Attack of the Evil Nudists

[Xortberg]

You made a hell of a lot of points, some of which I don't have any real contest against, so I'll just address the points that I really had issue with.

Drasiana>

Do you support sexual violence Dras?

Do you support terrorism too Dras'? D:

Funny how you throw these out, and later say:

That's weird how ponies get all binary when they debate. If I think preventing girls from wandering naked helps preventing from being assaulted, then I have to want them to wear burqas! Stop it, it's stupid... ¬¬

Dras thinks that girls shouldn't be punished for the actions of male rapists, so she must support sexual violence and terrorism! Lolwut. And speaking of terrorism...

Also, you suggest males and females are built the same way, think the same way, act the same way... This is a lovely though, but it's not true. Different thought patterns induce different behaviors, so by extension different habits. And unfortunately, it takes restriction to lower sexual violence. A bit like security in the airports and such. It sucks to be restricted about your cargo/belongings etc... but if it's what it takes to prevent ponies from terrorism...

A bit unrelated, but Cracked.com has pointed out already just how generally useless most airport security measures are at preventing terrorism. And if all those measures don't do much to prevent terrorism, ever think that maybe all these supposed preventative measures against rape aren't really doing shit either?

EDIT: http://www.cracked.com/article_18775_5-popular-safety-measures-that-dont-make-you-any-safer.html

There's the article I was thinking of. The first entry talks all about, and has links you can follow explaining, how useless these security measures are against terrorism.

Faisul> (I'll reply to your points in the order you wrote them)

You'll note that nudity (the same way as cloth wearing) is considered a practical habit in the exemples you mentioned. I doubt Inuits would find nudity a practical habit for going out and fish through ice holes. Ponies found the need to keep themselves covered long before religious bullshit gave its opinion about the matter.

And I doubt he was talking about Eskimos when he mentioned that religious bullshit is a very large contributing factor here. We all realize that nudity is not always practical. Assuming it needs to be pointed out is silly, since we aren't saying we should force ponies to be naked no matter what. We're saying that ponies should be able to look at a situation and judge whether or not going topless would be worth it, and then being able to legally choose to do so. Of course Santa Claus isn't going to walk around the North Pole in his birthday suit. That's just silly.

What can I say? Like for racism, homophobia, xenophobia and such, you can't change ponies, how they are inside. Or you'd have to brainwash them.

Or, you know, honestly change the way they view things through hard work and perseverance. I was actually raised in a rather homophobic and xenophobic environment, and for the earlier parts of my life I agreed with those viewpoints because I never knew otherwise. I changed. So can this whole social stigma against the female nipple.

And yeah, some rapist won't wait for their victims to be undressed. But still, some can be triggered by nudity, even partial.

And yet we still allow women to walk around in short skirts and skimpy shirts. Hey, that's pretty close to nudity. Hell, it might even be more provocative than an already nude filly - after all, is it more exciting to have a present handed to you unwrapped, or wrapped so you can open it and see what it is? And yet it's allowed.

So, again, "better oppressed and kept in a box than sorry"? Yeah, kinda, it's the usual liberty/security dilemma. But your comment on it is that victims have not to be ignored anymore. This has to be, taking care of victims. But the actual point is not to have victims anymore. So I think you missed yours on that.

Again, you seem to be under the assumption that we're trying to say women should be forced to walk around naked everywhere. We are not. The idea behind this topic is that women should be able to decide, like stallions, if they want to take their shirt off in front of other ponies. If they judge that the risk of rape is worth it, they can make that choice. As I said earlier, we already allow them to dress provocatively in public, which probably encourages plenty of rapists in itself.

And anyway, that sort of thinking is ridiculous. Imagine if all of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches were just waved away under the premise that giving them equal rights would piss of white ponies and thus put them in danger. Hey, better for them to be oppressed and kept in a box than sorry, right? Oppressing the victims while claiming to be protecting them is wrong.

[Thu'um]

Srry guys i qm horrible at getting my thoughts out and posting them, becAuse with the resposes i am getting you guys really arn't getting what i am saying. XD yes i know its probably my fualt , but imma do a video response. And dras i can only post single bits when i am on an i-touch

[Drasiana]

If your posting style is inhibiting your ability to respond to a topic, wait until you're on a proper computer. I also don't know how you're going to be any more coherent in Youtube format than you are here.

Not agreeing with you =/= not getting what you're saying.

also

And anyway, that sort of thinking is ridiculous. Imagine if all of Martin Luther King Jr.'s speeches were just waved away under the premise that giving them equal rights would piss of white ponies and thus put them in danger. Hey, better for them to be oppressed and kept in a box than sorry, right? Oppressing the victims while claiming to be protecting them is wrong.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS

[Milkyway64]

Wait a second I just now noticed that Xort's post replaces "people" with "ponies."

There goes my train of thought.

[Thu'um]

@ dras my point was what i am meaning to say and what you are interpreting are diffrent. Besides i am a wonderful and very skilled verbal speaker. It will make it possible

For you guys to be able to actualy comphrehend

My point

[ballisticwaffles]

But verbal speaking not only alienates our retorts, but makes it harder to quote you.

Plus im almost quite shure only 3 peopel will watch it.

[Drasiana]

Yeah dude this is a forum, not Youtube.

So far you have said people who don't wear clothes are all sluts just because you say they are, the only thing that counts as "nudity" are parts that develop during puberty so only women's breasts count (they don't), and women shouldn't be allowed to dress the way they want because it might make you horny.

I'm not sure making a video will offer a difference.

[Xortberg]

Wait a second I just now noticed that Xort's post replaces "people" with "ponies."

There goes my train of thought.

Does it really? I thought Ponify only made it look like it did on my end. Hm. Oh well, I'll just disable it for this site completely. That ought to fix the problem.

So far you have said people who don't wear clothes are all sluts just because you say they are, the only thing that counts as "nudity" are parts that develop during puberty so only women's breasts count (they don't), and women shouldn't be allowed to dress the way they want because it might make you horny.

Don't forget how I pointed out that a male's breasts do develop during puberty, making that point incorrect anyway.

[Drasiana]

Don't forget how I pointed out that a male's breasts do develop during puberty, making that point incorrect anyway.

Oh, that's why I mentioned it again. There's a lot of points the both of us have been making that are being conveniently ignored.

[Psygonis]

You made a hell of a lot of points, some of which I don't have any real contest against, so I'll just address the points that I really had issue with.

[some Psygonis quote]

Funny how you throw these out, and later say:

[Other Psygonis quote]

Dras thinks that girls shouldn't be punished for the actions of male rapists, so she must support sexual violence and terrorism! Lolwut. And speaking of terrorism...

[Third Psygonis quote]

A bit unrelated, but Cracked.com has pointed out already just how generally useless most airport security measures are at preventing terrorism. And if all those measures don't do much to prevent terrorism, ever think that maybe all these supposed preventative measures against rape aren't really doing shit either?

EDIT: [Link]

There's the article I was thinking of. The first entry talks all about, and has links you can follow explaining, how useless these security measures are against terrorism.

So, if I understand clearly, Drasiana has the monopoly of sarcasm here, she can use it when she wants, the way she wants, I can neither point that or use it myself?

And concerning airport security details, completely off-topic yeah. Oh well, maybe there is an unfortunate parallel to make between airport security personnel (more than devices) and the efficiency of the current protection system to prevent rape.

Dras, for God's sake, you're deliberately not understanding what I say when I'm serious and taking everything first-degree when I use sarcasm. That's not a valid way to argue with someone! ¬¬

Putting blinkers on (I thought it existed in english too, but I also thought it'd be graphical enough to be understood) means you got your initial idea, handles only what you want ahead of you and dismiss everything else around (The saying comes from the blinkers you put on horses so they're not worried about threats coming from the sides).

I NEVER said male victims were "sissies" or that male rape was something to ignore. You jump to the conclusions you want without any basis, in order to try to make me look like the bad guy. I talk numbers because there's no point making lists of single cases when you deal with human sciences. Concerning the second part of the paragraph, you didn't read it completely it seems, you missed the reflective "you" in the sentence. Like stabbing yourself, jumping yourself and driving yourself through a wall or up a cliff. The metaphor was about having potentially dangerous behaviors and not having laws to prevent them all.

And I perfectly understood your post. However, you seem not to understand the word sarcasm (ironic for someone that bitchslaps everyone all the time using them and gets on her high horses when someone doesn't understand that...)

Your laïus about home rape is irrelevant here because it is implied that nudism (If I remember correctly, that was your original topic...) is a public matter, not a private one.

But there again, I concur with you about the need for measures to prevent them. I never said the opposite, nor that it was fine, normal, natural, etc... It is just out of topic here, so calling it as an argument or a counter-argument is just not valid.

In regard of your next "point". Yeah, both genders have sexual pulsions. Evolutionary behavior specialists figured that there is a biological basis for the different way females handle them, because their sexual rhythm is based on a 28 days cycle and in case of mating, a 9 months "cooldown" time. Men can breed nearly as often as they want. Whatever. Society exists to moderate these basic instincts. And I'm afraid to repeat that it's not perfect, that forms of societies are acknowledged to exist at different scales, ruled by different norms. I'm not saying it's right. But. It. Does. Exist. SO, my point is that it's not easy to make things evolve in the right way and that making hypothesis based on your sole idealistic view of how the world should be is pointless.

I'll allow myself to make an undocumented hypothesis about you there (since you allow yourself to do it all the time). I think it's a professional deformation of yours to tend to sketch how things should be the way you envision them, as a professional writer, and assume that's how they are, whereas as en engineer, I try to figure out how to get there, starting from how things actually are now. So I'm sorry to have to draft a mitigated assessment of the apparently global view my fellow males have about females (outside of rape and pervy acts, there is also misogyny out there...).

Back to the topic (or well, current digression from the original topic).

You say women have been conditioned to suppress sexually-driven behaviors. That's true (and works well because of the mentioned biological machinery). That's traditions and education. Well, with the growing public awareness of gender inequity, I don't see why men couldn't get educated to have a sain way of dealing with sexuality too. I just implied it'd be a long and hard process though, because it goes against basic instinct, male biology and gender-unequal traditions.

But I'm not sure that process is directly linked to female nudity. Because "public" rape (you know, the deviation of this thread from public nudity) is not about education. A rapist doesn't care, it's considered a mental sickness. A drunk or stoned guy won't think about it either, because his state at the moment of the potential rape is not in the scope of effect of education.

The educational work is needed, obviously. But the work is how to prevent people from getting in dangerous situations. People with mental disorders should be diagnosed; where there is excessive alcohol and in the surroundings, there should be sober people (aka bartenders and security) to prevent guys to get too much drunk, spot/dissuade potential assaulters or react quickly enough to protect the victims. There should be police patrols where it's not safe to wander alone etc... the list goes on and on. Oh, and I was to forget. If not wandering topless/naked helps too, so be it.

Now, if we could get back to the original scope of the thread please. (Steve's too shy to ask for it... )

(I'll even make the courtesy to skip all your following conveniently-cut quotes and small comments that add nothing to the debate and make you contradict yourself so I don't have get more rude that I already are ¬¬ )

Yes it is. For men.

Indeed, I should have written it explicitly that it wasn't considered fine for girls. (I'll get back to it)

Religious matters are why it was then seen that nudity was "bad". Clothes are practical, yes, and that is primarily why I like wearing them. But if I see myself naked in the mirror I'm not tempted to whip out a crucifix and start crying in shame.

That's a misconception about religion I think. Religion (as a ruling power) started by trying to regulate sexuality in its most concrete form. Why? Because each womb and drop of semen had to produce farmers and soldiers. Moral has always been a convenient pretext to keep everyone mortified about themselves and therefore keeping them manipulated. At the contrary, letting the people being able to feel sinful about their pulsions had been a successful strategy used in French, British, Italian and Dutch parishes throughout all the Middle Age.

For religions, pleasure alone, sex for sex is bad whereas massive breeding has always been encouraged as a demographical empowering tool.

I don't remind that looking at yourself naked in a mirror theologically implied that you had to whip yourself after with a knut to the blood while praying for forgiveness. And even if it did, it's private space, so not relevant to the public nudity debate.

Now, back to the topic. I'm sorry if it's not elaborate enough for you, but it's social norms. It's a legacy of greek and roman vision of manhood and virility. At some point in history, it wasn't fine anymore, even for men (I think of the 11th~14th century's Western Europe mostly), and then it became really trendy back again during the renaissance. Virility being considered a virtue at that time, displaying virility wouldn't be a problem. The main difference between virility and female beauty is that virility is associated with admiration, challenge in some way. As a matter of fact, virility had always be considered a matter of men (between men I mean), especially at the time when you had to be a gentleman with ladies if you expected to be "successful".

So there have been a discrepancy between the male sexual/mating abilities and the sole male physical display, something considered less true with women. And you find this gap in arts too of course. Nude male figures are usually depicted as showing virtues through their nudity (innocence of angels, physical strength of warriors, perseverance or self-sacrifice of heroes...) while nude females mainly referred to beauty and attraction alone (or worse, lustful motives...).

The legacy of this prevails over gender equity in art ratings even now. And that's especially true with north-american societies that are literally obsessed with nudity and child protection (let's be clear, the rule mentioned in the first post here is just about child ratings... I think no one here's shocked in any way by the sole vision of nipples, may they be male of female ones). Art gap legacy and puritan cultural background (and your annoyingly tendency to sue whatever you can for whatever reason). In Europe, people are way more at ease with these issues (mostly).

What are you even saying? Yes, men have penises and women have vaginas. We both also have brains, blood, bones, and more. That isn't gender inequality, that's anatomical differences. Gender inequality is using those differences as a rope of control.

I'm sorry to make undocumented hypothesis again, but you seem not to have an extensive knowledge of the intimate structure and behaviors of the human body and the scale of differences between genders.

We both have brains, yeah. Overally built the same way (you can't differentiate a man's and a woman's brain just by looking at it) but they don't work the same way. fMRI show that the same stimuli don't activate the same areas of the brain when felt by men and women. They don't store events the same way, they don't link them emotionally speaking the same way, they are not exposed to the same hormones, are subject to different internal clocks and I could go on like this for a while, just dealing with perception and emotions...

Our genomes are different too, may I remind you. Not only because of a different chromosome, but also (not to say mainly) because of the way its activity is moderated by both external factors and self-regulation.

It's like the nose in the middle of the face, you can't miss the fact we're different. That doesn't mean one gender is entitled to oppress the other one. Don't make me say what I don't think (what you've been doing mostly so far, trying to make me look like a retarded macho conservative thing...). But, at the beginning of it, we're not exactly the same. I mean, it's like kids at school. They're not all equal. Some are bright, some aren't. All need education but you can't teach them things efficiently (even the same things) the same way. People, and politics especially like to say they're all equal, well, they're wrong.

Men and women are in the same situation. Different. They don't think and behave the same way. We're all glad you don't rape your nudist neighbor. A guy (rapist or not) wouldn't think about it the same way in the opposite situation (even if it lead to the same conclusions than yours by the way). And a potential female rapist either actually. So to quote you, if that was an attempt at illustration, it fell completely flat.

And the more I read the whole thing again, the more I think everyone just followed your self-derailment of your own topic: Online rating of PICTURES on the forum. Not people in the streets, not rape... ratings (and pictures). The error had to be seeing this "issue" as a societal problem, while it's an artistic sensitivity matter. As I developed in that post, the artistic view of nudity evolved over time, and is presently at a point where it's fine to show "men boobs". Since you're obsessed by crucifixes, just look at the evolution of the pictures of the Christ during the different periods of arts (and in the different cultural areas). At some point, he was naked, then with a loincloth, then naked again, then wearing a toga, a robe, then naked again etc... You can see this is not correlated to the evolution of the acknowledgment of women rights.

[Thu'um]

Dras your post saying thati stated every one who is nude is a slut only encourages me to

Make a video because know i know i

Clearly can not express my arguments through

Text. Besides a video will be fun .

[ballisticwaffles]

uhm, you kinda did. then i called you masoganistic

Ajc3000fox, on 26 October 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

it really is the way i have seen woman who wear little or no clothing act that has made me consider them sluts

[Xortberg]

So, if I understand clearly, Drasiana has the monopoly of sarcasm here, she can use it when she wants, the way she wants, I can neither point that or use it myself?

When you're going to jump on her at a later point in your post about her own sarcasm, no you can't use it yourself. If you're going to use it, don't condemn other people who did. If you're going to condemn those who did it, don't use it. Otherwise it's pretty hypocritical.

Other than that, I don't have a lot to say since you basically ignored all the valid points I made to make a few snide remarks yourself.

[Thu'um]

except that i didn't say they are sluts for having their shirts off. They were sluts regardless weather they had the shirts on or not. By the logic you are preposing i am using i am now a

Slut because i removed my shirt to shower. Wrong, i am stating all individuals i have seen with their shirt happen to be sluts. Coincidence? I think not . However dras made a very good point what about the beach? Well there are specific beaches people can go to,

And nudity really isn't bad there

[unoservix]

It is an interesting form of sexism on your part, Psygonis, to claim that men and women should be treated differently by society based on biological factors about themselves. It is, in fact, the same underlying idea as racism. You are judging someone based on biological assumptions that because they have a certain set of features, they invariably (or even usually) act a certain way, and therefore must be judged in that way.

But just as racists overlook the vast constellation of differences among members of the same race when they judge those members by their race, you overlook the vast constellation of differences among members of the same sex when you judge them by their sex. Boiling down the behavior of one sex to biology ignores or handwaves the all-important influence of culture and socialization. There is ample evidence already provided for you that cultural socialization makes the difference in, in this thread's case, whether or not the female breasts are seen as sexual. All you're really doing here, in the face of that evidence, is promoting the fiction that men and women are so different that different standards have to apply to them--as though all women really do fall into your chosen feminine archetype and all men into your chosen masculine archetype, or at least enough for you to disregard the ones who don't, as though these cultural standards are a priori and immutable.

Perhaps your engineerly self should go crack open some sociology textbooks, particularly before you start sneering at people for weaving fictions. Boiling people down to their biology and making judgements thereof (and don't pretend you didn't) is the mark of racism; you've just applied it to sex.

So when people call you sexist, they are in fact highly justified in doing so. Asserting a significant cognitive difference between males and females, particularly a cognitive difference that should be the basis for laws and customs, is sexist.

And in any case, in no way does it really defend the custom that women should not go topless.

EDIT: And as long as we're dealing in stereotypes, I'd just like to highlight the extreme hilarity of an engineer suggesting that his engineering education gives him greater insight into human beings than a writer.

An engineer.

The cluelessness it takes to imply such a thing at any rate makes me think that you don't actually understand what it is you implied, in which case you probably shouldn't go questioning other people's intelligence.

[Drasiana]

So, if I understand clearly, Drasiana has the monopoly of sarcasm here, she can use it when she wants, the way she wants, I can neither point that or use it myself?

If that was sarcasm, it was terrible.

And concerning airport security details, completely off-topic yeah. Oh well, maybe there is an unfortunate parallel to make between airport security personnel (more than devices) and the efficiency of the current protection system to prevent rape.

That was our point.

Putting blinkers on (I thought it existed in english too, but I also thought it'd be graphical enough to be understood) means you got your initial idea, handles only what you want ahead of you and dismiss everything else around (The saying comes from the blinkers you put on horses so they're not worried about threats coming from the sides).

Those are called blinders. And no, disagreeing with you is disagreeing with you. I am not ignoring what you are saying, I am responding to the text that appears on my screen that is written by you. So is Xort.

I NEVER said male victims were "sissies" or that male rape was something to ignore. You jump to the conclusions you want without any basis, in order to try to make me look like the bad guy. I talk numbers because there's no point making lists of single cases when you deal with human sciences.

I never said that you said that, I said that being dismissive of male rape is a bad thing. Yes, I mentioned that PEOPLE consider male rape victims sissies, even if you didn't. You're still being dismissive. Remember this?

You called male victims (from women and other men), but these are rather minor cases in number (of course not in violence and impact for the victims).

This reads as "male victims are not as important because there are less of them". This is where I take issue.

Concerning the second part of the paragraph, you didn't read it completely it seems, you missed the reflective "you" in the sentence. Like stabbing yourself, jumping yourself and driving yourself through a wall or up a cliff. The metaphor was about having potentially dangerous behaviors and not having laws to prevent them all.

Even though I did obviously misread this, it's still terrible, because you're comparing a woman taking her shirt off to suicide and considering it a "dangerous behaviour".

And I perfectly understood your post. However, you seem not to understand the word sarcasm (ironic for someone that bitchslaps everyone all the time using them and gets on her high horses when someone doesn't understand that...)

Lose arguement = play victim. FLAWLESS

In regard of your next "point". Yeah, both genders have sexual pulsions. Evolutionary behavior specialists figured that there is a biological basis for the different way females handle them, because their sexual rhythm is based on a 28 days cycle and in case of mating, a 9 months "cooldown" time. Men can breed nearly as often as they want.

Do you have a clitoris? No? Then don't tell me women don't get horny.

I'll allow myself to make an undocumented hypothesis about you there (since you allow yourself to do it all the time). I think it's a professional deformation of yours to tend to sketch how things should be the way you envision them, as a professional writer, and assume that's how they are, whereas as en engineer, I try to figure out how to get there, starting from how things actually are now. So I'm sorry to have to draft a mitigated assessment of the apparently global view my fellow males have about females (outside of rape and pervy acts, there is also misogyny out there...).

HAHAHA OH WOW.

What the FUCK are you talking about, man? A "professional deformation"? No. I write based on experiences, of mine and those around me. I incorporate the real world into what I write because that is how people make an emotional connection to them. My writing is not based on idyllic landscapes and social norms, it's based on reality. Even within fantasy settings, it is in metaphor to real situations. Trying to say you understand the world better than me because you're an engineer is egotistical and idiotic. The fact that you even bother to bring it up shows you grasping at straws.

But I'm not sure that process is directly linked to female nudity. Because "public" rape (you know, the deviation of this thread from public nudity) is not about education. A rapist doesn't care, it's considered a mental sickness. A drunk or stoned guy won't think about it either, because his state at the moment of the potential rape is not in the scope of effect of education.

The mentally sick may rape. Normal people rape every day as well. That site I linked that you probably didn't read said every two minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted. If only the mentally ill are rapists, the US needs far more mental asylums.

Blaming it on alcohol and drugs is also not an excuse. Many rapists are sober, and few people transform into hideously different people when they drink. Alcohol and drugs may actually reduce sexual urges. When the riots occurred in Vancouver in '94, the city imposed strict liquor laws in hopes of preventing it from happening again. It happened again anyways this year, and the riots were far worse. It was not the fault of the alcohol; it was the people.

Feel free to show me any statistics that say all rapists have a mental illness, by the way.

The educational work is needed, obviously. But the work is how to prevent people from getting in dangerous situations. People with mental disorders should be diagnosed; where there is excessive alcohol and in the surroundings, there should be sober people (aka bartenders and security) to prevent guys to get too much drunk, spot/dissuade potential assaulters or react quickly enough to protect the victims. There should be police patrols where it's not safe to wander alone etc... the list goes on and on. Oh, and I was to forget. If not wandering topless/naked helps too, so be it.

One of my original examples was taking your shirt off to do yardwork in the middle of the day. I'm not sure where this "wandering around at night alone without a shirt" idea is coming from.

(I'll even make the courtesy to skip all your following conveniently-cut quotes and small comments that add nothing to the debate and make you contradict yourself so I don't have get more rude that I already are ¬¬ )

Would you care to actually quote all these supposed small comments that "add nothing" and "contradict myself" instead of just whining?

I don't have much to say on the religious part because it's generally right, I guess. We can agree that religion contributes partially to demonizing sexuality, but these are all for various reasons. The point is, that's what it does.

I'm sorry to make undocumented hypothesis again, but you seem not to have an extensive knowledge of the intimate structure and behaviors of the human body and the scale of differences between genders.

I know how my body works, and I get along with men well enough. We have anatomical differences. We are not a seperate species. The brain has also been proven to adapt differently and work differently depending on how it's taught, to use the wildly-changed brain patterns in children these days as compared to the previous generation. I know there are studies that say men and women think differently, but given how apparently the brain structure of children changes because of their exposure to Facebook, I don't think it's a far cry to expect that men and women's brains develop in different ways because they are raised in different ways.

Yes, we have different hormones and anatomical structures. But "men are less emotional" than women is bullshit, and it leads to the social stigma that men are not allowed to be emotional. If you have any doubts that women are as sexual as men, look at the Twilight series. It's a terribly-written series, but the millions of female fans are not there for its deep story, they're there for the hot shirtless men, and the thousands of fanfictions dealing with vampire/werewolf penetration can attest to that. Look at yaoi fangirls. Look at female-directed advertisements (Old Spice, anyone?). You can spout as much bullshit as you want about biorythms or different hormones or whatever but at the end of the day, you are not me, and you can't tell me I am somehow an abnormal glitch in the system because I simply think sex is fun.

It's like the nose in the middle of the face, you can't miss the fact we're different. That doesn't mean one gender is entitled to oppress the other one. Don't make me say what I don't think (what you've been doing mostly so far, trying to make me look like a retarded macho conservative thing...).

LOL WHAT. I never said that. I was responding to this v

People, and politics especially like to say they're all equal, well, they're wrong.

You are speaking for women without being a woman, you are confusing base differences we have evolved past caring about with equality, and you are trying to restrict the rights of one gender for what you percieve, biased towards your own gender, as a threat that cannot be overcome through other means.

Men and women are in the same situation. Different. They don't think and behave the same way. We're all glad you don't rape your nudist neighbor. A guy (rapist or not) wouldn't think about it the same way in the opposite situation (even if it lead to the same conclusions than yours by the way). And a potential female rapist either actually. So to quote you, if that was an attempt at illustration, it fell completely flat.

So you think if a guy sees me naked, I'm automatically attractive to him? What if I'm overweight, or too shiny white, or my boobs aren't big enough, or etc.? Now you're not only speaking for women, you're speaking for all men. I have male friends that manage not to wank themselves into oblivion at the sight of a boob, and really wouldn't care about boobs that didn't belong to anyone other than their significant other. On the flipside, I know women who would TOTALLY stare at a naked guy across the street like a pervert.

And the more I read the whole thing again, the more I think everyone just followed your self-derailment of your own topic: Online rating of PICTURES on the forum.

That has never been what this topic is about. Now it's obvious that you're having some kind of translation issue. I said the MENTIONING of this rule reminded me of the issue. If you bother to read and comprehend the rest of the post, I CLEARLY talk about REAL-LIFE situations that spand past demographics. My mentioning of disrobing for the sake of fucking yard-work has NOTHING TO DO WITH what the fuck ever people do on a stupid Starfox site.

[chaos_Leader]

Somehow, I knew this topic would come to this... :?

[Xortberg]

Is it really necessary to come in and interject with a snarky comment that has no significant bearing on the conversation at hand?

[Drasiana]

Somehow, I knew this topic would come to this...

Debate happening in a debate thread? HOLY SHIT

[Milkyway64]

I liked it better when we were talking about boobs and how much of a slut Xort is.

At least then I had things to comment about.

[unoservix]

Well, we can't really debate what a slut Xort is. It's a given. Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, the Scout hurts people, and brotha? Xort's a slut.

Although I for one am glad he's stopped talking about pony nipples.

[Xortberg]

Well, we can't really debate what a slut Xort is. It's a given. Grass grows, birds fly, son shines, the Scout hurts people, and brotha? Xort's a slut.

Although I for one am glad he's stopped talking about pony nipples.

That was a fluke because of an addon

Shrooms is the real clopper here.

[chaos_Leader]

Is it really necessary to come in and interject with a snarky comment that has no significant bearing on the conversation at hand?

Is it really necessary to debate the points of a given topic by ripping everyone's head off in the process?

Anyways, carry on, and stimulate yourselves in the manner you see fit. I can see this is a sinking ship not worth boarding at this point.

[unoservix]

Is it really necessary to debate the points of a given topic by ripping everyone's head off in the process?

Anyways, carry on, and stimulate yourselves in the manner you see fit. I can see this is a sinking ship not worth boarding at this point.

the irony and sheer drooling hypocrisy of this post is delicious

[Drasiana]

Is it really necessary to debate the points of a given topic by ripping everyone's head off in the process?

I don't really think any head-ripping started until Psygonis called me a stupid terrorist writer.

Anyways, if you're going to walk in here and act like a snob because you haven't contributed, just go away, nobody cares.