login
TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' (Page 79)
-
No new posts
|
 2008-09-10 1:50 PM in reply to: #1664708 |
Sensei  Sin City |  Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.'wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:43 AM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... boobs and genitalia are sort of different IMO. But I get your point. In the same lines, I don't hear men talking that much about size/shape/etc or a womens "special place".... so it's "sort of" a level playing field. But I think a lot of it has to be with the fact the white men controlled so much of everything in history - so just about everything in society, religion, politics, etc, is kind of geared to what a white male would want (at least in the western world). Those in power get what they want in most cases. I know these is VERY broad strokes of generalization, but it seems to be true (even if it's not right or fare). |
| 2008-09-10 1:50 PM in reply to: #1664733 |
Slower Than You  9566    Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:48 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:46 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... Boobs aren't the equivalent of "junk". I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? Male-dominated society says so. 'Kido beat me to it. Edited by bcart1991 2008-09-10 1:51 PM |
| 2008-09-10 1:51 PM in reply to: #1664733 |
Pro 4456 Eureka, Ca | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:48 AM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:46 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... Boobs aren't the equivalent of "junk". I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? cause boobs don't look like snufflelupagus http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/snuffleupagus.jpg |
| 2008-09-10 1:51 PM in reply to: #1664743 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' bcart1991 - 2008-09-10 11:50 AM I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? Male-dominated society says so.OK - you said in one sentence what I struggled 5 min and a paragraph about. nice.... I just prattle on and on.... Edited by Aikidoman 2008-09-10 1:52 PM |
| 2008-09-10 1:52 PM in reply to: #1664733 |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:48 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:46 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... Boobs aren't the equivalent of "junk". I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. |
| 2008-09-10 1:53 PM in reply to: #1664724 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' mrbbrad - 2008-09-10 11:46 AM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today...
You can make comments about my junk if that would make you feel better. Doing what I can for gender equity. Me too, as long a adjectives such as "impressive, giant, massive, wonderful, stunning," are used in abundance.... |
| 2008-09-10 1:53 PM in reply to: #1664749 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:52 PM Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. This is also true. There's a reason the pretty cars/boats/planes are curvy (female) and not all angular (male). Edited by bcart1991 2008-09-10 1:54 PM |
| 2008-09-10 1:54 PM in reply to: #1664746 |
| Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' grdavison - 2008-09-10 2:51 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:48 AM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:46 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... Boobs aren't the equivalent of "junk". I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? cause boobs don't look like snufflelupagus http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/snuffleupagus.jpg Bwahaha. Boobs are sacs of fat, just as a reminder |
| 2008-09-10 1:54 PM in reply to: #1664760 |
| Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' bcart1991 - 2008-09-10 2:53 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:52 PM This is also true. There's a reason the pretty cars/boats/planes are curvy (female) and not all angular (male).Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. Men are weak.
|
| 2008-09-10 1:55 PM in reply to: #1664749 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' Artemis - 2008-09-10 11:52 AM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:48 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:46 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:43 PM Re: boobs. Now, I understand that men are more visual creatures than women and women, when they do ogle men, tend to focus more on other features, such as stomach, chest, arms, etc. But it is kinda taboo for women to make comments on the size/shape/etc of men's "junk". And similarly, we see a lot more topless action in feature films that full frontal male nudity - very rarely do we see that. Why is this? What is so much "worse" about male genitalia that it must be hidden all the time, yet women's boobs can be on display all the time? Just waxing gender-theoretical today... Boobs aren't the equivalent of "junk". I know. But boobs are an indicator of gender/sex that we can easily see, as is junk. So why is it normal to ogle one and not the other? Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. I won't argue - that's gospel... |
| 2008-09-10 1:56 PM in reply to: #1664764 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' |
| 2008-09-10 1:56 PM in reply to: #1664764 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:54 AM bcart1991 - 2008-09-10 2:53 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:52 PM This is also true. There's a reason the pretty cars/boats/planes are curvy (female) and not all angular (male).Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. Men are weak.
The stealth bomber and fighters are sexy - and they are angular... Just arguing for argument's sake... Edited by Aikidoman 2008-09-10 1:57 PM |
| 2008-09-10 1:57 PM in reply to: #1664773 |
| Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' Aikidoman - 2008-09-10 2:56 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:54 AM bcart1991 - 2008-09-10 2:53 PM Artemis - 2008-09-10 2:52 PM This is also true. There's a reason the pretty cars/boats/planes are curvy (female) and not all angular (male).Well, for one, boobs are prettier. Naked girls, in general, are nicer to look at than naked guys. Sorry guys, but it's the truth. Men are weak.
The stealth bomber and fighters are sexy - and they are angular... Just arguing for argument's sake... This is true - I thought of the same thing, actually. So what does THAT say about you fellas? |
| 2008-09-10 1:57 PM in reply to: #1664773 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' time for a short run and lunch. Yippy!!!! This has been a decent day so far... |
| 2008-09-10 1:57 PM in reply to: #1664761 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:54 PM Boobs are sacs of fat, just as a reminder
Sweet, luscious bags of fat |
| 2008-09-10 1:58 PM in reply to: #1664780 |
| Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' mrbbrad - 2008-09-10 2:57 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:54 PM Boobs are sacs of fat, just as a reminder
Sweet, luscious bags of fat That babies suck on and your mom also has. |
| 2008-09-10 1:58 PM in reply to: #1664773 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' Aikidoman - 2008-09-10 2:56 PM The stealth bomber and fighters are sexy - and they are angular... Just aruging for argument's sake... I disagree. They're angular for technology's sake, and sexy for the same reason. They are buggers to fly, from what I hear (at least the fighter is). Give me a P-51 or P-40 over an F-111 any day, and twice on Sunday. ETA: Technology has taken over the driver's seat from aesthetics in recent years. You can see it in all sorts of designs. Edited by bcart1991 2008-09-10 1:59 PM |
| 2008-09-10 1:59 PM in reply to: #1664783 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' bcart1991 - 2008-09-10 11:58 AM Aikidoman - 2008-09-10 2:56 PM I disagree. They're angular for technology's sake, and sexy for the same reason. THey are buggers to fly, from what I hear (at least the fighter is). Give me a P-51 or P-40 over an F-111 any day, and twice on Sunday.The stealth bomber and fighters are sexy - and they are angular... Just aruging for argument's sake... P-51's *drool*. I was also a fan of the corsaire - the wings were georgous.... Not the best flying. The Japanese zeros would be a kick in the pants to fly, I'm thinking... |
| 2008-09-10 2:00 PM in reply to: #1664782 |
Pro 4456 Eureka, Ca | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:58 AM mrbbrad - 2008-09-10 2:57 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:54 PM Boobs are sacs of fat, just as a reminder
Sweet, luscious bags of fat That babies suck on and your mom also has. aaaannnnnnddddd your point is? |
| 2008-09-10 2:01 PM in reply to: #1664790 |
Slower Than You 9566 Cracklantaburbs | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' Aikidoman - 2008-09-10 2:59 PM P-51's *drool*. I was also a fan of the corsaire - the wings were georgous.... Not the best flying. The Japanese zeros would be a kick in the pants to fly, I'm thinking... Ah, the original F-4. Very pretty plane. |
| 2008-09-10 2:01 PM in reply to: #1664790 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' But this still gives me chills.... and a Hadron (collider) ETA: linky don't worky... I will fixy... http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-22-1.jpg Edited by Aikidoman 2008-09-10 2:03 PM |
| 2008-09-10 2:03 PM in reply to: #1664714 |
Champion 7931 Sequim, Washington | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:44 AM Aikidoman - 2008-09-10 2:41 PM mchally - 2008-09-10 11:36 AM All is well with the horny melons...Lyssa and I are discussing Lush-the make the most amazing bath products...and massage bars-yummy... The better half likes Lush... She can spend hours in there. I'm done in about 2 minutes... Lush makes me sneeze and it's overpriced. I only use a few of the milder products-no floral scents for me |
| 2008-09-10 2:04 PM in reply to: #1664791 |
Expert 1069 Wauwatosa | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' grdavison - 2008-09-10 2:00 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 11:58 AM mrbbrad - 2008-09-10 2:57 PM wurkit_gurl - 2008-09-10 2:54 PM Boobs are sacs of fat, just as a reminder
Sweet, luscious bags of fat That babies suck on and your mom also has. aaaannnnnnddddd your point is? i heart bewbs |
| 2008-09-10 2:06 PM in reply to: #1650624 |
Extreme Veteran 928 Chesapeake, VA | Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' was that suppose to stop us from looking at them? trust us, we know our mom has them but we are not begging to see hers. that like you thinking about your dads package next time you see a man tool... It just never crosses your mind! |
| 2008-09-10 2:09 PM in reply to: #1664816 |
| Subject: RE: TAN 45: `TANnihilating Political Threads One by One.' kraut_fan - 2008-09-10 3:06 PM was that suppose to stop us from looking at them? trust us, we know our mom has them but we are not begging to see hers. that like you thinking about your dads package next time you see a man tool... It just never crosses your mind! Yes, but as Artemis said, they're not really all that attractive, so we don't spend a lot of time ogling random ones. We are generally only concerned with the ones belonging to men with whom we are doing naughty things. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK
