Him or me?

[ImWithStupid]

If he did have an account, it was probably the name " Pissedthehelloff " with a join date of: 03-16-2005 based on matching I.P.'s, in which case, that would make him a legacy member entitled to an avatar and profile pic and signature.

.

.

 

I think he was quoting an e-mail that he got from TH.

[RoyalOrleans]

I think all men who were in the military and keep their shapes are sexy motherfuckers.

 

That is true... my physique... the work of the Gods upon Olympus.

[skategreen]

If he did have an account, it was probably the name " Pissedthehelloff " with a join date of: 03-16-2005 based on matching I.P.'s, in which case, that would make him a legacy member entitled to an avatar and profile pic and signature.

.

.

 

But we frown on the practice of changing names and accounts.......

 

Unless it stems from ID amnesia?

 

He'd need to prove himself worthy of retroactive type gifts.

 

You're in a giving mood Phreak. Must be pleasant at your house tonight.

[jokersarewild]

That is true... my physique... the work of the Gods upon Olympus.

Hesphestus, maybe...

 

He made you in his own image

 

[attach=full]960[/attach]

[RoyalOrleans]

Hesphestus, maybe...

 

He made you in his own image

 

[attach=full]961[/attach]

 

Hey! I have both arms!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey! I have both arms!

 

Lethalfind says they call you "TRIPOD"! Must be hidden under that skirt!

[RoyalOrleans]

Lethalfind says they call you "TRIPOD"! Must be hidden under that skirt!

 

It's not a skirt, CES. It's my ball sack.

[ToriAllen]

I hope to God you're a chick. Otherwise, this site has reached its homoerotic limit.

 

It's a vote concerning whom is to be banned permenantly from the site. Those who voted for TH either hated him or were kissing up to the mods' asses. Those who voted RO didn't know what the vote was for.

This poll was never defined as being about anything:

What are we voting for?

I don't know for sure, but when the poll closes I will have made up my mind.

You can’t take offense to an undefined poll, and you shouldn't assume you know what the poll is when the person who started it doesn’t even know.

I'm sorry MM but I really can't look at a guy and think he's cute. Maybe it's just me and all the other guys are bullshiting but I don't think so. Men and women think different.

Wait let me refrase that. I can look at a guy and say "wow that dude is butt ugly! How in the hell does he get laid!" But other than that, no we don't say "boy what a hunk! I'll bet he gets laid a lot!"

Men and women do not think differently. They are raised with different social expectations. Why is it that when looking at a persons looks you must take ‘getting laid’ into account at all. Every man I know thinks certain other men are good looking. My brother always envied Mel Gibson. Trust me, men know who to be jealous of, therefore, men know who is handsome and who is not.

That's exactly what I was getting at. For chicks, it's obviously different. Some people say it's narrow-minded not to be ble to look at another man and say/imply that he's attractive, but narrow-minded or not, you know somebody's going to think you're queer.

It is only different because men remain tied to outdated social expectations. Men like you perpetuate ideals you don’t really believe in. If you ‘say/imply that he’s attractive, …somebody’s going to think you’re queer’. (Deep Breath) So, even though you believe a man can think another man is good looking, you would never say it for fear of being labeled a queer, and since you can not express what you think for fear of being called queer, you are going to perpetuate the notion that any man who does say what he thinks must be gay, even though you know it isn’t necessarily true?

It's not a skirt, CES. It's my ball sack.

So, is your penis under your ball sack, or, is it that tiny little notch at the top?

[snafu]

Men and women do not think differently. They are raised with different social expectations. Why is it that when looking at a persons looks you must take ‘getting laid’ into account at all. Every man I know thinks certain other men are good looking. My brother always envied Mel Gibson. Trust me, men know who to be jealous of, therefore, men know who is handsome and who is not.

 

It is only different because men remain tied to outdated social expectations. Men like you perpetuate ideals you don’t really believe in. If you ‘say/imply that he’s attractive, …somebody’s going to think you’re queer’. (Deep Breath) So, even though you believe a man can think another man is good looking, you would never say it for fear of being labeled a queer, and since you can not express what you think for fear of being called queer, you are going to perpetuate the notion that any man who does say what he thinks must be gay, even though you know it isn’t necessarily true?

 

Men and women do think different. They are different and will never be the same. It's physically imposible to match sexual interpetaitons.

 

When you say someone is “attractive” it means you are attracted to them. I don’t find any man attractive! Sorry. It’s not homophobic. And I used the getting laid analogy because for one it was funny and the other is that men and women think about sex all day long (not the same though).

http://www.newkerala.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=52165

[jokersarewild]

Men and women do think different. They are different and will never be the same. It's physically imposible to match sexual interpetaitons.

 

When you say someone is

[skategreen]

When you say someone is

[snafu]

I can see what your saying.

I can tell if a guy is

[RoyalOrleans]

I can see what your saying.

I can tell if a guy is

[ToriAllen]

Men and women do think different. They are different and will never be the same. It's physically imposible to match sexual interpetaitons.

You can

[snafu]

You can’t compare the way men and women think and then back it up with physical differences. Most of the general knowledge about the mental processes and behaviors of men and women stem from outdated studies and anecdotal ideals. The more recent studies have shown a blurring of the lines between the thinking of men and women as the cultural expectations of men and women shift. There have been cultural studies to support the view that attitudes and thought processes are socialized. Margaret Mead studied a culture in New Guinea, the Tchambuli, seemed to have the sex roles of the males and females opposite to that of our culture. Males in this culture were sensitive, emotional, petty, and nervous. Women, however, were competent, efficient, casual, and played the role of the sexual aggressor.

 

No it doesn’t. But if you want to get technical, here is what American Heritage has to say about the word attractive:

1. Having the power to attract.

2. Pleasing to the eye or mind; charming.

Nothing about wanting to have sex with them, that’s for sure. Most people know that when you say someone is attractive it doesn’t mean that you are sexually attracted to them.

 

Funny. Again recent research is destroying the old ideals about gender differences.

 

Why not remove the use of the juvenile ‘puppy love’ word ‘cute’ and stick with good looking, average, and ugly.

 

Anyone with even remote social skills and evolutionary adaptation qualities can judge another persons looks without relying on ‘how others act toward them’. Any normal human being knows when the competition is high. We judge people constantly. On what they drive, how they dress, body language, and yes, physical attractiveness. It is human nature and it is nothing to be ashamed of. You don’t have to actually think, “He’s cute”, in order to know who is and who isn’t attractive. There are many levels of thought. I don’t walk down the street and think, “He’s ugly. She’s cute. Damn he’s fine. She so sexy. I bet that guy gets a lot of action.” I have better things to think about than that. That doesn’t mean that I don’t notice who is ugly and who is not. There was another study that shoed men and women look at attractive faces a slight bit longer than unattractive faces of either sex. I’m sure they weren’t thinking, “Oh, he’s cute.”

 

Man your tuff. You and Skategreen got me backed up against the wall on this one.

Again I understand this. My analogy was "butt ugly" obviously if I can conjure up a thought of butt ugly there would have to be the opposite, good looking. But as you pointed out there are many variations of this.

I had a friend with a nose like Jimmy Durante (butt ugly). But he had chicks all over him. It was his demeanor that got him laid. I can only assume someone is good looking by how he attracts women. Is that calling him attractive? If so then I'm guilty of thinking some guy might be "attractive" but he's not attractive to me.

[RoyalOrleans]

Man your tuff. You and Skategreen got me backed up against the wall on this one.

Again I understand this. My analogy was "butt ugly" obviously if I can conjure up a thought of butt ugly there would have to be the opposite, good looking. But as you pointed out there are many variations of this.

I had a friend with a nose like Jimmy Durante (butt ugly). But he had chicks all over him. It was his demeanor that got him laid. I can only assume someone is good looking by how he attracts women. Is that calling him attractive? If so then I'm guilty of thinking some guy might be "attractive" but he's not attractive to me.

 

Grandmothers, aunts, and other distant kind used to say to me, "I'll bet you have to beat them off with a stick." and I replied "Nahhh... I beat off after I mace them, shave their head, shit in their purse, and sniff the panty drawer.".