Sally from the Vally: Now what’s that supposed to mean? One liners are sooo clear and precise…
Good one Char-Dawg… hehe…
As much as I hate to post twice on this the guy makes a great point and I really hate to bust your bubble Maureen but you aren’t threatening or surprising anyone with anything you said or your sexuality. You’re not breaking any new ground here. The reason I quit reading the article is because it sounded like some cheesy low class intro to some porn site. It’s nothing that myself or anyone else on this site hasn’t seen or read somewhere else before (and clicked off of), I just think everyone was surprised to see it here.
Again, I don’t totally disagree with you on all of your arguments, but some of them are just idiotic.
Char-Dawg Goooooood post! Very accurate! Double standards anyone? LOL
DAN C
It was a laugh, just a laugh.
My bursting bubbles ment I didn’t run away like every was wishing.
Nope I am here, lounging in my lawn chair, sipping on mineral water.
Got back from the W. Life is good.
oh and some one else is getting flamed.
yep that’s it danny boy, my pipes MY PIPES are laughing!
Like, Sally! Oh my Gaaa-awwd! Like, for sure for sure??? Duuuu-uuuuhhhhhhh,like...like Duuuu-uuuuuhhhhhhh...
Sally, where from are you?
Besides squatting on a swiss ball, has any other threads generated this many flames?
diesel23- I SAID TRUCE!!! GOSH DARN IT.
Bad boy Bad Spank
Have I said like? - NO - not for a long time!!! So back off
E Mckee- Look who’s awake, that’s good I did say the W.
So what about it. I live in the Vally!
This VIxen is MIA…
She is a hoot!
What’s the matter boy’s, feeling a little Vixen Nation.
Bring it on
Sad you all are, quite the pandora’s box
or should
I say Maureen’s Box
The funny thing is you all were face deep in to it! Scrolling at a mad rate, till you got to the photo, and you had this great idea of what she should look like.
And as if any woman would meet that.
Gag wht evr
Kiss
Thank you char-dawg. I completely concur with all of your points. Bravo.
whoa, that came out all yoda-ish
After reading your original article I was surprised to find your post to be both well written and interesting.
As a few others have mentioned, the content wasnt the issue. It was more the LACK of content. Your article wasnt very thought provoking, informative or well written.
Gender really isnt the issue. The fact that it was about sex and written by a woman is what led me to read it in the first place.If written by a man it still would have been pointless and boring.
On the other hand I think that this recent post is both well written, interesting and I enjoyed reading it.
I just didn’t like the article. I’ve enjoyed TC’s editorials before, but my primary interest is the training, not the other stuff. There’s only so much of the battle of the sexes before it getsold.
Tmag is not the only form of media I’m exposed to. The difference is that it gives me some very good training articles. Girls and there boyfriend issues are just around the corner. Articles bo Coach and Christian etc. aren’t. Probably the other main publication I read the most is Milo. I’m sure most would say that magazine is fairly hardcore.
It comes down to if you want a good man, be a good woman, and vice versa. It’s to often I hear the story of “you can’t meet a good one anymore.” Usually translates of to high standards for what you can land, or I’m really a jerk, but still want to meet a hot Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer who will totally meet my needs by reading my mind etc. If you become a better person by concentraing on good activies, you’ll see a happier life generally. That’s when you meet the good ones. Hell my fiancee’ moved next door to me.
Fucking amen, char. The “you have the choice not to read it” argument sucks ass.
Even though I realize Maureen will probably never read my opinion, here it is:
What fundamentally bothered me about your article was that it was absolutely permeated by egoism. I don’t have the energy to pull it up again, but I believe you referred to yourself as an “genuine hottie.” Well. I don’t care how attractive you are, expressing that to your audience is, in general, a turn-off. As a writer, I’m sure you’ve noticed the oft used construction “I’m not too bad looking,” or “I’m not too hard on the eyes,” or a variety of similar phrases designed to identify oneself as not unattractive, without sounding egotistical.
Second: Yes, I do like women to sound at least a little demure. There is a difference when men talk about sex amongst themselves: the point is not to titillate, but rather to commiserate (or, perhaps, to brag). I don’t really like that all too much either, but at least I feel that the interaction is authentic. Each participant understands the motivations of the speaker.
But when women do this, (and when I was in college I knew quite a few who did) there’s oftentimes quite a bit of duplicity involved. The women are trying to titillate, while hiding behind a screen of ‘gender independence.’ They then get offended if you treat them as the sex objects they’ve presented themselves as.
Third: A disturbing trend I’ve noticed in many of the t-mag articles is that they are starting to take on the same basic ‘voice.’ They make the same sorts of jokes, in the same sorts of places, with the same rhythm and ‘look-how-hip-we-are’ tone. It smacks of attempting to duplicate TCs style. Your article sounded exactly
like a “female Atomic Dawg,” but not in a good way. You sounded like a person that obviously had some sort of confidence issues, and who therefore took on the style of someone else to pump yourself up. Sorry.
Trish is not a porn star. You might as well get your rants right. You are going to moderate gang of babes? I feel sorry for whoever was the second choice. Actually, I feel sorry for the rest of us. Gang of babes used to be worthwhile.
Sally:
Which valley?
spiderman, I gotta disagree with you about her post being well-written. I think the article was written just fine, but she presented too many redundant and logically wrong arguments. But the spelling and grammar was better than the average poster’s!
My constructive criticism–
I’m not particularly bothered by the type of content, rather it ws the lack of satisfactory conclusion or discernable maessage. No matter how many tangents you make in an article, at some point everything needs to tie together if either entertainment value or education is the goal. I’m too tired to get into this, but an acceptable analogy would be the storyline of a movie. In my opinion at least, it doesn’t matter how easy or difficult it is to follow the middle of the movie, so long as the begining draws you in and the end ties everthing together. That doesn’t mean all questions need to be answered, in fact they shouldn’t, as it should be the audience member who must think on their own to answer some of the question-- thought provoking. That said, the pieces should be presented in such a way as to make it possible and logical; everything should fit together. I get the feeling that this article was an “off the top of the head” type of piece, which just evolved as it was written. Instead, figure out what message you want to send before you start writing and try to make everything lead logically towards that point.
I know maurine won’t read this but I hope someone does and puts it to use. I also hope that it is actually coherant… I doubt it though… I’m tired…
Spiderman - I agree completely, the writing in the post above was much, much better than the original article. Makes me wonder about authorship…?
If the article had been written as well as the post…well, I still wouldn’t have liked it. But I just wouldn’t have read it, instead of regretting the waste of time and bandwidth. For me at least, there is a difference between a well written article that lacks significant content, and a…well, the original article.
Something tells me that she is reading every last one of these replies.