[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

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.

ok i'm only answering this while the tea brew so i'll hurry

of course the kids had no clue what they were doing and there was nothing sexual about it, because they didn't have the sexuality to project while shaking their cunts-- however, what stupid fucker makes children shake their cunts for an audience? it's like little miss sunshine where the girl does her talent dance unaware that grampa taught her how to be a stripper. anyway, if i had a daughter and someone tried to taught her how to shake her cunt at age 7, i would kick their ass.

but i didn't bring that up to discuss that particular children's dance. if you wanna read somebody else's opinions (not mine) see this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051404324.html

i brought up that video just to build up my case that the beyonce video is loaded with sex. this because i remembered this discussion about "tits and ass" spawning from the beyonce video some months ago. i don't appreciate her music but i do appreciate her sexy cunt-thumping (sorry if this is blunt) and spectacular figure and contortions. call me a swine, but that's what the video is *really* about, though it's artistically camouflaged. and people who make a career out of that are open to have their tits and ass discussed.

anyway, my tea is ready and i can't answer the rest until i get some work done. aghhhhhhhhhhh.

but this is fun.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

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"

ok one more:

all humans have speech, all humans walk on two legs (there are exceptions of course). such are not inventions.

but some cultures have theatre and others not, some cultures have advance math and other don't, some cultures have empirical science and others don't. these are inventions.

to say otherwise would imply some sort of platonic paradigm where everything that we learn or discover or invent is simply remembrance from a world of ideas-- and i don't buy that.

ok, laters.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by Glice

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"

I wouldn't take any notice of Wittgenstein. Have you seen what he's up to these days?

 

[Glice]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ok one more:

all humans have speech, all humans walk on two legs (there are exceptions of course). such are not inventions.

but some cultures have theatre and others not, some cultures have advance math and other don't, some cultures have empirical science and others don't. these are inventions.

to say otherwise would imply some sort of platonic paradigm where everything that we learn or discover or invent is simply remembrance from a world of ideas-- and i don't buy that.

ok, laters.

I certainly agree with this - I just wanted to say that Wittgentstein's saying more that these things humans have are not simply fabricated, ex-nihilo, instantaneously.

[ploesj]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

ps
is it true that young people, underage too, dont use condoms?????
what i heard recently is that they arent afraid of aids, because they believe you dont get to die anymore, plus you have the benefit of the state income.

most youngsters i know use them, unless they are in a longlasting relationship, on some other kind of birth control and both quite sure of not being infected.

i know some people who don't use condoms but they are just cheap/stupid/usually too drunk to care.

[atsonicpark]

hm,

[ink.]

I'm okay with being objectified by my baby. I like to objectify fictional characters for their sex appeal. Everyone else eh.

I think there is a certain amount of human honesty in being okay with staring/being stared at from time to time. Constant or having a need for it either way is different though.

[atsonicpark]

Women =

 

[knox]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

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.

Dear,

I realize a lot of things. And I have to disagree with you (tho I still love you very much).

No longer the excuse "males are shitty beings who can't help but being shitty" please. People's morals are not defined by gender. The truth is "in this society/context we've been told we can get away with behaving like this so we just might" (the trick is to say "that's just how men are").

Which leads me back again to, lots of nauseating crap and half-assed half-serious beliefs are present in this thread. None were as blatantly sexist as Sonic Gail's comment. A woman. So as we all know, women are VERY much responsible for the perpetration of these gender roles.

Now, is a woman supposed to watch and control every aspect of her behaviour because she's a constant target? Is she supposed to model herself and be under constant surveillance in order not to be associated with a certain stereotype? That because she has to assume others are not capable of seeing her as a thinking being after she talks in anyway about anything remotely sex related or a part of her body?

Are you warning me? If so, thank you? But anyone who behaves like an erratic monkey at the mere thought of so called boobs is too much of a wanker to deserve my attention. Doubt many would dare, because I'm probably too scary anyway.

You're not boobwired. You're just taught it's ok to behave that way. As well as the female body isn't any prettier (of course if you're straight I'd assume you think so), it's just deemed ok to objetify it for centuries and centuries.

We're not more evolved beings. We just grow up knowning that behaving like cock hunters would bring us serious consequences (bad ones).

And as for men being "responsible" for math, science, engineering or whatever. You're smart, right? It has very little to do with the so-called differences between male and female brain and more to do with the fact that we live in a patriarchal society in which women were very recently allowed any sort of education (and we can say still highly imbalanced).

And just a side note, looking is not objectifying.

[knox]

Oh I think I get it now. Was he trying to say there are two types of women:

a- the ones who make it ok to see them as boob/ass because they're poor little things and put themselves up for that.

b- the ones who are smart and awesome and actually do have a personality and these ones cannot be talked about sexually because respect and sexuality cannot mix? right.

I guess what this says is even more sinister.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by pbradley

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.

somebody started all that stuff. we did not learn it from elephants

[ni'k]

if my opinion on any of this is worth anything which it has no reason to be, but anyway, i say: listen to knox, she knows what she's talking about.

[knox]

somebody initiated institutions. doubt someone could have started math.

[Rob Instigator]

math is a human construct. Math is a language and all languages are human constructs.

Humans began math by counting on their fingers/digits.

women probably started math, using it to ensure their resources would be suficient for the tribe. back when hu8mans first created math and language we all lived in MATRIARCHAL societal structures. This was way before agriculture and shit, when humans/protohumans were all nomadic peoples.

[space]

Originally Posted by knox

cock hunters

I can see the History Channel scrambling to develop its next reality-based program over this one!

it'll be sandwiched between shows about underwater UFOs and military snipers, and narrated by Mike Rowe


NEXT UP....on COCK HUNTERS...

[knox]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

math is a human construct. Math is a language and all languages are human constructs.

Humans began math by counting on their fingers/digits.

women probably started math, using it to ensure their resources would be suficient for the tribe. back when hu8mans first created math and language we all lived in MATRIARCHAL societal structures. This was way before agriculture and shit, when humans/protohumans were all nomadic peoples.

One of my students was a math phD. I don't know shit about math.
Him, however would argue that math is not a language neither was it created by humans. He'd say math is larger than humans and humans merely attempt to decode it. In fact, he'd say math is God. (or something like that).

But whatever.

[akprodr]

Originally Posted by ploesj

most youngsters i know use them, unless they are in a longlasting relationship, on some other kind of birth control and both quite sure of not being infected.

i know some people who don't use condoms but they are just cheap/stupid/usually too drunk to care.

yeah, I'm guessing that the people you know are probably smarter than the average schmoe.

Here, I think there is a perception (among lesser evolved humans) that condoms are bad. STDs and pregnacy are just fine but condoms--evil.

[akprodr]

Originally Posted by knox

You're not boobwired. You're just taught it's ok to behave that way. As well as the female body isn't any prettier (of course if you're straight I'd assume you think so), it's just deemed ok to objetify it for centuries and centuries.

I sure can't give you sources, but I believe that men are in fact boob-wired. Definitely more visual centered.

And I think, if you asked both men and women, the majority would say that women are more beautiful.

[knox]

Originally Posted by akprodr

I sure can't give you sources, but I believe that men are in fact boob-wired. Definitely more visual centered.

And I think, if you asked both men and women, the majority would say that women are more beautiful.

You just said the average idiot does not think they should make use of condoms. Which means, people are stupid. If you ask people, they'll say all sorts of stupid shit. That's because they don't know shit, and they know even less if the question you ask them is not a subject they have studied and/or are particularly interested in.

If you can't give me sources it is just your belief. I can give you endless sources that would relate sexuality to culture and history. But a- I am tired and b-you'll believe whatever you want to believe in order to justify yourself.

Same way people like to believe "no chance in hell i'd ever get a std".

[hevusa]

If women are so fucking equal how does one explain soap operas?