If yuu repeat a lie for fifty years...

[MagicFingers]

Re: Re: DoorMouse

I know.

You too, hip chick!

 

[snooper]

Re: Rambling Og

... Beauty Contests:

Locally, our town has a carnival queen and princesses. They are usually about 16 or 17 years old and are chosen not just for their looks but for their characters. ...

Locally, some twenty years ago, they changed the rules for the Carnival Princess to be the unmarried female, living in the area, aged 16 to 21, who sold the most raffle tickets for the Carnival Charity Raffle.

They made more money that year than ever, before or since.

They also changed the rules back to "three judges" for the following year. There are some awfully plain girls around who have large families keen to help her achieve her ambition of becoming Carnival Princess.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm not against beauty pageants on principle -- just the continuing hypocrisy of claiming for fifty years that "it's not really about beauty, it's about brains."

I do have some philosophical problems with Beauty pageants in general -- mostly because of the "preliminaries" that can result in tragedies like Jon Benet Ramsey -- and the "standardization of Beauty" they cause.

But I have no problems at all with adult women entering pageant to show off their bodies (or brains).

Re: The Barbi twins -- they're OK, but not really my type. Mostly I think of them as a "side-show act."

The reason I said 'we' where against beauty pagents on principal was because of comments like this:



We're talking about women taking part in a 'beauty' pageant who have been driven all their lives by what the media says is beautiful. That is grotesque.

Women who are willing to denigrate themselves...

Women who undergo expensive and unnecessary surgical procedures...


Porn is also an industry, it also fosters unrealistic body (as well as relationship and sexuality) expectations. It also gives woman a standard to unfavorably compare themselves to, it also leads to unnecessary surgical procedures, unnecessary health risks, and is certainly more than equal in the department of woman willing to denegrate themselves. In fact, I don't think that walking around in a bikini and expecting someone to look in my eyes is denigrating at all. I don't think it's disgusting in any way to look sexy and expect people to still appreciate that I have a brain. Not to mention a heart, a soul, dreams, feelings, desires, goals and everything else that any other person has. Otherwise I suppose I've been denigrating myself all summer at the pool. and yeah, I expected to be treated respectfully and to be looked in the eye.

Not to mention my suit was by far skimpier than the Miss America suits. In fact, you will see skimpier suits anywear you look these days. Miss America in fact is still exceedingly old fashioned by todays standards.

The reason I asked about the Barbi Twins (and thank you, you were the only one who replied) is that they were seriously anorexic, buliemic and completely unhealthy- and at this time they were basicly considered the ideal in the minds of the majority of men.

Men are always saying things like "i'm different, im not like that, I'm interested in healthy, intellegent women, ect. but it's not some freakish minority who purchases thousands and millions of Barbi Twin Calandars and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issues.

Now, I don't mean to unload this all on you specifically- maybe you really are different. I'm just sick of the majority of men claiming that they 'aren't like other men' or that 'most men really appreciate natual beauty' while their dollars, and stairs, and bedroom walls tell a different story.

end rant.

 

[sweetnpetite]

On the subject of JonBenet and Child Pagents, I think that, while tragic what happened to her, it has very little to do with the pagent and a lot more to do with her family. She was killed in her own home, and likely by someone who knew her. Such is the case with most violent crimes/murders.

The fact that she was in beauty pagents is not the cause of her death. There were tons of other children who were in the same pagents as her, and low and behold, they are alive and probably not being molested at a rate any higher than the general population. (that sounded terrible, but my point is that the problem of sexual child abuse is a problem in and of itself and not caused by beauty pagents any more than rape and sexual harrasment is caused by miniskirts or women in male dominated workforces.)

Sorry, but it was mentioned and i had to get it off my chest. Every parent with a child who participates in beauty pagents is not a fool or a monster. And pagents are not to blame for criminals and their behavior.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Two of my ex's were beauty pageant chicks. Both were very smart (eclipsing a lot of people I meet in college and places like this), very involved in humanitarian and charitable industry, both were amongst the nicest and most down to earth people I ever met.

One was into poetry pretty hardcore, e.e.cummings. The other was into computer science.

Both were, yes, "classic beauty" or "standardized conception of what is attractive" or whatever we want to call it. They were fit, trim, and gorgeous--looking great in a bathing suit.

Neither thought anything bad of pageants. Both took it personally when people downplayed them.

That's all the opinion I really have on pageants.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Groovy Joe.

Two of my ex's were beauty pageant chicks. Both were very smart (eclipsing a lot of people I meet in college and places like this), very involved in humanitarian and charitable industry, both were amongst the nicest and most down to earth people I ever met.

One was into poetry pretty hardcore, e.e.cummings. The other was into computer science.

Both were, yes, "classic beauty" or "standardized conception of what is attractive" or whatever we want to call it. They were fit, trim, and gorgeous--looking great in a bathing suit.

Neither thought anything bad of pageants. Both took it personally when people downplayed them.

That's all the opinion I really have on pageants.

 

[Weird Harold]

The reason I asked about the Barbi Twins (and thank you, you were the only one who replied) is that they were seriously anorexic, buliemic and completely unhealthy- and at this time they were basicly considered the ideal in the minds of the majority of men.

I don't know that they were ever considered the "ideal" at any point -- they're a pair of female twins who are willing to get naked for the camera and they aren't totally hideous; Of course they're going to attract a lot of attention from men.

Men are always saying things like "i'm different, im not like that, I'm interested in healthy, intellegent women, ect. but it's not some freakish minority who purchases thousands and millions of Barbi Twin Calandars and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issues.

No, it's not some freakish minority who buy Barbi Twins Calenders and SI Swimsuit Issues -- it's perfectly normal men who like naked and near-naked women; whether they're perfect or not.

Now, I don't mean to unload this all on you specifically- maybe you really are different. I'm just sick of the majority of men claiming that they 'aren't like other men' or that 'most men really appreciate natural beauty' while their dollars, and stairs, and bedroom walls tell a different story.

Of course I really am diferent -- so is every other man. There is no such thing as a "normal" man, every one is an individual with avery individualized idea of the "perfect woman".

A large percentage of men will purchase anything that shows a naked or near naked woman and probably even enjoy it. That does NOT mean that every image he spends his money on is his idea of "perfect" or "Ideal" -- it just means that it was available and she was Naked or Near-Naked and not-hideous.

As for spending money, the last money that I spent on a woman was $10 I overpaid a friend for a used camera withthe stipulation that he take his girlfriend out and FEED her something -- she was seriously underweight and inspired only a need to fatten her up to a healthy level in me. As for my friend, she was available and willing -- otherwise she was nothing like the women I normally saw him with; sometimes availability and willingness trumps idealism and preferences.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Of course I really am diferent -- so is every other man. There is no such thing as a "normal" man, every one is an individual with avery individualized idea of the "perfect woman".

I think "normal" means a range; in such a case as that... yes, there is such a thing as a "normal" guy. Actually, I think billions have been made in marketting alone based on that very notion. Something's working.

A large percentage of men will purchase anything that shows a naked or near naked woman and probably even enjoy it. That does NOT mean that every image he spends his money on is his idea of "perfect" or "Ideal" -- it just means that it was available and she was Naked or Near-Naked and not-hideous.

Umm... no offense at all intended, but fuck that. I have a subscription to Maxim because Maxim puts out and puts up chicks I find hot. We can use "perfect" or "ideal" if you want, I believe it is in the same vein. I don't shell out money for skanky fat chick just because she's naked. I don't shell out money for nasty big nose chick because it was what was available. I think I'm in good company with a huge, huge, huge demographic of men who are spending money on what they find to be "perfect 10" (or very close to it).

Hell, I don't even know any guys who just buy things because chicks happen to be naked--buying things because HOT chicks happen to be naked is something else entirely.

Then again, maybe you're right and I'm some unique creature actually spending money on pictures of chicks that are ideal instead of whatever's around.

Of course, I may just be missing your point entirely.

-----

sweetnpetiteNow, I don't mean to unload this all on you specifically- maybe you really are different. I'm just sick of the majority of men claiming that they 'aren't like other men' or that 'most men really appreciate natural beauty' while their dollars, and stairs, and bedroom walls tell a different story.

I don't claim that. Sounds like something pussies say to better appeal to women. (personal opinion)

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm not saying a person can't try to attain their own ideals in what they consider to be beautiful.

They have the right to be hungry for as long as they wish, they have the right to pay for and undergo invasive cosmetic surgery and put their lives at risk by having ribs removed. They have the right to wear as much or as little as they care to wear.

What I am opposed to is the standardisation of what is a personal/sociological preference, being unduly foisted on a gullible pre-pubescent public of both sexes, and perpetuated by a mindless media concerned with appearance over substance.

I really, really do not want to live in, nor bring children into a Brave New World.

I've lived through prejudice all my life because of how I look and sound, and what do I do now? I purposely intimidate people by using long words having longer hair and generally being taller than anyone else about. Do you know how many job interviews that has cost me? How many friendships that couldn't or wouldn't be attempted? How many beligerant stares and snide comments I've had to endure?

Beauty? You can stick it up your arse.

Gauche

 

[sweetnpetite]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
I don't know that they were ever considered the "ideal" at any point -- they're a pair of female twins who are willing to get naked for the camera and they aren't totally hideous; Of course they're going to attract a lot of attention from men.



yes, gigantic boobs and a teeny tiny waist is certainly considered by more than a few to be the ideal.

No, it's not some freakish minority who buy Barbi Twins Calenders and SI Swimsuit Issues -- it's perfectly normal men who like naked and near-naked women; whether they're perfect or not.



the point is that they *like* the look, they stroke off to the look, ect. The fact that that particular look is extemely unhealthy and unnatural isn't even a factor. It isn't even noticed. They have a 'wow' factor, not an 'eww' factor. Few say, 'that girl is too skiny and her boobs are too big, what a turn off.'

Yet *many* protest that they like healthy and natural girls with confidence. (the barbi twins may look confidant btw, but they suffer from extemly horrible self esteme) All I'm saying is that so many men say one thing (and get congratulated) while they mean something else- something they would never say in mixed company for fear of being labled sexist pigs.

Of course I really am diferent -- so is every other man. There is no such thing as a "normal" man, every one is an individual with avery individualized idea of the "perfect woman".

someone here said that every one likes to think they are really different, but rarely are they really- we're all more alike than we like to think. I think I'm gonna have to agree here. I know that we are individuals, but we're really *not* that different or unique. Not most of us.



As for spending money, the last money that I spent on a woman was $10 I overpaid a friend for a used camera withthe stipulation that he take his girlfriend out and FEED her something -- she was seriously underweight and inspired only a need to fatten her up to a healthy level in me. As for my friend, she was available and willing -- otherwise she was nothing like the women I normally saw him with; sometimes availability and willingness trumps idealism and preferences.


this reflects a truly terrible understanding of women. your attempt to help here very likely did more harm than good. I won't consider you a hero because your instinct was to feed her. Likely she is a naturally small person who just looks* underwieght, or she has a medical problem that you do not understand, or she has a distorted body image problem and will throw up all the food her b/f forced on her while her hatred and contempt for herself continues to grow.

'Feed that girl' comments aren't particularly funny or helpful. In fact they can be amazingly hurtful, bewildering, and even heartbreaking. I know, I was there once (naturally skinny) and I have a child who is also naturally small who I have literally been acused of starving or otherwise causing his natural tininess.

Sweet/ lashing out.

 

[Weird Harold]

Umm... no offense at all intended, but fuck that. I have a subscription to Maxim because Maxim puts out and puts up chicks I find hot. We can use "perfect" or "ideal" if you want, I believe it is in the same vein. I don't shell out money for skanky fat chick just because she's naked. I don't shell out money for nasty big nose chick because it was what was available. I think I'm in good company with a huge, huge, huge demographic of men who are spending money on what they find to be "perfect 10" (or very close to it).

Apparently you missed the "not-hideous" qualifier.

Can you honestly say that EVERY woman in the magazines you buy is a "perfect 10" or even a "solid eight?"

Can you honestly say that every male you discuss a particular image from Maxim with agrees with you that it's a "perfect 10?"

Of course, I may just be missing your point entirely.

I think you did miss the point. "Maxim Girls" fit your general specifications for HOT; They don't particularly fit mine. (My general specifications fit 1950's and 1960's Playboy centerfolds.) Any specific Maxim Girl designated as "perfect" by you will get an argument from a large percentage of men who don't share your particular tastes.

"Not-hideous" is enough to draw casual attention or even admiration from any male who is still breathing and not completely gay. That's NOT the same thing as "Real Beauty," which is a highly individualized judgement call that is different vor every man.

Most of us can agree on a distinction between "beautiful" and "hideous" but the specifics of personal preferences are the foundation for many long debates over a few beers.

Personally, I've never seen yet a woman I'd rate a "perfect 10" -- a lot of 9.9999s but no perfect 10s.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Joe- Today I love you for being a pig. An honest pig.

Don't expect it to last!

Hugs for telling the truth.

Sweet.

I think "normal" means a range; in such a case as that... yes, there is such a thing as a "normal" guy. Actually, I think billions have been made in marketting alone based on that very notion. Something's working.



Umm... no offense at all intended, but fuck that. I have a subscription to Maxim because Maxim puts out and puts up chicks I find hot. We can use "perfect" or "ideal" if you want, I believe it is in the same vein. I don't shell out money for skanky fat chick just because she's naked. I don't shell out money for nasty big nose chick because it was what was available. I think I'm in good company with a huge, huge, huge demographic of men who are spending money on what they find to be "perfect 10" (or very close to it).

Hell, I don't even know any guys who just buy things because chicks happen to be naked--buying things because HOT chicks happen to be naked is something else entirely.

Then again, maybe you're right and I'm some unique creature actually spending money on pictures of chicks that are ideal instead of whatever's around.

Of course, I may just be missing your point entirely.

-----



I don't claim that. Sounds like something pussies say to better appeal to women. (personal opinion)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
Apparently you missed the "not-hideous" qualifier.

Can you honestly say that EVERY woman in the magazines you buy is a "perfect 10" or even a "solid eight?"

Can you honestly say that every male you discuss a particular image from Maxim with agrees with you that it's a "perfect 10?"

I think you did miss the point. "Maxim Girls" fit your general specifications for HOT; They don't particularly fit mine. (My general specifications fit 1950's and 1960's Playboy centerfolds.) Any specific Maxim Girl designated as "perfect" by you will get an argument from a large percentage of men who don't share your particular tastes.

"Not-hideous" is enough to draw casual attention or even admiration from any male who is still breathing and not completely gay. That's NOT the same thing as "Real Beauty," which is a highly individualized judgement call that is different vor every man.

Most of us can agree on a distinction between "beautiful" and "hideous" but the specifics of personal preferences are the foundation for many long debates over a few beers.

Personally, I've never seen yet a woman I'd rate a "perfect 10" -- a lot of 9.9999s but no perfect 10s.

Oooohhhhh, I get it.

Your qualifier is, then, in fallacy. "Not hideous" is not the suppliment to "perfect"... its a false dichotomy.

See, when I go out and buy, say, a magazine or a poster (haven't bought a poster in years, though), I'm buying an image as close to perfection as exists. It isn't a lack of options (whatever's available) or a "she's naked and not hideous" motivation... that's just sharp and poorly limiting.

I like the swimsuit issue because the models are foxy, not because they happen to be "not hideous". I think most guys would agree with me there.

If you're saying that men buy what's merely available and "not hideous"... I think counsel is over-simplifying the issue. Try the options "not-hideous" and "merely attractive" and "extremely hot"? I would venture that the buyer-male (like myself) buys the "extremely hot". Not both the "merely attractive" and "extremely hot" because they both happen to not be "not-hideous".

Then we come to the whole "subjective aesthetics" thing. I can't really speak intelligently about that. Is there one? Isn't there one? All possibilities. None of them conclusive.

I can say that most every guy I know digs Elisha Cuthbert... Angelina Jolie... Lindsey Lohan... are they perfect? Strictly speaking, no. Are they "merely not-hideous"? Umm... HUGE understatement, so much so as to be almost actively ignoring the possibilities.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Joe- Today I love you for being a pig. An honest pig.

Don't expect it to last!

Hugs for telling the truth.

Sweet.

We're sharing a strange moment. Worlds are connecting here.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I see your point- but how is this different from Porn?

BTW- friendships that wouldn't/couldn't be attempted weren't real friendships anyway.

I don't chose my friends based on there looks. (or lack thereof- it's been suggested by some that 'pretty' girls like to hang out with 'ugly' girls to make themselves look better. this thought never occured to me, and I was rather offended by it. offended that it's done, and offended that someone would think that I was doing it)

However, you look fine to me. and I'm sorry about any prejudice you've suffered based on your appearance. I think it happens to all of us, to some extent. I changed my hair color at one point because I couldn't help but feel like people were just waiting for me to say something stupid so they could give me that knowing look.

Whatsay we poke everybodies eyes out- could be the cure to racism and a host of other societal problems?

I'm not saying a person can't try to attain their own ideals in what they consider to be beautiful.

They have the right to be hungry for as long as they wish, they have the right to pay for and undergo invasive cosmetic surgery and put their lives at risk by having ribs removed. They have the right to wear as much or as little as they care to wear.

What I am opposed to is the standardisation of what is a personal/sociological preference, being unduly foisted on a gullible pre-pubescent public of both sexes, and perpetuated by a mindless media concerned with appearance over substance.

I really, really do not want to live in, nor bring children into a Brave New World.

I've lived through prejudice all my life because of how I look and sound, and what do I do now? I purposely intimidate people by using long words having longer hair and generally being taller than anyone else about. Do you know how many job interviews that has cost me? How many friendships that couldn't or wouldn't be attempted? How many beligerant stares and snide comments I've had to endure?

Beauty? You can stick it up your arse.

Gauche

 

[Weird Harold]

Oooohhhhh, I get it.

Your qualifier is, then, in fallacy. "Not hideous" is not the suppliment to "perfect"... its a false dichotomy.

Nope, you don't get it.

I specifically chose the term "not-hideous" because there is very little disagreement when something is "hideous." Once you move away from "hideous" into "homely," "plain," "mousy," and on up the scale to "beautiful" you start to get into arguments about how to classify a woman.

Aside from a VERY VERY small minority that actually prefer hideous women, I've never been involved in a BS session about women that could come to any real agreement on just what a "perfect 10" is. (Although, Bo Derek is apparently NOT a "perfect 10" to most of the guys I've engaged in this particular discussion with.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Exactly.

Not hideous will turn a head. Not hideous will end up in my bed (if it's not too much trouble) Not hideous might even get a catcall or an extended look at a prominant body part (tits, ass, legs whathave you)

But 'not hideous' is not selling beer, magazines, posters, ect.

the fact that not everybody will agree on *one* exact same woman is why there are so *many* woman in each Maxim issue. You don't buy it for the girls you find so-so, you buy it for the Elisha Cuthberts and the Lindsey Lohans. Another guy maybe buys it for the Denise Richardson or the Jenifer Love Hewit or whatever.

But you can't say that there is not a certain standard there.

(God this is weird Joe)

I like the swimsuit issue because the models are foxy, not because they happen to be "not hideous". I think most guys would agree with me there.

If you're saying that men buy what's merely available and "not hideous"... I think counsel is over-simplifying the issue. Try the options "not-hideous" and "merely attractive" and "extremely hot"? I would venture that the buyer-male (like myself) buys the "extremely hot". Not both the "merely attractive" and "extremely hot" because they both happen to not be "not-hideous".

 

[sweetnpetite]

Nope, you don't get it.

I specifically chose the term "not-hideous" because there is very little disagreement when something is "hideous." Once you move away from "hideous" into "homely," "plain," "mousy," and on up the scale to "beautiful" you start to get into arguments about how to classify a woman.

Aside from a VERY VERY small minority that actually prefer hideous women, I've never been involved in a BS session about women that could come to any real agreement on just what a "perfect 10" is. (Although, Bo Derek is apparently NOT a "perfect 10" to most of the guys I've engaged in this particular discussion with.)

The disagreeement is over how close each girl -in your oppinion- comes to the standard. Not weather or not there is a standard or ideal.

When you discuss weather such and such is a 'ten' or not, don't you find yourself measuring her by the same standards. (hmm, nice legs, great ass, amazing lips- oh god, but what a nose!)

as you said- you *don't* like fat girls, therefor the standard would be 'not fat' you *don't* like big noses, therefor the standard is 'slender nose' The more fat she is, the further she falls from the ideal, the slimmer she is the nearer she gets to the ideal, ect and on down the line with each characteristic.

Most of your friends (and most men of a similer background) will use the same standard. Most black men for example, may use a different standard, such as wanting more backside with less concen for a skinny waist, in fact prefering a little 'thicky-thick'

*Most* men indeed, are little different from their peers in taste. That's how we get demographics, and as Joe said, it's how marketing manages to work so well.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
Nope, you don't get it.

I specifically chose the term "not-hideous" because there is very little disagreement when something is "hideous." Once you move away from "hideous" into "homely," "plain," "mousy," and on up the scale to "beautiful" you start to get into arguments about how to classify a woman.

Aside from a VERY VERY small minority that actually prefer hideous women, I've never been involved in a BS session about women that could come to any real agreement on just what a "perfect 10" is. (Although, Bo Derek is apparently NOT a "perfect 10" to most of the guys I've engaged in this particular discussion with.)

O.k.... let me see if I can wrap my mind around this one.

When you said..."A large percentage of men will purchase anything that shows a naked or near naked woman and probably even enjoy it. That does NOT mean that every image he spends his money on is his idea of "perfect" or "Ideal" -- it just means that it was available and she was Naked or Near-Naked and not-hideous"... I disagreed because I think that men /do/ spend their money on their idea of "perfect" or "ideal"; also that the percentage of men that will buy anything that shows naked or near naked women (short of a qualifier of "attractive") isn't likely to be true; and also that simply "available" and "not-hideous" doesn't strike me as a qualifier for that large percentage of guys.

Really... that they would be attracted to, drawn to purchase, and then buy that which participates in their idea of "perfect" or "ideal" seems to ENTIRELY be how it works. That's contrary to what you're saying though.

Please explain.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
(God this is weird Joe)

Heh. You want me.

lol, couldn't resist... I'm in machismo mood today

 

[sweetnpetite]

We're sharing a strange moment. Worlds are connecting here.

Yeah, well- I'm not like other girls. I value honesty over a slick charmer who says just the right thing to impress a girl.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Yeah, well- I'm not like other girls. I value honesty over a slick charmer who says just the right thing to impress a girl.

If a slick charmer is slick and charming enough... you can't tell the difference. Mwahaha

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't claim that. Sounds like something pussies say to better appeal to women. (personal opinion)

Not pussies, smooth serious playas!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Heh. You want me.

lol, couldn't resist... I'm in machismo mood today

No, you want me. I'm hot. (by any standard)

 

[sweetnpetite]

If a slick charmer is slick and charming enough... you can't tell the difference. Mwahaha

True enough. but *I* can tell. It's 3 parts experience and 2 parts ESP. Charming is for snakes.