Sponging off the Halloween Excuse: Sexy Women

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by gendanken, Nov 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Gendanken,


    Oh, but I believe we must:

    Now, something can be made (and I'm sure you will) of the word "supreme," however, it seems to me that that word should be prefaced with "ostensible" or some such.

    Women may not have always been able to be senators or such, but they have always wielded power. Their minds are superbly crafted for it.

    I never contended any such thing. I never mentioned property rights at all. I'm talking about real power. About power decisions made at all levels of "family, clan, or tribe" and even "society, community, or country."

    I'm not saying that women always get their way. But, they get their way enough for it all to average out as I said. And if they have to use the power of the puss to get it? I don't think they're above that, do you?

    Looking at it in such simple, black and white terms is sure to lead to a misunderstanding of history.

    I do agree that, in recent years, the methods by which women are easily able to wield power have changed. They've become far more overt rather than covert.

    However, the status quo is not so easy to upset as suffragists would have us believe.

    (I know. Durant again, but I really like the way this is worded.)

    The serpent is subtle, and custom is difficult to change. It is impossible to change from above. Marketing attempts to change from beneath, but it's blind change and not evolutionarily sound. Mutations are culled from the herd, given time, and all stays the same.

    We're in a period of turmoil. The mutations will work their way through the system at some point. Some will succeed, most will fail. The bedrock of custom will survive the tsunami of marketing.

    Because it works? Because women have set themselves as queens of the household and thus control much of household spending? Because the woman market in the 50's was discovered to be practically untapped? Husbands were making bank and wanted the little wifey to be happy and so the toaster oven proliferated to her heart's content.

    This isn't really new though. It seems that prior to the 50's the main woman's market was health.

    As in hysteria.

    As in vibrators.

    Sold in Sears and Roebuck.

    Logical abstraction reaching ultimate, nonsensical fruition?

    The camera adds 10 pounds they say.

    Clothes hang better on skinny frames.

    Vicious cycle leading to insanity.

    Men don't like to talk about their health. We don't want to think about a nugget of cancer growing in our bowels. Blood in our shit? Hemmorhoids, that's all. It'll pass. Make sure no one sees the bloody remains and move on with your day.

    Another form of dysfunction, of course.
    But, one with ancient roots.

    Animals also hide their infirmities.

    As to children, women also use children issues as they use their own. However, it's not as satisfying because children grow up and then the mother has to find some other way of garnering attention.

    And, let's not lose sight of what I mentioned above regarding women, the first market for exploiting their pocket book was health.

    Women love talking about their infirmities.

    Love. Love. Love.

    Of course I understand what you're saying, but that's hardly fair, is it?

    I mean we can call anybody a woman or a man and make the discussion nonsense.

    We have to stick to at least some solid ground. And that is that men have penises and women have vaginas.

    Insecurity as to making the proper choice?

    As choice rises, consumer satisfaction first goes up, then down.
    Too much choice leads directly to despair as we all worry about getting the best deal, being taken advantage of, if I buy this today and next week it goes on sale, etc...

    It's good to get consumer reviews, is it not?

    Perhaps asking people about their experiences with Oh Shit Board?

    That's the thing about practicing. It instills a pattern that could be disrupted in doing the actual event.

    If you spend all your time practicing alone or with other girls, when you actually get into a real world situation, you're not prepared for it.

    It's easier to keep the same conditions which you've been... conditioned to.

    Herd behavior.
    Outliers will be picked off.
    Asses in towards the center of the crowd.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    My female co-worker leaned forward to peer out the window into the night, searching the parking lot for the arrival of a missing member of graveyard crew.

    This action projected her shapely and ample posterior well into the view of the male supervisor, who turned from his task to appreciate the display, I observed peripherally as I went about my task at an adjacent work station.

    Shortly, my coworker caught sight of the grinning face of the supervisor in the reflection and turned to chastise him for his unseemly conduct, to which he replied, "Well, you can't be putting on a show and not expect an audience to be watching."

    My co-worker was wearing spray on jeans with embroidery and bling and wearing a top that was for all intents and purposes nothing more than a camisole. (Night crew had no dress code save for safety boots to be worn by those who operated the machinery in receiving.)

    Though she blushed prettily, it was obvious that she was not offended, indeed had gotten the response she was looking for.

    You see, I was the new girl on the block and she was just staking out her turf in a manner that I was certain to understand. She was younger, and in her opinion, sexier than I and she had tenure.

    I smiled to myself, for I have worked mostly with men all my life and save for the two of us, the whole crew was fellows. "Game on, girl.....", but my style is far less physical and far more devastating.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    She elected to become the supervisor of another department within four months.......but not for the reason stated above.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    ~sigh~
    I know a few people who have or have had significant problems with that.

    Trying to convince people that gender is located between the ears when what they have between their legs corresponds neatly...tends to be quite difficult.
    Gender roles seem extraordinarily procrustean things to me anyway, and you'd be shocked at the number of people who've been tortured because they don't fit what the people around them call appropriate male or female behavior...and I do mean that literally in some cases.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2011
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Didn't someone make a reference to Barbie?

    You know, that plastic absurdity created by a woman for women? Made from the same plastic manufactured to build dildos, she was the first to provide the sexualized asexuality that little girls already practiced in contradictory bullshit could emulate years before their first pube.

    The suffragist became a self-hating hysteric infatuated with weight-- did you know that in 1963 Mattel came out with "Barbie Baby-Sits" that had a tiny book titled "How to Lose Weight" with the exclamation "Don't Eat!" written on the back? She even came with a tiny, pink scale permanently set to 110 so that little girls could further the castration of cutting her sex off and become an exhaustive consumer.

    She was taught to engage in meaningless structure-- the pursuit of new words like "trend" and "couture", cataloging labels as a function of associating with the most recognized areas of value without having to create them.

    The world of men-- what you in here have forced me to term "patriarchy"-- knew nothing like it. It was impossible for him to produce anorexia or the sexless cockroach that was Twiggy.

    Nexus put it best-- the woman that won the 'costume' contest was the only one that gave men exactly what men want: ass.
    What better proof do I need than that?

    It's both ironic and unfortunate that a stupid feminist said it best, but this is Germanine Greer describing the female eunuch:

    -The Stereotype, p. 213


    To wit, fashion is industry and thereby a corporate arm to ram up one's asshole and distract with its illusion of indigestion, so the poor girl's forever shuffling restlessly about trying to quell the discomfort of not shitting by consuming the garbage she's hypnotized to absorb.

    And who controls 'fashion' but gay men and women?

    This, to me, explains quite beautifully the modern infatuation of women with women; a complete distortion of sexual history, a complimentary mint left on your satin pillow by Fascism.

    Signal and Nexus:

    Next post is yours.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  8. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Nexus:
    Alright, you little nitpicker you, stretching much? Ostensible: the appearance of being but not necessarily so.

    Men have historically controlled property, law, revenue, capital, industry, culture, diplomacy, war, currency, fire, air, water take a pick and man was there to tell you what to do with.
    Patriarchal control is, therefore, not the appearance of being so but so..

    You can point to the Sophia Alekseyevna, regent of Russia when Peter was still a boy, but she was only a substitute and subject to the whim of Stretsly and band of Old Believers who actually ruled Russia.


    To do what?
    Beg for a piece of legislation when a senator is eating her?

    Or, like Scheherazade, sweetly dissuade a Persian king from killing virgins by telling him stories?
    I get what you're saying, but the power of women has historically been like the influence of children.

    Or a Marquis.

    Given the perfect substrate.
    Like America.

    Property *is* power.
    It is tantamount to appropriation of capital thereby granting its owner complete jurisdiction over its resources.

    The 'real' power you're talking about can't possibly refer to the influence a woman had on the clan or the household.
    I don't ascribe to that tiresome adage of "Behind every man is a strong woman", written by the elite to placate minorities.

    The power a woman had in a harem, or a terem, or the nursery, or whatever domain women exercised influence bounced off the walls of that prison.

    The 'real' power we see every day is in hegemony and expansion of empire.

    What's "power of the puss"?

    A squeezed boil?

    And stretching of the neck til the tendons snap like a thong to redefine 'patriarchy' is intellectually dishonest.

    Why are you refusing to acknowledge the complete power your little brothers have always had over women?

    Of course it wasn't easy.

    It took them generations to do it-- imagine the look on Jane Austen's face being shown a picture of Linsey god-love-her Lohan.
    Or Kate Moss puking her breakfast into a douchebag.

    Oh, suffer.

    Then why was it the fashion industry literally exploded after the feminist movements of the 70's?

    Why? Because of single, insecure women, those little career girls with so much disposable income and so much confusion about what to be that they'd buy a radium tampon if Dona Karen called it 'couture'.

    Why? Because the industry opened itself to the administration of women and the hypnotic effect only her insanity could impose.
    It opened itself to gay men, who like Christian Loboutun, actually refused to associate his brand shoes with Barbie because the doll's ankles were too fat.

    That's INSANE.

    Oh you better fucking believe it is.

    How many of those women were the hypochondriacs cultivated by Dr. Oz and fucking Oprah?
    How many of them were exposed to the narcissism of Breast Cancer Awareness?

    The closest thing to a "health craze" I can think of-- like you mention-- was the use of dildos, by men, on women to cure the hysteria, but that's really no different than the use of smelling salts and unguents women were classically prescribed for "ailments."

    There isn't a single women in our past you can compare to that organic food eating, Whole Foods shopping, mineralized, electrified, fortified, calcified, pussified Evian bottle water drinking faggot we see nowadays that would take her child to the hospital for a mole.

    She's the one watching Dr. Oz and reading Cosmo between Reader's Digest.

    Oh my god-- are you actually writing this or is Butthead?


    Signal:
    Yeah, but did the color of that ribbon or length of that petticoat give Scarlett bulimia?

    Did it make it hate herself and obsess over women? Did it make her a sexless non-thing more interested in her shoes than marriage and children?

    I don't think so.

    Women leave him in the mud. I love the way Florence king describes her unique tactics:

    -With Charity Toward None

    Its also the m.o. of gay men. Which brings us to:
    ...what really *is* unprecedented outside of fashion being an industry: the control of the franchise by gay men and women.

    We've never seen anything like it. Hence, Sexy Jesus and Spongebob.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  9. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    As much as I'd love to punch her, this.....

    .....is......

    ....ironically a more normal, thereby more respectable, female.

    I...kinda miss that territorial bitch.

    That's the farce.
     
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    gendanken to be honest a lot of your comments on sexuality here (along with Signal's) are sadly similar to those expressed in this TV show I'm watching about the "Hammer of Witches", ie expression of female sexuality is evil and it twists men. In the case of the TV show its said to come from the devil and is used to lure men to the devil and that Purtanian attitude is sadly still present. Sure it isn't considered to be "the devils work" because we now ridicule that idiocy. However its still seemed to be somehow wrong or shameful. Signal even argues that a couple shouldn't have sex unless they are trying to conceive and as soon as they have finished that sexuality should stop in spite of the resurch into the health benefits of sex even after menopause and into old age. Far from being the good thing you seem to argue it is this is the last vestiges of the suppression of human sexuality caused by the church and evil men like Heinrich Kramer. Sex and sexuality are natural, in fact they are the most natural thing we do, one of the last natural acts we have left to us as a species who have changed everything about our environment and ourselves. Sexuality is natural, nakedness in both a sexual and non sexual context is natural and its sad to see people who still repress that.

    The ironic thing is that the 3rd biggest expenditure most people make in there lives is a massive party to scream "look at me, I'm getting laid tonight" and yet in any other context past or post that its considered wrong and disgusting. Without sexuality none of us would be here, without sexuality rates of mental illness would be even higher, without sexuality house prices would be astronomical as would the land use needed for housing, without sexuality government expenditure on social policy would be more than double what it is now. Instead of critising those who are honest enough to say "yes actually I am a sexual person" we should be lauding them
     
  11. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Oh suffer the...:cringing:

    Look, you. "Asgard". If I answer, will you read it or trawl off somewhere to play with your fingers?
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    *yawn* wow what a cutting response

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    I'll ask you again, Beevis: are you going to read my response to you or should I just mock your flabby illiteracy?
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    depends if your reply is worth the time away from more important things, if its an actual argument then sure, if its just insults then and fluff then no i wont bother
     
  15. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    In that case, read what I actually say about sexuality.

    You've obviously not read a single thing I've said here-- you contend that I'm vilifying sexuality as an 'evil' Puritanical weapon women use on men when in fact I'm repeatedly singling out the MODERN FEMALE as-- read close now-- sexless.


    She's a manikin, a clone,a plasticine image with perfect nails and Jimmy Choo boots. You'd have to break her to fuck her.
     
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually I have read everything you have written, however as most of it is either insults or a weird attempt to flirt with Mac (I'm not sure which) lets go back to the very first post.

    Firstly it actually doesn't, try an experiment. Strip naked and walk down the street, make it Orleander's street and you will not only get arrested for "indecent exposure" you will also get comments about how the naked human body is "disgusting". Secondly what is "Skanky" is determined by culture, for Victorian England you would be considered a skank and I say that without any knowledge of your normal dress standed. Every t-shirt is cut lower than what they would accept and every skirt WAY to high, if you can see ankle then that's to much.

    Of course then there is the fact that more than likely you wear pants

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In some countries in the middle east its even more restrictive, if you have more than your eyes visible then that's to much.

    So then how exactly do we get back from a society where if a women isn't completely covered she is stoned to death or thrown in prison to a society where what to wear or not wear is up to the individual alone?


    Now sure mostly this change is pushed by a desire to appear "sexy" but the changes benefit further than just ability to attract a sexual partner, for instance an ability to cool ones self by removing clothing without being stoned to death.

    Actually I would argue that the patriarchal control is in SUPPRESSING her sexuality rather than forcing her to express it. Women and men having sex used to be a form of spirituality which had to be suppressed for Constantine to use the catholic church to assume control. This was further suppressed throughout the middle ages and beyond climaxing in the witch trials for women seducing men to the devil.

    So far from being manipulated into being a sexual being feminism has been fighting back to express its sexuality. So the question is why do you believe that her "femininity" is "corrosive". Sure it does perpetuate itself but corrosive has a negative connotation which goes far beyond simply stating it spreads.

    possibly but that is hardly definitive proof that its feminism to blame, rather I would suggest its the media and advertising and corporate interests to blame for that. For instance what do you think people thought of body odour before deodorant was invented? you think everyone went around turned off by everyone's smell or do you think maybe that people were actually attracted to the smell of other people and marketing invented a "problem" that didn't really need to be solved in the first place? You can see the same thing happening currently with razor companies

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80649447/

    Is that feminism and patriarchal society? no its just corporate interests taking advantage

    Sorry I'm going to have to leave it here for the moment because people keep ringing me and I have completely lost my train of thought
     
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    1959 Barbie vs Real Woman
    Which would make the best farmer's wife? Let's ask a farmer.

    Farmer Duncan, Herefordshire:
    Yers, she looks noice but I'm 'fraid she'd be no good. Barbie I mean.
    Long neck, pinched waist, strange thighs, no knees, and deformed calves. She'd be no good for farm work. Not like that, anyway.
    As for 'er feet. has the dog been chewing them or what?

    The real woman would probably make a good farmers wife.
    That is a real woman isn't it?
    I'm too busy at the farm for socialising.
    That's my little joke. I do know what a real woman looks like.
    She'd have to dress a bit more sensible though,
    or there wouldn't be any work done. Hurrrgh! Hurrrgh!
    Quite big feet, I notice, which is good if you don't want to keep falling over, or get them trapped in holes.
    Good hands too. Good strong milking hands............................
    ..........................sorry, my mind went astray there.

    My father ('e were called Bernard) always told me that when choosing a wife don't go for looks.
    "Looks is no good when you are carrying a calf". That was one of his sayings. He had another.
    "Looks is no good when you're sheep dipping." That's what he said.
    He had lots of sayings my father.
    It was probably how he chose my mother.
    She were no Barbie, that's for sure.


    I don't want to reject Barbie completely.
    You can't be too fussy these days. Not if you're a farmer.
    Women want discos and 'olidays these days, not mucking out and tractor maintenance.
    Should the other lady not want to take up the job of Farmer's wife, I'd give Barbie a chance.
    Fatten 'er up a bit, and give her a bit of muscle from healthy farm work.
    She might turn out to be a lot better than she appears.
    She would need to wear good stout boots though.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  18. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Invert Nexus:
    I think everyone likes boobies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I know the one lady at work didn't seem to totally disapprove when she caught me yanking my gaze out of her cleavage...one of life's embarrassing moments there...why does office attire have to be so, ehrm, open?

    I do actually remember reading somewhere that women's arousal has been found to be a bit more "Plastic" in studies. This is to say...they are more likely to become physically aroused by watching woman-on-woman porn than a corresponding sample of hetero men are to get turned-on by watching male-on-male porn.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I will argue that the modern interest that women have in fashionable clothing, so-called health food, obsession with peers and potential peers (ie. other women) etc. are actually secondary or tertiary phenomena.

    The basic pattern is that people experience stress, and then they try to alleviate that stress.
    The way they usually do so is largely circumstantial and insubstantial, even if it involves considerable costs in terms of finances, time, health and other resources.

    So the obsession that a modern woman has with, say, shoes, is as substantial as a meth addict's obsession with meth: it is not substantial at all, it is only superficial.

    Of course, it is often hard to believe that things that cost so much in terms of money, time, health could be superficial - yet they are.

    It is common for people to be able to switch one addiction for another; it is also common for people to have several addictions which they are able to manage to an extent where neither of them per se looks like an addiction, but all combined clearly show the pattenr of addiction.

    What we need to look into is the mindset that produces the addiction.
    And this mindset goes something like this, and is the same, regardless if the instrumental object of addiction is meth or fashionable clothes:

    I am worthless.
    I am not lovable.
    I am helpless.
    I am stupid.
    There will never be enough.



    Women are taught to believe this about themselves from early on.


    But not so much men. For example:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls:

    /.../She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up - and the higher the girls' IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than giving up.

    Why does this happen? What makes smart girls more vulnerable, and less confident, when they should be the most confident kids in the room? At the 5th grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject, including math and science. So there were no differences between these boys and girls in ability, nor in past history of success. The only difference was how bright boys and girls interpreted difficulty - what it meant to them when material seemed hard to learn. Bright girls were much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective learners as a result.

    Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.




    No, the fashion (and the cosmetic and "health") industry are ruled by unhealthy attitudes.
    The female demographics just tends to be more vulnerable to them and more affected by them.
     
  20. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Aye, Captain. The Teutonic looking wench is the one that would more likely stay sound for homestead living. She looks to have good bone and is packing a healthy body weight.

    Did you remember to check her teeth? Good dentition is important in both horses and women. They need good bone density and teeth if you're thinking of reproduction. Very important to the health of the future generation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Yes, a fine looking woman. With a magnificent mane too.

    As for the teeth.
    Probably more important for the stone age farmer, where a woman that couldn't chew leather to soften it, was very poor marriage material.
    You are thinking along the right lines though.

    Also, if a person has false teeth, if you are annoyed with them you can hide them.
    There are advantages to false dentition as well as drawbacks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2011
  22. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Dated a gorgeous women with wooden(like) teeth...much as I wanted to - could not get past it.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,693
    Since interest in clothing, specific foods and society have been around since recorded history, and since people both with stress and without stress have exhibited them, I'd say that there are many more reasons than stress.

    There are indeed a lot of unhealthy stereotypes reinforced by the beauty industry. There are also a lot of healthy stereotypes reinforced by those industries; the stereotype of "a skinny person is a healthy person" is a good one in a country where more than half the people are overweight and more than a third are dangerously obese.

    It also depends greatly on the industry niche. The magazine Cosmo pushes some pretty unhealthy ideals; Outside magazine pushes much healthier role models.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page