Re: IT angle?
Get out.
2823 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Jan 2008
It's just a fact of the case as reported. It's neutral information. You'd have to take it up with the cops.
Of course guns have a bad reputation, considering many of the people who use them, and what they're designed to do. You might have to man up and take that on and prove that not everyone has the same attitude/psychosis. Or you could go on a killing spree. That would also show them. Either/or.
Indeed. Wait there while I find some figures as to how many people take drugs and neither die nor become any sort of menace to or drain on society. I may need some help lifting them. A forklift truck, maybe.
There aren't very many absolutes in this, which is why it's going to go on and on and on until we all die of old age. Or of drugs.
You can tell from that? I'm impressed.
I saved a toad from getting squashed in the road recently. It was definitely a toad rather than a frog, but I could only tell because it wasn't dessicated and stuck to a bit of a PC. I picked it up with my bare hands because I am well 'ard.
I think it's self-evident that most men would probably do most types of women. There's no suggestion that men *only* go for blue-eyed busty blondes. It's just saying that there may be evolutionary advantages to being blue-eyed and blonde and busty.
I think most people have preferred types but there are some attributes that work on the reptile brain stem of pretty much everyone. Busty women are everyone's type, ultimately, on a very base and primitive level.
I think the idea is that you don't have to be *naturally* blonde - it's just the colour that suggests youthfulness.
But yeah, of course you can pick all this stuff apart, we're not such simple creatures. Well, mostly.
Boobs is a good word. Others are either coy, clinical or bordering on offensive in many contexts.
I think we should popularise 'Ingrids' as a term now, in honour of recently deceased horror actress Ingrid Pitt.
NB I don't think this particular gaffe is the result of not knowing - it looks more like the kind of verbal carelessness you can't really excuse. You've got to be more aware of what is coming out of your mouth if you're in politics. She's incredibly heedless about her presentation for a politician - it's almost as if all the energy for that goes into what she looks like (thanks for reinforcing that one for women, Palin - pretty and dumb is always the way forward). Unless! it's all DELIBERATE and CALCULATED. etc. (It's not. At least not entirely. I don't know. I weary of her.)
"Just because I don't *care* doesn't mean I don't *understand*."
I think she's got some of the same problems as Bush - she can't be as stupid as she appears, it's more a combination of arrogance and indolence, as Bush exhibited. Too lazy to learn, too confident to care if she looks like an idiot.
Not to rule out some dosage of actual stupidity. I doubt she's even as clever as Bush. But there's a large streak of proud anti-intellectualism in the US, which is why she'll always have support.
>>as long as a bloke you are talking to treats you in a decent and reasonable manner what does it matter if deep down he is thinking "there would be a good, compliant receptacle for my spunk?"
I don't even know where to start with that. So I won't.
What is it with people here suddenly deciding that being a 'sex object' is a good thing? There's a whole world of healthy sexuality outside of that narrow and disparaging bracket. That definition implies that there is *nothing else about a person* than their sexuality - is that what you want? Is that what anyone's wife wants? It's the 'among other things' bit that is crucial. No person is an 'object'. Stop clinging to the word. You can get rid of it and not give anything up.
Grey areas, for chrissakes. The world does not reduce down to 'Nuts cover or niqab', however strenuously you boil it. You can't give people some sort of ultimatum - "well, either you're seen as a sex object, or we take that option away and you're left as some kind of procreating indeterminate blob".
If this is how you think women see themselves - as one of only three possible things - then I'm baffled, frankly. Personally I see myself as quite a lot of things, only a few of which pertain to my gender.
I think the point is that objectification reduces people to *things* with only one purpose or use. A sexual being is not the same thing as a sex object. So there is an issue there.
Doesn't mean porn is necessarily this terrible fearful thing to be stamped out. You just don't want society to consider women as compliant spunk-receptacles, which you can achieve by raising well-adjusted human beings who can tell the difference between porn and reality. A difficult job, undoubtedly, but running screaming in fear of sexy stuff is never constructive to that end.
Anal sex isn't any more prevalent among gay couples than straight ones. Not a lot of people know that.
It's not homophobic so much as it's just a bit retarded, I'd say. If you're that freaked out about the corrupting power of anything sexual then anal sex is probably up there with the most depraved and perverted acts you can think of.
Oh my Christ. Any mention of cycling, cyclists or inner tubes and this happens. Give it a goddam rest. Some cyclists are dicks. Some are not. Some people think wearing a helmet isn't essential. Some do. We have had all these arguments roughly 50,000 times here in the last three years. Aren't you bored yet?