S
SeraRelm
So by your logic, if you live at an orphanage, you're a pedophile?
Real Life Barbie
- Thread starter LittleSin
- Start date
- Status
A woman who likely has these features due to surgery/makeup/photo trickery isn't exactly getting my primal instincts going
A
Amebix
I'm sure she'll age fantastically.
I disagree yet again, that woman does not look like she could bear a child. Her hips are incredibly narrow. The only "genetically predisposed" feature she has is big boobs. Everything else is culturally motivated.
figmentPez
Staff member
Oh look, it's become a bad thing.
M
makare
It doesn't seem like her boobs are all that big. At least not what I would consider big. However she is a hot chick. That is somewhat popular from what I've seen...
I hate this thread because I am forced to agree with people I don't want to agree with. Damn thread.
I hate this thread because I am forced to agree with people I don't want to agree with. Damn thread.
fade
Staff member
No. You are incorrect, and frankly offensive. That is an expression of physical attraction, which I went to great pains to point out was all we had to go on at this point. You stripped off all the relevant supporting text to make your point. I will not apologize for being physically attracted to a woman. I will not apologize for feeling an urge to have sexual intercourse with an woman I find physically attractive. I will refuse to succumb to some mentality that this is a "bad thing", simply because I don't know anything else about her, nor can I control that base feeling even if I wanted to. I worded in a crude fashion for humor, but that should be read as "I am sexually attracted to this physical, objective representation of a woman". I have no way of doing anything else at this point, as I noted. No one does. The sentence that you isolated was to make the point that if that's all you ever did, it becomes a bad thing. I will not apologize for finding an image of a woman attractive, and frankly, I don't like the implication that I objectify women because I made a 3-word comment that I found an image of a woman sexually attractive, implying that that's all I do with women. That's a heavy judgement to levy based on three words.
I have kept my temper on this forum for quite a long time, but this is angering me.
M
makare
It is possible to say that someone is good looking without emphasizing the "I'd do her" factor.
ElJuski
Staff member
Don't project. I never said it was wrong to have sex with her or find her attractive, and you're not wrong for thinking that way. Have all the sex with whoever you want.
M
makare
whoever eh.....
I can't (and won't attempt to) speak for Pez here, but your use of the phrase "bite me," makes it seem like you think that it's a bad thing to want to sleep with this woman, and are acknowledging this fact and telling anyone who agrees that this is a bad thing that you don't care what they think and are going to do it anyway, which is how "bite me" is frequently used. To be honest, in some way, we're all objectifying this woman. Some of us are objectifying her by saying that we are attracted to her. Some of us are objectifying her by saying we're not attracted to her. Sin is the only person that stands out in my mind as specifically not objectifying her, in that she's expressed concern for the woman's mental health and whether or not she was counseled before deciding to undergo these drastic surgeries. I don't care if you're objectifying her, and I don't care if you feel an urge to sleep with her, but don't get all high and mighty, holier than thou for being called out for a tl/dr that expresses that you feel that society (in this case, the board) would have an issue with you admitting your attraction. Hell, for all I know Pez could be calling it a bad thing because the common meme is that you hate everything, and therefore, if you want to have sex with her, having sex with her must be a bad thing. And if you really, really don't want people to respond to one sentence while ignoring the rest of your post, don't use a tl/dr summary statement in the first place.
ElJuski
Staff member
WHOMever
M
makare
sweet sweet justice...
fade
Staff member
No, bite me was used to mean "I don't care if you disagree with my attraction to her which quite a few people have already expressed in this thread". I've always used it that way. I honestly don't know of anyone who doesn't use it that way. It has nothing to do whatsoever with my own opinion. It has to do with everyone else's that were already given here. Of course me finding her attractive is objectification. That was the whole point of my original post! The point of that whole post was that objectification isn't a bad thing unless that's all you do to women. Not if that's all you do to this woman, because that's all we can do, since all I have are pictures.
Also, how is being offended at being called something horrible "high and mighty"?
Also, how is being offended at being called something horrible "high and mighty"?
fade
Staff member
Honestly, cooling down, it wasn't even really FigmentPez specifically. It's more this steadily blooming idea that people should somehow shackle their feelings of attraction, especially attraction to women, if that attraction happens to be purely physical. Why? There is nothing wrong with it. I'm not going to mentally castrate and blind myself until I know a woman's innermost desires and thoughts. That stuff is lovely, too. You can have both.
Like Fade says, there are certain characteristics that your brain automatically recognizes as "feminine" and "attractive" and responds accordingly. Some are cultural/"learned" and others are inherent. A guy with long hair and nail polish wearing lipstick would certainly look out of place, but it would only be because (current) society does not view these things as "masculine" (Human society, that is. In other species, it is more often the male who gets the colorful plumage and puts on the mating display). Pronounced breasts, wider hips, a more rounded forehead, slighter frame, higher voice, "hairless" face...these are the biologically dictated feminine characteristics. I expect Amy can serve as "expert witness" on these.
Many studies have been done about "feminine" v. "masculine" faces. I've mentioned my fascination with attraction/fetish/obsession before (it's a hobby). I've read summaries of no small amount of studies (in mainstream media, no access to journals). Here is a good one from Discover magazine (which unfortunately has lost its pictures, but they can be found over at this PBS page) which suggests that, when femininity is exaggerated beyond the norm, attractiveness still continues to rise. Sure, there is a threshold beyond which some people start to get creeped out (no doubt analogous to the Uncanny Valley), and as the knob keeps getting turned higher and higher, more will drop off, but there will still be those who Just Can't Get Enough or who have become so desensitized that, like any addict, they require stronger doses to get the same effect.
Consider the following picture (spoilered for people who work with prudes):
Some people will be turned right off by her unnatural appearance. These are probably going to be the people who have "normal" expectations and haven't had their boundaries stretched (by p0rn*, by the media, by ads, etc). For others, I'm betting I could fire up Photoshop, slim down her legs, inflate her chest, make her eyes and lips a little bigger, lengthen her neck a bit, and not lose a substantial number more from my act of caricature. In fact, some would probably take the resulting image and alter it even more for their own private enjoyment, even though I might consider it downright frightening.
In summary, pretty much everyone likes chocolate. There are also people who like chocolate-covered brownies, people who like chocolate-covered brownies with chocolate chips and chocolate ice cream, and then there are people who will take a chocolate chip-covered flourless chocolate cake, fill it with molten fudge, serve it with shaved bitter chocolate and sitting in a bowl of mousse, and still ask you to dust it with cocoa until it looks like a Columbian Sahara**.
--Patrick
*Trying not to break the thread for certain of our members.
**This needs to be made into a new, trendy dessert with that name.
M
makare
The difference between a feeling whether it is natural or not and what is going on in the thread is the posting about it. If you post about stuff it is going to be judged by other people. If you can't handle that it is probably best just to keep the feeling a feeling and not a post.
figmentPez
Staff member
To me there is a difference between "I find her sexually attractive" and "I'd have sex with her." I realize that many people intend the latter to have the same meaning as the former, but it doesn't. Be sexually attracted to her, fine, but if you'd actually have sex with her knowing nothing more than you know now, then it's a bad thing because image is the extent of your interaction with her. If you wouldn't actually have sex with her, then don't say you would.
M
makare
You said you were responding to what others have said. What exactly did you expect then?
Perhaps the more correct phrase, then, would be that Fade is, "...more likely to entertain the possibility of getting to know her better due to his initial impression," or "...inclined to fast-track her to the second interview based on her most immediately apparent qualifications and the way she carries herself."
You can't tell me that there isn't a physical element to every interview, even those that don't involve potential hanky-panky further on down the line.
--Patrick
fade
Staff member
I can say with all honesty that I've never known anyone to use that phrase in anything but a jocular manner with any other meaning than they find someone sexually attractive. I don't think anyone really uses it to mean they'd hop in the sack without certain other criteria being met. I can't say definitively that I wouldn't just participate in sexual intercourse as long as the attraction was mutual and friendly. I certainly wouldn't want robot sex with some empty shell.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, don't be hasty... we don't know what "attachments" are involved.
I, for one, welcome sex with our non-empty, warm and fleshy female overlords*.
--Patrick
*Disclaimer: This statement was made because I felt it would be hilarious and couldn't let it go unsaid after Fade's comment. No inference should be made as to my actual willingness to sleep with or "bang" any candidate based on their warmth and/or fleshy status. No warranties expressed nor implied. Void where prohibited by law or pinky swear. Valid only in the 48 contiguous United States and on this forum.
S
SeraRelm
FTFY
Quite frankly, and I know this will draw a ton of "disagrees" from people, but you SHOULD feel bad about wanting to have sex with women who are perpetuating an unrealistic body type for women. You are literally part of the reason that women become anorexic in the first place. When I see men drooling over women who are obviously unhealthy (you tell me that waist is healthy and you're just fooling yourself), it really does piss me off because I know so many women (who aren't fat to begin with, BTW) who have constantly battled with this image of anorexic models. So, yeah, Fade, you should feel bad if you're perpetuating that.
Too bad, so sad. I'd git er done.
Color me surprised.
Necronic
Staff member
Sorry but I had to be a disagree-er here. Look, it's totally fine for a guy to say to himself "hey, I don't want to perpetuate these false standards", and it's also ok for a guy who sees another guy beating a woman step in and stop it. But (assuming you are a guy) what you are talking about here is a sanctimonious white-knighting that assumes a moral authority based on a perspective you don't even have, that of a woman.
Maybe to put in another way "Papa don't preach"
- Status