I was specifically referring to the 'AS SOON AS I'M OF AGE, OF COURSE' part.

i can't tell if i should keep this conversation serious or not.

i'd like to, but i'm worried i'm going to look like an asshole.

I'd prefer it if we both looked like assholes. Plus it'd make me feel closer to you.

not thinking not entity despite what you'd like to believe. boo hoo.

I think it was. Saw it on TV once.
It didn't work out in the end.

I'm not the one who makes it out to be that way. Feminists are.

They clearly didn't put as much love into it as I would. I would have given it all of the love.

Which feminist is this honey pie? Specifically. A name. Just once, a verified claim. Go on sweetheart. Just this once, doll. For me.

This one. As you can see she was arrested for talking rubbish.

She looks to me more like she's being escorted away from something alarming, like perhaps a particularly insouciant cloth-capped Marxist :rolleyes:

ha ha, i see your parodies both here and in the israel thread, and they are excellent, but beware of them turning into full-on contagion, and who wants brain flu?

meanwhile-- très bien, esquire, etc. etc.

No doubt the fevered ravings of said rabid marxist affected her temperment most calamitously, and the Queen's officers were required to box the scruffians ears to bring halt to his indecent unrest. :D

You know who's worse than the women? INTELLECTUALS

They make me wanna ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

i wanna be an intellectual so i can make you ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and rob all yo' shit. what a power to have.

yes, that would be interesting.

for intellectual purposes, i'll be calling my boobs entities from now on.

 

campmor.com has been selling this for years--I gotta assume it works (or people are just too embarassed to return it).

Man, Jigglypuff can do that shit too. I'd much rather be a Jigglypuff.

its for when you are camping.

I dont feel guilty about the way I view women. At all. I know this is unpopular, but I am a bit of a dick. There is a difference between a man and a pushover.

To say all women, or all men, is just totally ill-informed. The fact is that, most of the millenieum generation or genx men never had an one-up in the gender war.

Many who fight in the gender war are fighting imagined battles in their heads. Many women of the Eisenhower generation led very good lives thank you very much.

And can I just say that grabbing a woman by the vagina can be a hilariously entertaining spectacle for all? Case in point:

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3


jigglypuff is the best pokemon ever

not funny

you realize, knox, that every time a woman starts flaunting her entities on this board, that's all that people are going to talk about her from that point onwards, right?

that's more or less what happened to poor notyourfiend and her famous northern mountains. she was very smart, a good debater, knowledgeable & all, plus she wasn't attracted to men, but it was difficult to peel one's eyes away after she brought them up, with pictures. a shame truly. same with girlgun's cleavage, which obscured any other virtues she may have had. we're hardwired boobhounds.

by comparison, look at all the fools talking about their cock and getting plenty ignored. it could be that women are more evolved beings, or it could be simply that a woman's body is a thing of beauty while the male turkey neck is a constitutionally ugly and malformed thing.

come to think of it, we don't just objectify women-- we objectify every fucking thing on this planet. so don't take that personally.

The thing is, if one the ladies decides to show her tits on here, chances are that she's specifically trying to attract that sort of attention, and that is fine if they're not going to turn around and complain that their body is being exploited and all that feminist rethoric. It's your decision, after all. It's another story when thread after thread gets bombarded by idiotic remarks and pictures of women in sexy poses. Women are sexy, tell me something new, a fact pretty much established over the centuries. Does this mean that almost every topic where a female partecipates has to eventually fall into chats that hint at sex-related things? Not that sometimes those chats can't turn out funny.
See thread where luxinterior rose above semi-ironic comments on female and made mincemeat of atsonic. By the way, the female body isn't better looking than the male, they are equally attractive, it's just that we often we make only one of them a fuck-temple.

i don't know about that. some of my gay friends make fuck-temples of 19 year old boys. we males are filthy, filthy creatures, and we soil everything we look at. then again, i think women objectify too, they are just more subtle about it.

for the record, i don't think notyourfiend was trying to attract "that sort of attention"-- i think she was discussing body issues and was naive in overestimating our intellectual detachment from her pictures, that is all. she was wearing clothes by the way. she just didn't know she'd fall into such a snake pit. poor thing! that's what hapens when you go to a private liberal arts college: it leaves you unprepared for the gore of the street and the market. other tits & cleavages: ok, yes, "she asked for it" (chuckles). there are a few out there who like to cocktease internet dweebs with offers of nippleage. i say leave it to karma to sort that out.

on a separate note, there is definitely an ugly streak of woman-hating on this board, i'll say that. that doesn't always overlap with the objectification bit. it's 2 separate issues that shouldn't be conflated. the male brain objectifies-- it's how engineering, math, science, and logic got started, after all. we conceptualize nature as discrete objects. has its pros and cons.

anyway, that thread with luxinterior is epic. she was one of my favorite people here, by far. that thread was not so much about sexual objectification but about women haters-- there's an ugly streak of that in some posters here-- i guess they were burned badly & traumatized at some point in their lives. o well. i don't mind beating them with a bag of oranges when that shit starts.

Ya dude, the last chick I was recently with was psyched on my cock. Some girls appreciate the male body as much as we males appreciate the female body.

I'm so classy.

Hmm, I must have missed that episode with notyourfiend as I don't remember it.

However, this luxinterior thread sounds like an interesting read. Might someone be kind enough to pm me a link?

*cringe*

i forget how it went but nyf was talking about being criticized (?) for her large boobs (what fool would do that?) and she posted some pics of her on a t-shirt that made obvious she was wonderfully endowed.

i kept giving her a hard time for it, mostly as jokes, which were probably misunderstood, as tone is hard to convey on the interwebs, but i remember she kept getting sexual attention from men in spite of the fact that she was lesbian & not closeted at all.

i think we also disappointed her in our inability to maintain civilized discussions for very long and she grew tired of the general degeneration into verbal violence and fucktardicity.

oh, and she had a few hilarious spats with sway.



weren't you the one who quoted aristotle and told me one thing couldn't become another and remain the same, or some such thing? i forget the wording and i don't have the energy for precisions at the time...

anyway, little boxes exist only in the mind, unless you start to see rhizomes like that stupid kid sees dead people. my own mental objects tend to fall on the fuzzy proteic side these days. but whether it makes you cringe or not (how you feel is your own responsibility) i stand by my statement that objectification lies at the origin of science, technology, logic, and various other disciplines.

of course there are female gearheads & math chicks aplenty, by the way. i'm not saying this is an exclusive province of the male, though it traditionally has been associated with "masculine" traits. anyway, let's not get into virginia woolf & a room of one's own.

That a change from one thing into another is impossible without a unchanging substratum substance?

I'm just skeptical that there's any definitive way to say that engineering, math, science, and logic 'got started,' let alone by males.

but why would you want to take something like that along with you? and what do you do after you pee? put the thing with pee residue back in your bag? or find a place to rinse it? if you have to go look for a place to clean the thing you peed through you might as well just go find a bathroom.

If I'm writing my name in some snow and run out of urine, I want to know that the chick I dragged along to witness my signature on Mother Earth herself can whip one of these funnels out and finish spelling my name for me. And, if that doesn't empty her out, I guess she's allowed to go ahead and write her own name in the snow too. But not too close to mine.

Mainly I want to share the joy of writing my name in snow with women.

And as for the funnel aftermath, one could always store it in a zip lock bag. Or just leave it out in the sun. Nothing cleans pee like evaporation.

you lost me with "unchanging substratum substance". sorry. im not trying to be a smartass. i just don't get what those 3 combined words mean.


:(


you think those things existed since the days of our lemur ancestors? from what i know, they started with civilization, though they may have their precursors in tribal stages. but the tribal mind is ruled by mythical/magical thinking rather than logic and rationality. levi-strauss i think did a study of that and listed the various cognitive differences-- i read about it ages ago & would look up but it's almost 4am.

if you look at the development of western culture, it all began with tearing nature into small manageable pieces that were simple enough for us to understand, classify, generalize, articulate "laws" about them. only in the XX century with systems theory, ecology, etc, we began to realize that our little boxes are useful fictions, and to increase their usefulness we must understand them as interconnected and not isolated from other little boxes.

and again, for the 5th time, not started by "males", but by objectification as a function of the mind. if you read my post above (somewhere) i claimed women objectify too (though they tend to be more graceful at it than us oafs) (oaves? hmmmm...)
--

ps i think here: http://books.google.com/books?id=JI6GVFbP9hAC&dq=levi-strauss+the+savage+mind&printsec=frontcover&source =bn&hl=en&ei=_ikGTKXdL4H48AamlfiRDA&sa=X&oi=book_r esult&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage &q=levi-strauss%20the%20savage%20mind&f=false

The bed in which we consummate our vows will be hoisted by a horde of jigglypuffs.

You're not into slapstick?

'Women', as a broad category, do 'objectify' too, yes. Objectification is a function of the mind, yes. I'm not necessarily getting at you, but these simple facts needn't be conflated with an exoneration of being a bastard. I'm not sure if this is what Death is getting at - he's coming at this from a different perspective - but I definitely get the sense that it's likely that a lot of people - men and women - get alienated by this board because there is a near-majority who simply can't discuss a woman without reference to her breasts or ass. A lot of people do this as a 'parody', but the lines between parody and something more sinister are far less apparent than a lot of people seem to think.

tl;dr - internet is a bad thing.

Well, there's the single word "hypokeimenon" but that's not helping.

Nah, I just think that those things can be reduced, or maybe traced back, to very primordial instincts. The Ishango bone and Lebombo bone both demonstrate how old the basics of mathematics really are. In fact, some have speculated that mathematics began with women tallying their menstrual cycle: http://www.tacomacc.edu/home/jkeller...ses/menses.htm

In any case, I tend to refrain from speculating upon the abilities of prehistoric people since they are capable of many fascinating surprises. And it's 3:30am here, so I'm not arguing anything.

oh, that-- i had forgotten it in the discussion of the beginnings of science & egineering-- ha!.

anyway, bastards alienate people off the internet in general.

there's a lot of tits and ass in the culture though, this board didn't invent it and/or put it out there, and a lot of what we call "celebrities" depend on their tits and ass for their fame and wealth. and this board is often concerned with said spectacle. you can't discuss britney spears in the late 90s withour remarking on her bare midriff and hip movements. they are inseparable. beyonce's recently famous music video is all about her sexy ass-shakes. proof of that is that when 7 year olds performed said dance number recently, there was an uproar about the sexualization of little girls-- and rightly so. beyonce is sex on legs and that's how she exerts her star power. denying it is ridiculously naive.

on the other hand-- i would never discuss the tits and ass of susan sontag or hanna arendt or jhumpa lahiri or in the case of this little board luxinterior, nefeli, jenthebenn, etc, because their awesomeness does not require tits or ass and their persona is not about that. there are women however who must always show some skin or voluptuous protuberance or act sexual in order to get attention-- which makes us wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg



we're all to blame and we're all going to hell.

yeah i give up on understanding that.

of course we have the capacities for math, etc, at least since our cro-magnon days if not earlier-- neuroscience is proving that kant was more or less right with his apriori categories. we do have very definite innate faculties of the mind. nevertheless, primitive math count is like "one, two, many". civilization put certain faculties on steroids for sure.

alright, i have to make myself absent for a while and catch up on some thing but will try returning later.

You know this is a weak argument.


Really though? It's her weakest period, musically. If we're talking the Hit me... to Oops... period. There's a couple of great singles, but as albums they are lame as a disabled duck. I suppose you have point that, as whole albums, there's not a great deal of interest on a musical level, but why is it that people turn to sex to discuss that lameness rather than say the music's not very good? Are the Mars Volta bad because they're ugly, or bad because it's terrible music? I fucking hate their haircuts, but no-one's interested in me saying that. I know what the marketing of Britney says about Britney and culture, but the marketing is so transparent that it hardly bears commenting on. Except, time and again, that is all that is commented on.


Dislike.



I saw that video and I thought 'there's some children having a good time'. When Beyonce does it, my libido does say 'yes please'. When children do it, nothing of the sort. Those children aren't 'sexualized' - they probably have no idea why people get upset about it. My nieces do a lot of dances, and it's an art-form. Ok, it's an art-form that comes from adult sexual practises, but the children themselves have absolutely no idea about that. I think anyone who feels iffy about watching children dancing needs to ask themselves what that says about their own libido, rather than claim the children themselves are sexualised. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that pre-sexual children who find something interesting in a dance that adults perceive as 'sexy' shows precisely that that dance is not exclusively about sex. Of course, we have Freud to counter that, but in essence it's a misunderstanding of him (and people like Klein) to suggest that the (de facto) sexuality of children is anything like of the same order, articulation or direction as adult sexuality. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth - I don't think you think this - but there's something very sinister about precisely this mis-articulation of child sexuality.

I made this note on Wittgenstein last night that's relevant, I think: "Did we invent human speech? No more than we invented walking on two legs"