QOTW New Years's Eve 2008

Off Topic
121

[quote]Vicomte wrote:
People will always assume that what they believe is right in the absolute. You can blame the media, marketing, indolence and decadence, or whatever, but in the end it is all about what people like. Different people like different things.

For every person who likes a full-figured, voluptuous woman you’re going to have one who likes a skinny ballerina-type. For every woman who likes a muscular, strong man you’ll have one who likes a slight, wiry dude. It’s when you assert that whatever you are or like is the only right that we have problems, because that’s just fucking stupid.

Just because some guy thinks your girl is fat, or some girl rejected you because you lift weights, doesn’t mean things are all fucked up.

And the hard-wired biological preference for certain characteristics that we always hear about is obviously not that telling, or we wouldn’t have people(lots of people, apparently) with opposing preferences. If we are programmed to like things by our biology, then any amount of mental conditioning wouldn’t change that.

Humans have gotten to where they are using their brains, not their muscles. As a society, we have far less use for physical strength now than we ever have, so wouldn’t it make sense that a less muscular physique would be in demand? We have more food than we can ever eat, so wouldn’t it make sense that skinnier women would be in demand?

If our preferences our indeed driven by biology, and therefore by prudence in selection of a mate based on our current environmental conditions, then what the media is feeding us right now is exactly what we should be wanting.

But it’s not that simple, because we have choices, rather than being simply ruled by our biology and the suggestions of others.

All the bullshit in this thread seems to be from people trying to justify why no one else seems to appreciate what they do. They just don’t. And they’re not wrong.[/quote]

[serious] good post. [/serious]

122

We kick this topic around every time a new trend comes down the media shitpipe.

A couple of years ago it was metrosexual. Before that it was heroin chic.

I’m dissapointed that I even know that shit. Now I have to go weld something or learn about artillery to get this stupid shit rehash of a stupid shit rehash out of my head.

Vicomte- You remind me of that idiot from Greenday singing about being a walking contradiction.

And you are about as origional as a sunrise.

Don’t take that as a rip though, it’s just a sarcastic observation.

Happy newy year!

123

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
We kick this topic around every time a new trend comes down the media shitpipe.

A couple of years ago it was metrosexual. Before that it was heroin chic.

I’m dissapointed that I even know that shit. Now I have to go weld something or learn about artillery to get this stupid shit rehash of a stupid shit rehash out of my head.

Vicomte- You remind me of that idiot from Greenday singing about being a walking contradiction.

And you are about as origional as a sunrise.

Don’t take that as a rip though, it’s just a sarcastic observation.

Happy newy year!

[/quote]

So what is the new trend then? Me? and SickAbz?

I guess it would appear so based on this thread.

124

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

It was PCH2, being sarcastic. And he still can’t chop my boards.

[/quote]

PCH2 is a SHE not a HE…for your edification

125

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
We kick this topic around every time a new trend comes down the media shitpipe.

A couple of years ago it was metrosexual. Before that it was heroin chic.

I’m dissapointed that I even know that shit. Now I have to go weld something or learn about artillery to get this stupid shit rehash of a stupid shit rehash out of my head.

Vicomte- You remind me of that idiot from Greenday singing about being a walking contradiction.

And you are about as origional as a sunrise.

Don’t take that as a rip though, it’s just a sarcastic observation.

Happy newy year!

[/quote]

Never said I was original. I’m not and I don’t pretend to be.

126

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

It’s ok.

It was PCH2, being sarcastic. And he still can’t chop my boards.

I did say I found it strange men are attracted to typcially masculine qualities in women and I do, but not as extreme as that guy’s sarcasm.
[/quote]

I was hoping it was sarcasm, but given the general direction that thread went, and many others I’ve seen with the same group of people, I’m really feeling it wasn’t, at least not for PCH2, but I mean the general acceptance/ “going along with it” of the other people there. But maybe I’m assuming just a bit too much. But, the point of this thread stays the same.

And I don’t think it’s that much of the muscular part as it is the thick legs and big round ass part. And even if it was wholly the muscular part, why bag on someone for what they like? Especially with all the accusations of being homosexual, I mean, c’mon, so what? Unless it was pure jest, but I don’t get that feeling any more than I ended up assuming that the most outspoken men on the Muscular Legs board was hoping PCH2 wasn’t being sarcastic.

127

I think the first two paragraphs of this post is kind of the point of the thread. I don’t think it ever meant for anyone to try to justify what they like and why everyone else doesn’t appreciate it. You couldn’t say ‘no one else’, because you already said that there were right in the beginning of your post.

128

The hourglass figure has stood the test of time as an ‘ideal’ for women’s bodies. It is a sign of fertility and the attraction is biologically driven.

What changes is preferences for amount of bodyfat and muscle. This is largely culturally driven. It’s a product of both advertising and the unattainable. When food was scarce, a big fleshy hourglass was ideal. Today, a hard, tight hourglass is ideal.

129

Why all this drama? No one is “supposed” to like anything! For someone who likes beyonce, there’s someone who prefers Kate Moss and there’s a third who likes Queen Latifah, and probably a fourth who likes Vicki Gates (current wife of Ron C). understandable.

However in a worship thread where people of a certain preference (guys who like girls with big booties, girls who like big guys even with a bit of a gut, white guys who like black girls, asian vixen thread) I never could understand how tiny your dick needs to be to make post upon post on that thread shouting to the heavens that you are opposed to that particular body type or race/whatever.

[photo]19780[/photo]

If you don;t like muscular legs, make your OWN thread on stork limbs - we will keep away from it. If you’re a white guy who hates sistas, make your OWN thread. If you’re a girl who likes skinny guys and not “balls of muscle with higher bf”, MAKE YOUR OWN thread.

130

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Why all this drama? No one is “supposed” to like anything! For someone who likes beyonce, there’s someone who prefers Kate Moss and there’s a third who likes Queen Latifah, and probably a fourth who likes Vicki Gates (current wife of Ron C). understandable.

However in a worship thread where people of a certain preference (guys who like girls with big booties, girls who like big guys even with a bit of a gut, white guys who like black girls, asian vixen thread) I never could understand how tiny your dick needs to be to make post upon post on that thread shouting to the heavens that you are opposed to that particular body type or race/whatever.

If you don;t like muscular legs, make your OWN thread on stork limbs - we will keep away from it. If you’re a white guy who hates sistas, make your OWN thread. If you’re a girl who likes skinny guys and not “balls of muscle with higher bf”, MAKE YOUR OWN thread.[/quote]

Good post. I’m impressed…

131

repped.

132

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Why all this drama? No one is “supposed” to like anything! For someone who likes beyonce, there’s someone who prefers Kate Moss and there’s a third who likes Queen Latifah, and probably a fourth who likes Vicki Gates (current wife of Ron C). understandable.

However in a worship thread where people of a certain preference (guys who like girls with big booties, girls who like big guys even with a bit of a gut, white guys who like black girls, asian vixen thread) I never could understand how tiny your dick needs to be to make post upon post on that thread shouting to the heavens that you are opposed to that particular body type or race/whatever.

If you don;t like muscular legs, make your OWN thread on stork limbs - we will keep away from it. If you’re a white guy who hates sistas, make your OWN thread. If you’re a girl who likes skinny guys and not “balls of muscle with higher bf”, MAKE YOUR OWN thread.[/quote]

A small dick joke! It only took six pages!

And usually a comment is met with a comment or two that progresses to a conversation. Or even a direct question in regards to the topic at hand. Either way, the conversation is perpetuated, a comment isn’t just repeated endlessly without provocation. Don’t be so gay.

It is how socializing works and internet forums are technically social places.

Strange I know, but communication is just weird like that.

How small is your dick to have your panties bunched about it? Probably the smallest dick in the world! Put it in your ass, squats and milk!

Or do you just conceal homosexual feelings and the She-he thread has you acting out in anger because you can’t come to terms with yourself?

133

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
chimera182 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

So does that mean that when something becomes “fact” it’s different than when it was just a theory? Is there some magical transformation?

A fact is a proven theory.

Most theories fall by the way side because they are never proven. Because they are not true. End of story.

It is simple really. [/quote]

Sure, but “facts” come from theories, so it stands to reasons that theories do hold water and the only difference is that people accept them as true at some later point. Meaning that theories do “hold water” whether or not people acknowledge that since some things are objectively true, they would be true regardless of what people say about them.

134

[quote]chimera182 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
chimera182 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

So does that mean that when something becomes “fact” it’s different than when it was just a theory? Is there some magical transformation?

A fact is a proven theory.

Most theories fall by the way side because they are never proven. Because they are not true. End of story.

It is simple really.

Sure, but “facts” come from theories, so it stands to reasons that theories do hold water and the only difference is that people accept them as true at some later point. Meaning that theories do “hold water” whether or not people acknowledge that since some things are objectively true, they would be true regardless of what people say about them.
[/quote]

Believing a theory before it is recognized as a fact opens pandora’s box to a bunch of bullshit.

Some theories do prove themselves to be fact. Many do not. The problem with believing a theory is that many theories are proven wrong and are built on extremely subjective experiment data. Like the one in this thread.

Misinformation and poor science are not sturdy platforms to build reliable beliefs on.

It is important to test and re-test theories in order to prove or disapprove them, but until a theory is proven, it does not hold water at all.

The theories that go on to become facts are really facts all along, just facts that havn’t been proven yet.

The quantifiable evidence available goes against the theory in question.

135

tee hee hee

136

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.

Bullshit. You don’t like them maybe and not everybody does. But they stand the test of time because they had true talent and made music people then and now can connect with.
[/quote]
I like all the bands you listed. I’ve listened to them for years. What you’re confusing is saying they ‘stand the test of time’ with not understanding they’re being forced down your throat.

Here’s what I mean.

Obviously Won’t Get Fooled Again is a good song. You could play it a hundred years from now and a lot of people would like it. Kinda like Mozart and Beethoven have ‘stood the test of time’.

However, you could go to any large city in the US and turn on a classic rock station and within 24 hours you would hear Won’t Get Fooled Again. This holds true for almost any ‘popular’ “Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc” song.

What this means is that the average human being turns on the radio and hears the opening notes to Start Me Up and they not only like the song, but they feel a great connectedness to the world because here they are in a new city and it’s kinda scary, but lo and behold it’s not all bad because these folks dig The Stones and that provides us with some common ground.

This is the emotion the music industry uses to force the same pablum down your gullet.

Why do they do this? Because even though these groups are not recording any new material (or even alive in some cases) the music industry can continue to make money re-packaging their existing music. I find it insulting that people think they can polish the same shit and sell it to me like it’s something new.

137

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.

Bullshit. You don’t like them maybe and not everybody does. But they stand the test of time because they had true talent and made music people then and now can connect with.

I like all the bands you listed. I’ve listened to them for years. What you’re confusing is saying they ‘stand the test of time’ with not understanding they’re being forced down your throat.

Here’s what I mean.

Obviously Won’t Get Fooled Again is a good song. You could play it a hundred years from now and a lot of people would like it. Kinda like Mozart and Beethoven have ‘stood the test of time’.

However, you could go to any large city in the US and turn on a classic rock station and within 24 hours you would hear Won’t Get Fooled Again. This holds true for almost any ‘popular’ “Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc” song.

What this means is that the average human being turns on the radio and hears the opening notes to Start Me Up and they not only like the song, but they feel a great connectedness to the world because here they are in a new city and it’s kinda scary, but lo and behold it’s not all bad because these folks dig The Stones and that provides us with some common ground.

This is the emotion the music industry uses to force the same pablum down your gullet.

Why do they do this? Because even though these groups are not recording any new material (or even alive in some cases) the music industry can continue to make money re-packaging their existing music. I find it insulting that people think they can polish the same shit and sell it to me like it’s something new.

[/quote]

Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are played because they are good and people want to hear them. They are the ideal because people desire to hear them, because they are good. They draw listeners which allows radio stations to charge companies for advertising spots. They draw listeners because people want to hear them.

I can’t remember his name but the chinese guy from american Idol who won fifteen minutes of fame because he was hilarious sucks as a singer. A record of his would never sell on musical value. Classify it as a comedy and maybe. But even then, it would sell because people find it funny, not because of marketing.

All the marketing in the world won’t make him a good artist whose music is enjoyed by the masses.

Maybe you have an incorrect definition of marketing. While marketing does create market share, pre-existing desire drives marketing. Nothing is marketed, at least successfully, without proper research to ensure it will be well received first.

The want and need for a product already exist before companies pour time and money in to developing them. The marketing acts as a form of communication. It is simply a medium to convey a message. It does not form society.

You give people like me way too much credit. If I could sway an entire nation with a marketing plan, I would be your president.

138

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
Why all this drama? No one is “supposed” to like anything! For someone who likes beyonce, there’s someone who prefers Kate Moss and there’s a third who likes Queen Latifah, and probably a fourth who likes Vicki Gates (current wife of Ron C). understandable.

However in a worship thread where people of a certain preference (guys who like girls with big booties, girls who like big guys even with a bit of a gut, white guys who like black girls, asian vixen thread) I never could understand how tiny your dick needs to be to make post upon post on that thread shouting to the heavens that you are opposed to that particular body type or race/whatever.

[photo]19780[/photo]

If you don;t like muscular legs, make your OWN thread on stork limbs - we will keep away from it. If you’re a white guy who hates sistas, make your OWN thread. If you’re a girl who likes skinny guys and not “balls of muscle with higher bf”, MAKE YOUR OWN thread.[/quote]

I think you have a secret crush on me. You are definitely one of the dudes following me around the forum and making thread views jump ten fold every time I post.

Cute.

We have a discussion forum here. Most threads posted are very subjective in nature. Opinions are made, some people disagree and opinions are commented on, a conversations starts and that is pretty much it.

If it hurts your feelings so much that I don’t like manly women, don’t read my posts. And certainly don’t respond with your own subjective opinion on my opinion. That would be downright contradictory.

I appreciate that you took the time to create a captioned image of me. You really do love me. But I’m not in to dudes and even if I was, 3rd grade level negative attention flirting wouldn’t be the way to go.

139

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I know I usually do these in the T-Cell, but I thought posting it here would allow more responses.

I’m sending this to you knowing that you probably haven’t gone the way of most of the people I’ve been observing on this forum. Specifically on the Sex and the Male Animal threads. What is going wrong with these people? Anything said by Sickabz or FormerlyTex- would prove to be a prime example of the slippery slope is seems all men are headed?

I’m sure you’ve seen some of these threads that give you the line of though I’m writing about in some perturbed confusion and disappointment. The Beyonce one, the Muscular Legs one. Even the Ass Worship and You Got Curves thread seem to be slowly going out of fashion.

The women! What happened to women like we’re supposed to like them. Curvy, round with hills slopes and mounds, healthy, not gaunt and not fat. I’m sick of reading posts about these men calling some perfect examples of womanly beauty and illustrative inculpable figures of these divine feminines FAT or disgusting or nasty.

What happened!? What is wrong with this? I don’t just see it here, I see it all over where I am. Hopefully it’s a new trend and not something in the water. Hopefully this is some subtle hysteria manifesting itself in the weak willed and weak minded.

Preference is one thing, preference is fine and natural and I would respect that, but what I see is forced and zealous opinion, belief, and a strongly inflexible attraction and that makes me think something is slowly going awry as these changes seem to not be limited to all things which rush blood to our loins.

I’m slowly beginning to see the metrosexual pretty boy’s come back into style and standard. But maybe this is all just me.

Am I alone on this one? Or does it seem that the so-called T-Men on here need a smack upside the head, to get them reoriented? Or maybe this seventeen year old is looking backwards while everyone is going forwards.

…

Just to respond directly, many of the guys here seem ready to hand their balls over to a girl just so they can get laid. That is the only explanation I can think of for living your life as if you are trying to be all things to all women.

All women do not think alike, even if they act like it when in large groups with their friends. If you are making yourself into some kind of Backstreet Boy clone just to get laid, you may end up losing yourself as a result.

A man is going to do what makes him happy and allows him to reach his own life goals. My personal goals are not based on whether it makes me sexy. That isn’t why I went to school.

I like attention like the next guy, but some hoe I’ve never met is not what gets me up in the morning and in the gym. While I have yet to meet all of these women who hate muscles, and that attention is an added benefit (no doubt), if that is your sole reason for why you are who you are, you are one sad excuse for a man.

As far as people finding Beyonce “FAT”, that is just stupidity at work.[/quote]

I’ll be honest…I didn’t know much about you when I came on this board and I felt that you were definitely being overrated by all of the other posters, but after reading this I have gained Alot of respect for you.