bisexual, transgender, black, white, etc.

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm, the OTHER import:
The view first post on this thread was Sara at home stating: Popcorn! Get yer popcorn here!


Some topics you just know are going to be entertaining right off the bat. So stone me for being the first to make that comment. **shrug**

quote:
and the rest of the posts followed in the same manner, the whole first page is basically ‘respected members of snopes message board’ bashing someone for they views.

Are you using quotation marks because that's a direct quote or because that's the name you dubbed the people you are talking about? I never used that phrase and wouldn't. However, I will point out that there are some of us who are bashed regularly for being part of various segments of the population who are simply given no respect by certain others on the board. Sadly, those people may not even realize their lack of respect for certain segments of the population that is so obvious in their posts.

quote:
In fact, Ryda posted that Snafu was ether a MRA, a troll or simply clueless.

Well, he admitted he had just come in from a night at the pub. "Drunk" worked but Ryda missed that one.

quote:
Now, back to the issue of the bashing of users, Lainie replied to Joe’s Post about pre-staging drama, where she tells him to "stop wandering into threads to play hall monitor" but I don’t see where Joe was wrong.

Like it or not, each thread does not exist in a vacuum and we aren't strangers to one another. There is baggage and carryover. There are also personal interactions within the threads.

quote:
Fast forward 6 pages. A user named Rixel appears. You bash him because "you don’t think someone with 53 posts should be lecturing us on the nature of our posts. You might want to check how many posts the people you are lecturing have."

But why would the number of posts he has affect his intelligence? Why do you have to be a spam artist or been on the board posting everyday for 3 years to have your opinion listened too?


His intelligence isn't the issue and you are being disingenuous in implying it. But just like a relative stranger wouldn't wander into a group sitting in a bar or the student center or in an employee lunch room and chastise them for their behavior among themselves, I don't believe newcomers to internet boards should feel free to do the same thing. The stranger can chat up the group, join in and discuss the topic at hand, but he can't be the group policeman. One just doesn't do that. YMMV but I don't think many of us would tolerate that behavior in RL.

quote:
I find it very hard to post anything that anyone disagrees with because you’ve all been here so long that you’ve all become one entity, it’s not really a board anymore as it is a handful of users who A) share the same views and B) are intolerant to any opinion that is different then theirs. And C) they feel that they are better then anyone else, especially users who disagree with them or don’t have the posts to be respected.

I think you've just been unlucky that you've pushed a lot of people's buttons on a lot of different topics. As I see it, the uniting issue isn't that the people who attacked you are all best buddies and in agreement on all the topics, the uniting issue is that you have a style and attitude in your posting that is antagonizing for many.

quote:
Originally I posted because I felt that, to my great shock, the snopers that I respected (on some level) had lost all self-control and were bashing for no good reason, and especially, I was pissed at Ryda’s offhand dismissal of MRA. One blog doesn’t represent the whole MRA movement, in the same way that extremist feminists doesn’t represent the whole of feminism.

I will say that I, for one, am tired of all feminists being treated like "extremist feminists", militant feminists" or "feminazis". I'm tired of being in discussions where the only people who aren't labeled with those words are the ones are ones who aren't truly feminists.

quote:
As for self-policing, this rarely works, I’m forced to remember an episode of Mayday! (Discovery channel) in which two planes are on a runway. One of the plane’s Capitan is the best there is in that company. Hundreds of hours of flight time. He was also arrogant, full of himself. He trained the Co-pilot and Navigator; they knew he was making a very big ‘no-no’ when he started to take off with out permission. But they said nothing, because they feared him, they respected him, they knew he was doing wrong but couldn’t say: “sir you’re doing that wrong”.

I'm confused. What does that have to do with self-policing? There wasn't any.

quote:
I get that feeling from these boards, the big daddies are talking and you shouldn’t interrupt, and if you do: woo be you who incurs the wrath of the board. Even if you know they’re wrong.

Firestorm, you have to often used an attack method of posting. Tone it down. Talk to people. Don't talk at them so much. Things will go better. I promise.

quote:
Anyways, I apologies for my behavior towards feminism, and on this thread, but I do feel that it’s time for it to stop forcing on just women and try to get equal rights for every man, woman, homosexual, Heterosexual, bisexual, transgender, black, white, etc.
Wow. That's decent of you and a good thing to say. If I want to be a feminist, I'm allowed. If you want to work for the equality of all, that's a good thing. We really aren't at odds; I'm not trying to make women "better" because that's not what feminism is about. Scratch most feminists you will find that they are for civil rights, GLBT rights, all the underdogs. And no matter how deep you scratch, you will find few who really hate man or heteros.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm, the OTHER import:
I find it very hard to post anything that anyone disagrees with because you’ve all been here so long that you’ve all become one entity, it’s not really a board anymore as it is a handful of users who A) share the same views and B) are intolerant to any opinion that is different then theirs. And C) they feel that they are better then anyone else, especially users who disagree with them or don’t have the posts to be respected.

Firestorm, there are many snopesters with whom I disagree on just about everything. There are others with whom I agree on just about everything. There are many that fall into neither category, and even in each of those categories, the agreement or disagreement is less than 100%.

It's true that some of the responses to your posts, including mine, have been less than respectful. I apologize for having stepped over the line. But I ask that you also consider whether your own posting style might sometimes be a bit aggressive. Also, if (an)other snopester(s) find(s) a logical hole in your argument, they will poke at it. That happens to everyone. It's easy to have an emotional reaction to that; it's happened to me, too.

And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program, type your posts in that, spell and grammar check them, then cut and paste them onto the board. It only takes a few extra seconds, and it will help you avoid a number of errors. Again, I apologize for my comments that went over the line, but the fundamental objection to poor spelling and grammar is that it makes it harder for people to read and understand your posts. Which is a waste, because I do think you have some interesting things to say.

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Simply Madeline
The First USA Noel


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Simply Madeline     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program, type your posts in that, spell and grammar check them, then cut and paste them onto the board.

Or load the google toolbar, which has a spell check -- no need to cut and paste. It's a lifesaver for me!
Posts: 763 | From: Chicago | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
trollface
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for trollface   Author's Homepage   E-mail trollface   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program[...]

*giggle*

--------------------
seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears.

Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firestorm, the OTHER import:
quote:
I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm suggesting that perhaps language is more than what you personally think it is. Most of academia agrees with me. I'm not going to stop criticizing culture because people like you care not to think about things more deeply. I'm not trying to make a capital case out of it, just pointing out that words have nuanced meanings and can transform thought as well as describe it.
Your not criticizing it, your whining about nothing.

Your not a feminist, but a whining FRA

quote:
You don't like feminists? You'd prefer that we all wallow in the dark ages of gender inequality? Great. I'll continue to pick apart your arguments and destroy your idiotic patriarchy.
You can try, but anyday now a new movement could appear the destroy feminism and reshape the socal landscape.

Or are you really that foolish to believe that feminism is going to keep on 'wining' it's battles your wrong, very wrong.

I predict that a new movement promotting equal rights for every human being will appear soon, and remove feminism to the background where you can whine and compane about all the horrorible in justiness of the word women or woman or girl or lass or Female, because it seems to me thats what your all more forced on those non-issues of the english evolution of any word relating to your sex, as they're all so degrading to you.


Firestorm As long as you post like this you will get negative reactions. If you genuinely want to try not to push people's buttons then I suggest you try to tone down your anti-feminist rhetoric in threads like this one, and in general try to write more clearly so that we can all understand what you are trying to say.

Further, you do yourself no favours when you make gross over generalisations that are guaranteed to give offense. As an example, on a subject like child custody and support on a board filled with people (men as well as women) who have had actual first hand experience with this you might want to give some thought to what you post as you will be called out on it. In spades.

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Firestorm said:

Even farther into this post, Ryda writes what men want or at least, what and ‘acceptable’ body is. But I have no idea what’s she’s talking about, this is her list:

no body fat
no cellulite
no jiggly parts
few prominent muscles
medium-large breasts

First, in order to have breasts, a woman must have a) body fat, and b) breasts tend to jiggle.
I find it distressing that a woman would try to be any of those, because having no body fat, etc, is clearly not healthy...

As I read it, you're agreeing with Ryda here. These things are contradictory. That was her point. Weird how people can agree but still argue despite that.

(Her point was about "acceptable cultural norms", not necessarily about "what men want", which is clearly different from individual to individual and generally less strict, I would imagine.)

Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program[...]

*giggle*
To be fair, computer programs do generally use the US spelling (for some reason) but TV programmes and other sorts of programme don't. Well, except in the USA.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program[...]

*giggle*
To be fair, computer programs do generally use the US spelling (for some reason) but TV programmes and other sorts of programme don't. Well, except in the USA.
psst, Richard, it wasn't about the spelling; she dropped a word.


Whose law was that? If you comment on someone else's spelling or grammar you will invariably make a spelling or grammar error?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by trollface:
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
And a little tip for the typing and English: if have a word processing program[...]

*giggle*
[lol] See, the grammar checker would have caught that!

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rixel
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rixel   E-mail Rixel   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:

His intelligence isn't the issue and you are being disingenuous in implying it. But just like a relative stranger wouldn't wander into a group sitting in a bar or the student center or in an employee lunch room and chastise them for their behavior among themselves, I don't believe newcomers to internet boards should feel free to do the same thing. The stranger can chat up the group, join in and discuss the topic at hand, but he can't be the group policeman. One just doesn't do that. YMMV but I don't think many of us would tolerate that behavior in RL.

There are multiple problems with this comparison between real life and an internet board that don't work. Most of which have to do with assumptions about me that I think should be clarified.

Although I loathe to point this out, just because I have a minimal amount of posts does not mean I am a newcomer to this board. I read topics on the board for about 5 or 6 months before registering. Even after registering, I didn't write a lot because of a variety of reasons (I didn't think I had enough background to get involved in the topic, I didn't have the time, or my opinion was stated by someone already.. to name a few of the reasons). To put it bluntly, I'm still a lurker, not a poster. However, while I may not have read every post on every board, and by my own admittance only stick to reading the longer topics for the most part (as that is where it can get most interesting to a lurker such as myself), I am not 'new' to the group discussion. I just haven't been saying my part.

All that of course is entirely reliant on the idea that the amount of time you are around specifically matters, which I don't think it does because the posts I specifically commented on were (and are) bullying no matter what way you slice it.

In terms of your example locations in RL (or any location where a group is concerned in RL), in most cases I would agree that someone shouldn't just walk in from the outside and start policing the conversation - what should be said, what shouldn't be said. That is foolish.

The problem here is that if this public forum was RL, then what I witnessed occuring was a number of people standing 5 feet from Firestorm pointing and laughing at him. As a public board, it should be treated like all members are there all the time because like as not they will read all the posts.

It's bad enough to picture a group of any people sitting around laughing at someone behind their back, it's worse to see them laughing at that person in their face. If you are suggesting I shouldn't have come forward in this instance to "police" the thread just because I don't know all the group dynamics when a group of people are treating someone like filth and like an object, then I feel entirely justified in ignoring your suggestion.

--------------------
When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind.

Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Amazing Rando
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Amazing Rando   Author's Homepage   E-mail The Amazing Rando   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard W:
quote:
Firestorm said:

Even farther into this post, Ryda writes what men want or at least, what and ‘acceptable’ body is. But I have no idea what’s she’s talking about, this is her list:

no body fat
no cellulite
no jiggly parts
few prominent muscles
medium-large breasts

First, in order to have breasts, a woman must have a) body fat, and b) breasts tend to jiggle.
I find it distressing that a woman would try to be any of those, because having no body fat, etc, is clearly not healthy...

As I read it, you're agreeing with Ryda here. These things are contradictory. That was her point. Weird how people can agree but still argue despite that.

He's agreeing that they're contradictory. His point, I think, is that Ryda is wrong about that being what men want.
Posts: 417 | From: Escondido, California | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cervus
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cervus   E-mail Cervus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
But just like a relative stranger wouldn't wander into a group sitting in a bar or the student center or in an employee lunch room and chastise them for their behavior among themselves, I don't believe newcomers to internet boards should feel free to do the same thing. The stranger can chat up the group, join in and discuss the topic at hand, but he can't be the group policeman. One just doesn't do that. YMMV but I don't think many of us would tolerate that behavior in RL.

I stayed out of this thread because I did not want to get involved in yet another argument with you. But I must respectfully disagree with your attitude toward Rixel:

quote:
Originally posted by Sara at Home:
With all due respect, I don't think someone with 53 posts should be lecturing us on the nature of our posts. You might want to check how many posts the people you are lecturing have. And you may want to rethink who "we" are.

I, personally, don't want to be spoken for by someone who thinks a post count is indicative of anything. Or that "we" on snopes think collectively, like the Borg. Or that we don't welcome newcomers.

You, Sara, are no more a "group policeman" than Rixel. It's snopes' board, not yours. And we all get to participate if we follow his rules - even if you don't like what we have to say.

Fortunately, Barbara made my point more succinctly than I could. As usual. [Smile]

[/exits thread]

--------------------
"There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen
Won't somebody please think of the adults!

Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Four Kitties
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 503 posted      Profile for Four Kitties   E-mail Four Kitties   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rixel:
If you are suggesting I shouldn't have come forward in this instance to "police" the thread just because I don't know all the group dynamics when a group of people are treating someone like filth and like an object, then I feel entirely justified in ignoring your suggestion.

I was suggesting that you not come forward to police the thread because you're not the police.
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
Whose law was that? If you comment on someone else's spelling or grammar you will invariably make a spelling or grammar error?

It's Silas' law.

Four Kitties

--------------------
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rixel:

Although I loathe to point this out, just because I have a minimal amount of posts does not mean I am a newcomer to this board. I read topics on the board for about 5 or 6 months before registering. Even after registering, I didn't write a lot because of a variety of reasons (I didn't think I had enough background to get involved in the topic, I didn't have the time, or my opinion was stated by someone already.. to name a few of the reasons). To put it bluntly, I'm still a lurker, not a poster. However, while I may not have read every post on every board, and by my own admittance only stick to reading the longer topics for the most part (as that is where it can get most interesting to a lurker such as myself), I am not 'new' to the group discussion. I just haven't been saying my part.


You know that, others don't. Unless we know you as well as you know us, you aren't a part of the group just like the employee who goes out every lunch or the student who never goes to the center or the guy who drops in at the bar to pick up a six-pack isn't really one of the gang who hangs in those places. Would you jump in and tell them how to interact?

quote:
All that of course is entirely reliant on the idea that the amount of time you are around specifically matters, which I don't think it does because the posts I specifically commented on were (and are) bullying no matter what way you slice it.

And I disagree. Sometimes when you don't know the people you don't really know who the bullies are. Like the playground police at my son's elementary school, you missed the hit, you only saw the hit back.

quote:
In terms of your example locations in RL (or any location where a group is concerned in RL), in most cases I would agree that someone shouldn't just walk in from the outside and start policing the conversation - what should be said, what shouldn't be said. That is foolish.

The problem here is that if this public forum was RL, then what I witnessed occuring was a number of people standing 5 feet from Firestorm pointing and laughing at him. As a public board, it should be treated like all members are there all the time because like as not they will read all the posts.

It's bad enough to picture a group of any people sitting around laughing at someone behind their back, it's worse to see them laughing at that person in their face.


What does that mean? Are you suggesting that people thought they were laughing at Firestorm behind his back? I'm confused.
quote:
If you are suggesting I shouldn't have come forward in this instance to "police" the thread just because I don't know all the group dynamics when a group of people are treating someone like filth and like an object, then I feel entirely justified in ignoring your suggestion.
That is exactly what I am suggesting. Obviously. Ignore me all you want. But I'm not obliged to ignore you.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Fowlplay
The First USA Noel


Icon 216 posted      Profile for Fowlplay   E-mail Fowlplay   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, I finally read the whole thread and it was at least an interesting read. Now, I'm trying to remember the OP. Oh yeah.

Anyway, I don't even remember who made this post but I thought it was rather interesting and 'copied' it eariler so I could paste it in my response.

quote:
I'm just wondering if there is a difference here between "what men like" and "what women think men like".

I ask this (seriously) because to me there seems to be a big disparity between the two. I certainly don't deny that there is a lot of pressure brought on women through the media regarding appearance - it seems that every second TV commercial is telling you that you've got to look better/ younger/ firmer/ whatever. In response women are feeling under intense pressure to emulate those walking coathangers we call fashion models. And here is my question - is the "fashion model" look a male ideal, or a female ideal?

My experience has been that by and large, men prefer curves over angles. Try comparing the body shapes of the models found in a women's fashion magazine and a mens "girlie" magazine. In the fashion magazine the models will generally be rake thin - some may even say gaunt. Is this what we're seeing in the girlie magazine? Not really!

Now before you get excited I'm not saying that women should all go out an get breast implants and collagen pouting lips. I'm just floating the idea that it appears (to me) that women are striving to attain a look that not many men are interested in anyway. Which is a real shame because they end up suffering mentally and physically for no real purpose.


This is a very interesting notion that I hadn't considered before. There are obviously two entirely differenct motivations between these 'literatures', so that may be enought to explain the difference right there, but something to ponder non-the-less.

I think the problem here is we are dealing with the 'stereotypical' notion of what is beautiful. My experience tells me that there is far too large a range of what is considered 'ideal' for anyone to make definative answers to apply to everybody. Plus, just because someone may find the 'Iconic American Blond' attractive, doesn't mean that they are necessarily their 'type' or what they expect out of all women.

There are also level of attractiveness. I don't know about everyone else, but there are people I find:

1)totally physically unappealing (Roseane Barr)

2)mostly physically unappealing (Liza Monelli even at her peak)

3) average but no special attraction (Jeanene Garafalo)

4) average to below average attraction, but has a certain 'look' or attribute that I find personally fascinating (Sara Rue, Nicole Sullivan)

5) attractive, but has a certain 'look' or attribute that I find personally unappealing (Sarah Jessica Parker, Cindy Crawford)

6) attractive and noteworthy, but go about my day (Heather Graham)

7) beautiful eye-catching, attractive but so unrealistic as to be easily dismissed (Jessica Biel, Catherine-Zeta Jones, Jennifer Love Hewit)

8) instant object of 'attainable' lust that may mess with my head for the rest of the day (this ones difficult to give a celebrity example of because typically it would be someone you met during normal day-to-day stuff.)

9) someone I recognize that MOST other people would consider attractive, BUT does nothing special for me (Julia Roberts)

10) and the whole package. This one tends to be more than physical though. The physical initiates it, but it becomes both more and less important as you get to know the person (if that makes any sense). This tends to be someone you met in real life, briefly and they capture your attention physically, mentally, emotionally, intellectually, etc. in a short period of time.

Now I am sure there will be several guys that jump all over me for some of the women I don't consider attractive and some that will think I'm nuts for who I DO consider attractive, but that is the whole point. I even tried to target different body types, looks, etc. Attraction is such an individual thing that I think we all understand the archetype of 'hot chick' or 'man muffin' and can jokingly poke at our friend when we see one of 'those' on TV or out at the restaurant, but most mature adults actually have a wide variety of what they consider attractive.

However, I think there is something to be said for physical attraction 'interfering' with our judgement. I have found some people (unfairly I realise) harder to trust because of a certain look or apperance or style, even when I talked to them on the phone previously and found them to be perfectly amiable. I have also had the opposite happen where someone who I disagree with consistantly over a long period of time (and I am sure thinks I am equally an ass) and we finally meet in person and because of a physical 'wow' attraction (somewhere along level '8' above) all of a sudden I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt when I never even would have considered it before. And both are unsettling, but I think these are just gutteral, visceral, internal responses. You use your mind to overcome these things, but it doesn't change your initial reaction. You have to work to overcome some of those things and I don't think some of these things are 'learned' behavior.

Don't get me wrong, I think as humans we are probably 60% products of our environment, %20 products of our cognitive abilities, %5 some hidden, arche-typal Jungian/Freudian thing AND about %15 biologically motivated. And I think some level of all of this plays into our attractions.

So while I agree with Ryda that many of our conceived notions of 'beautiful' are implanted in us (and undoubtadly some are not healthy), some of them are products of other things within us.

Fowl"At least IMHO."play

--------------------
"Sometimes it will be fluffy bunnies and cotton candy. Sometimes it will be napalm and defoliants. Sometimes it is roasted bunnies." -Rhiandmoi

Posts: 627 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cervus nippon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
But just like a relative stranger wouldn't wander into a group sitting in a bar or the student center or in an employee lunch room and chastise them for their behavior among themselves, I don't believe newcomers to internet boards should feel free to do the same thing. The stranger can chat up the group, join in and discuss the topic at hand, but he can't be the group policeman. One just doesn't do that. YMMV but I don't think many of us would tolerate that behavior in RL.

I stayed out of this thread because I did not want to get involved in yet another argument with you. But I must respectfully disagree with your attitude toward Rixel
How interesting. I made a few one line posts to this 8 page thread until page 7; I wasn't involved in the main discussions; you say you stayed out of the thread because you didn't want to get involved in another of your arguments with me; but you nevertheless decided to get into the thread only after I started making serious posts and specifically to disagree with me.

I almost think you didn't get involved in the discussion until now because you couldn't find an excuse to get into another of your argument with me. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
#1. If a woman wants breasts with no body fat, all she needs is a visa with a limit of at least $3K.

#2. The kind of breasts you can pay for don't jiggle much.

#3. I know plenty of guys that like this look.

#4. I know plenty of guys that dislike this look.

#5. I believe that the police have already come through this thread.

#6. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss our resident Men's Rights Activist. I wonder what he's gotten up to.

#7. I agree with FowlPlays ranking system, and use one very similar for myself.

1)totally physically unappealing - That Bruce Guy that writes jokes

2)mostly physically unappealing - Phil Magera

3) average but no special attraction - Bruce Willis

4) average to below average attraction, but has a certain 'look' or attribute that I find personally fascinating - Matthew Perry

5) attractive, but has a certain 'look' or attribute that I find personally unappealing
Brad Pitt

6) attractive and noteworthy, but go about my day-
Leonardo Di Caprio

7) beautiful eye-catching, attractive but so unrealistic as to be easily dismissed -Johnny Depp

8) instant object of 'attainable' lust that may mess with my head for the rest of the day - really cute guy that sometimes plays on the Boyfriend's softball team


9) someone I recognize that MOST other people would consider attractive, BUT does nothing special for me - George Clooney

10) and the whole package. Definately more than a physical thing, but celebritywise I really go for Bill Clinton in this category.

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Christie
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Christie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:

#6. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss our resident Men's Rights Activist. I wonder what he's gotten up to.

I wonder if we're thinking of the same person?

I liked your rankings. I'm going to have to give some thought to who I'd put where if I did one. Let's just say now though that Jon Bon Jovi will be on that list and in a very, very positive way [Cool] .

--------------------
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it's just possible you haven't grasped the situation. - Jean Kerr

Posts: 18428 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:

#6. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss our resident Men's Rights Activist. I wonder what he's gotten up to.

I wonder if we're thinking of the same person?

I liked your rankings. I'm going to have to give some thought to who I'd put where if I did one. Let's just say now though that Jon Bon Jovi will be on that list and in a very, very positive way [Cool] .

I'm sure we are thinking of the same person. [Wink]

And I love Jon Bon Jovi. He could sub in for Johnny Depp anyday. Or maybe they could both parade around my house in leather pants and no shirts.

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bill Door
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bill Door   E-mail Bill Door   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
...But just like a relative stranger wouldn't wander into a group sitting in a bar or the student center or in an employee lunch room and chastise them for their behavior among themselves, I don't believe newcomers to internet boards should feel free to do the same thing. The stranger can chat up the group, join in and discuss the topic at hand, but he can't be the group policeman. One just doesn't do that. YMMV but I don't think many of us would tolerate that behavior in RL...

{cough} USA {cough} World Policeman {cough} Middle East {Cough}
[Big Grin]

- Bill Door

Posts: 97 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Bill, how many of Sara's posts have you read? [Wink]

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
quote:
Originally posted by Christie:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:

#6. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss our resident Men's Rights Activist. I wonder what he's gotten up to.

I wonder if we're thinking of the same person?

I liked your rankings. I'm going to have to give some thought to who I'd put where if I did one. Let's just say now though that Jon Bon Jovi will be on that list and in a very, very positive way [Cool] .

I'm sure we are thinking of the same person. [Wink]

And I love Jon Bon Jovi. He could sub in for Johnny Depp anyday. Or maybe they could both parade around my house in leather pants and no shirts.

If you invite me, I'll bring margaritas.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Gibbie
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gibbie     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Kitties writes:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
Whose law was that? If you comment on someone else's spelling or grammar you will invariably make a spelling or grammar error?

It's Silas' law.

Four Kitties

Actually, it's tdn's law. You met him once didn't you? Anyway, he came up with that. He's still here from time to time. I saw him post a few months ago.

Gibbie

--------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Posts: 3993 | From: Indiana | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Four Kitties
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 503 posted      Profile for Four Kitties   E-mail Four Kitties   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gibbie:
Kitties writes:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
Whose law was that? If you comment on someone else's spelling or grammar you will invariably make a spelling or grammar error?

It's Silas' law.
Actually, it's tdn's law. You met him once didn't you? Anyway, he came up with that. He's still here from time to time. I saw him post a few months ago.
You're absolutely right, it is tdn's law: Silas just uses it a lot.

Yes, I met tdn once in RL. It was April 17, 2004. Although tdn's music was very impressive, I remember because it was my first date with CatNip.  -

Four Kitties

--------------------
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jenn
Layaway in a Manger


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jenn   E-mail Jenn   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It was also known as Chernavsky's Law for a time, back in the pre-UBB days.

--------------------
"You're the opposite of troll. It's a compliment!"

Posts: 12086 | From: Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bill Door
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bill Door   E-mail Bill Door   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
Bill, how many of Sara's posts have you read? [Wink]

Just a joke.
The parallel was irresistable.


-Bill Door

[/HIJACK]

Posts: 97 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Scratch most feminists you will find that they are for civil rights, GLBT rights, all the underdogs. And no matter how deep you scratch, you will find few who really hate man or heteros.
But that isn't what feminism is, it is the promotting women's rights, that's whats it's about.

I know some feminists do promote all rights, but that's not really the main concept behind it.

Not that I'm arguing.

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
FireSpook
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for FireSpook   E-mail FireSpook   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I know some feminists do promote all rights, but that's not really the main concept behind it.

Not that I'm arguing.

--------------------
WARNING
The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.

Read at your own risk.

Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
lynnejanet
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for lynnejanet     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara at home:
quote:
Originally posted by Rixel:
It's bad enough to picture a group of any people sitting around laughing at someone behind their back, it's worse to see them laughing at that person in their face.


What does that mean? Are you suggesting that people thought they were laughing at Firestorm behind his back? I'm confused.

No, I think Rixel is saying that posters knew that they were publically gang-bullying Firestorm. He's saying that he feels justified stepping in, just as he would (and should) IRL.

Count me in as another who feels that post count and/or time spent on the boards counts for nothing, other than familiarity.

I think Rixel's comment were clear, fair, and warranted.

--------------------
lynne"insert appropriate punny phrase here"janet

Posts: 1460 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Myshkin
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Myshkin     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
8) instant object of 'attainable' lust that may mess with my head for the rest of the day -
This one slays me. #10 slays me too, but it doesn't happen very often. So, the questions are: 1) are males more likely to see people that fall into category 8 than females are? (Conventional wisdom probably says yes...but when has convention been considered wise?), and 2) If so, is this tendency (and keep in mind that the question pertains to estimates of central tendency, not n=1 samples) cultural, biological, both, neither, or controlled by the subcutaneous chip implanted by the aliens?

The reason I ask is that, To Myshkin, it feels biological. Myshkin isn't so discriminating in his category 8s, and he doesn't know why. I did a self-survey once of female passer-bys in a Houston airport corridor over the course of about 4 hours. The question was "do you strongly desire to have sexual relations with this woman in a comfy bed or similar neutral space". Every woman of ill-and-Myshkin-defined "reproductive" age was tabulated as a simple yes or no. The final tally (n= about 400) was close to 50/50.

In other environments, e.g. Phish shows and biology graduate schools, it'd probably be closer to 80% yes.

Anyone else care to share their estimates if they were to do a similar self-survey?

So my #8 category example would be "1/2 the women of reproductive age in Houston Continental Airport"

Posts: 741 | From: Big Bend, Texas | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  16  17  18   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2