The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:eek:

This thread has gained nearly Three hundred (300!) posts in the past twelve hours
 
Walking_Home said:
You want a stumbling block —it is right there in your words. You have de-humanized a person-- for what the person wears. Now there will be others – who will read what you have said – and view a woman as an animal --for that is the image you have planted in their head.
Click to expand...
🤷

Both the man and the woman in that example you gave have stooped down to the level of an animal. What else do you want me to say?
 
passer_by said:
As I replied to WH before, from her dress, while we cannot be clear of the woman’s intent, it is clear that she is not taught properly on how to dress. She is merely behaving like an animal in dressing whatever she can depending on the situation called for by nature.
Click to expand...
:eek:

I better not comment on this…
Oh sorry, maybe I was not clear. I did not get that from that very post. I got that from her posts before. You are welcome to read through if you like. You don’t have to go far, just scroll up to the first post by WH on this page.
Click to expand...
But that is the only one I commented on, and that is the one I was specifically referring to. See? You can be wrong too sometimes! 🙂
 
Debora123 said:
Ah I see.

It just seems like you are being biased, because recently there’s been posters here who have said things that contradict what you’ve expressed you believed earlier, but instead of saying something to them, you seem to nit pick at small details of what I say. But perhaps not.

Sorry if I misunderstood.
Click to expand...
I apologise for any grief caused by my selective attention and any personal bias. Please be assured, though that nothing of what I nitpicked about is something I’d consider a small detail, on the contrary, I nitpicked because it was a big thing to me. And I certainly never tried to pick on anybody as a person, in fact, I tried to avoid that impression a couple of times. 😉
 
Debora123 said:
No, that is NOT what I am saying. Oh how important it is to ask questions when you don’t understand something rather than immediately making false assumptions. 🙂
Click to expand...
I know eh, good advice to both of us 🙂
Debora123 said:
Let me spell it out to you:

The MAIN parts of the body that are arousing to most men are the private parts - the genitalia, the breasts, and the buttocks.

But all men like other parts too, besides those.Those are simply the main ones (usually). Other parts that can be arousing to the average Joe are legs, bellies, shoulders, faces, waistline shape, hips, hair, etc etc… Normally each man is more fixated on one of these parts above the others… for example, one man can be more of a leg guy than a belly guy. Another man can be really fixated on the face - lips, hair, eyes… Another man can find the collar bone/shoulder area to be especially sensual. Each guy is a little different.
Click to expand...
Do you have Scientific documentation on your claim that the only regions ALL men can agree on as sexually arousing is Genitalia?

Because I have read otherwise.
Debora123 said:
And then you get the weirder stuff, like the foot fetishes. Those are more rare but they do exist, even though they are far from the norm.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I think your view is more of an arm chair view that people have but lacks any scientific backing.
Debora123 said:
Right, right. Because you would know, of course.
Click to expand...
As I said, I am always ready to claim what I know as much as I am ready to claim what I do not know. In fact, I usually try to stay out of getting in to arguments on stuff I do not know 🙂
 
passer_by said:
Well if you disagree, then you have to give rational arguments to disagree, right?
Click to expand...
I could, and I have many times here in the past. However, I choose not to do so at this point with the particular members involved. 👍
 
Debora123 said:
I could, and I have many times here in the past. However, I choose not to do so at this point with the particular members involved. 👍
Click to expand...
But I have only met you for the first time today if I remember. Or perhaps my memory serves me incorrectly.

Do you think I am unworthy of rational argument as well and hence you should try convince me irrationally? 🙂
 
passer_by said:
Do you have Scientific documentation on your claim that the only regions ALL men can agree on as sexually arousing is Genitalia?
Click to expand...
Again, I never said that.

This discussion would go a lot more smoothly if you would learn to quit putting words in my mouth.
 
passer_by said:
Sure, but I think your view is more of an arm chair view that people have but lacks any scientific backing.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don’t even understand what I mean, so I don’t think you should be giving an opinion on my views if you don’t even know what they are.
 
passer_by said:
As I said, I am always ready to claim what I know as much as I am ready to claim what I do not know. In fact, I usually try to stay out of getting in to arguments on stuff I do not know 🙂
Click to expand...
Hm. I would honestly never have guessed.
 
Debora123 said:
Again, I never said that.

This discussion would go a lot more smoothly if you would learn to quit putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Ok ok, now from my reading of your last post, this is what you seem to say though:-
  1. All males are aroused MAINLY by the genitalia
  2. Then they might also be aroused on other parts different from person to person
  3. But these other parts are not important since there is no consensus or hard to cater for all
  4. So since I cover up my genitalia all the time, I am dressing modestly even though I might not cover the ‘other sexually arousing’ areas
Is that not what you have been saying?
 
LilyM said:
Uh, no. Look, imagine that I decide to commit an armed robbery.

Imagine that my mate knows that I am thinking of doing this, and decides to buy a gun for me, knowing that that gun will most likely be used in the robbery. Say my mate decides to drive me in a car to the nearest bank, knowing that there’s a good chance I will choose to rob that bank.

Does any of this mean if caught and punished I will get a lighter sentence? That I will say ‘my mate helped me, so go easy on me your honour, because they bear part of the responsibility’ and the judge will do so?

No. On the contrary, in my jurisdiction the fact that you ‘acted in company’ (ie not alone) will make your sentence even heavier.

But - does it mean that person who helped you will not be guilty of ANYTHING? Depending on the circumstances and their level of knowlege they will almost certainly get tried and punished appropriately for their own recklessness - perhaps as an accessory to your crime, perhaps on some other charge.

The fact that they weren’t 100% certain that I would use THAT gun, or rob THAT bank, likely won’t matter that much.

In the same way, someone driving drunk won’t get lenient treatment because they didn’t think they would hit THAT power pole or THAT child who was crossing the road.

Drunk drivers rarely if ever intend to hit anyone or anything. However, they know that it is a real risk which accompanies the driving of a vehicle whilst intoxicated, and as long as they intend to drive whilst drunk, the chips fall where they may and their lack of positive intent will not save them from guilt.
Click to expand...
Those are actual acts of an accomplice. Like --for example --a woman doing a strip/pole dance/lap dance at a strip club. A woman at a “red light” district or a woman having her picture taken for a “certain type” of magazines and/or porn. Outside of situations like that – we cannot assume – that a woman’s intentions are to make men lust.
 
passer_by said:
But I have only met you for the first time today if I remember. Or perhaps my memory serves me incorrectly.

Do you think I am unworthy of rational argument as well and hence you should try convince me irrationally? 🙂
Click to expand...
No comment. 😃
 
Debora123 said:
Apparently you don’t even understand what I mean, so I don’t think you should be giving an opinion on my views if you don’t even know what they are.
Click to expand...
I am starting to wonder if your view stays constant now for more than 5 posts haha.
 
passer_by said:
I know eh, good advice to both of us 🙂

Do you have Scientific documentation on your claim that the only regions ALL men can agree on as sexually arousing is Genitalia?

Because I have read otherwise.

Sure, but I think your view is more of an arm chair view that people have but lacks any scientific backing.
Click to expand...
Exactly - why do you think there are pages and pages in magazines devoted to shots of celebrities’ ‘hot’ and well-toned abdominals, for example?

That women so love Mr Darcy in a wet clinging shirt in the BBC series of “Pride and Prejudice” (which certainly didn’t show his genitals, but DID show off his torso?)

Why do you think they scream when a Chippendale rips his shirt off - which again doesn’t expose his genitals?

Why do you think men describe themselves sometimes not as ‘breast’ or ‘booty’ men but as ‘leg’ men? Why women interested in making themselves ‘hot’ make sure their thighs (as well as bottom and upper chest) are well toned?

Why do women wear high heels in an effort to make their legs look longer and more toned? And why do so many men gravitate at a nightclub to the woman in the heels-and-short-skirt instead of the one in ballet flats and longer skirt?

As I said, I am always ready to claim what I know as much as I am ready to claim what I do not know. In fact, I usually try to stay out of getting in to arguments on stuff I do not know 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top