OT Hot or Not - Whay *not* to do
Carmen
Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
random photos that came up was this one:
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
don't care.
Carmen
Mistress Krista
"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
Hmmm, it wasn't the wedding ring but "I'm a psycho militia nut" look that
sort of freaked me out.
Krista
--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com
mistres...@stumptuous.com
Robert Dorf
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
>> Hi,
>> Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
>> random photos that came up was this one:
>> http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
>> You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
>> Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
>> don't care.
>
>
>Hmmm, it wasn't the wedding ring but "I'm a psycho militia nut" look that
>sort of freaked me out.
>
>
>Krista
Some people dig that.
;-)
Carmen
On 22-Apr-2003, "Mistress Krista"
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
> "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
> > Hi,
> > Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> > random photos that came up was this one:
> > http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> > You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> > Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed
> > or
> > don't care.
>
>
> Hmmm, it wasn't the wedding ring but "I'm a psycho militia nut" look that
> sort of freaked me out.
Not me, because my husband is active duty military. This guy is active duty
Army and the shot was taken in Iraq probably. The Army wears desert BDUs,
but doesn't issue (or authorize the use of ) desert camo field jackets.
Duh.... :-)
Carmen
Mistress Krista
Isn't that funny... I didn't look too closely at the background, and read
that photo as some guy sitting in his basement. It's the "just about to
shoot up a Burger King" stare that got me.
Ah well, different strokes. :)
Top Sirloin
Maybe he just got off a diet and the wife isn't giving him any loving so he
wants to feed his ego a little.
It's not like he's out there trolling for a mistress.
DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!
--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen
John M. Williams
And what are you doing spending so much time on the
Hot or Not web site? ;)
John Hanson
wrote:
>Hi,
I like this one better:
http://www.hotornot.com/r/?emid=KYG8RRS
PatrickFalcon31
Well, yeah, but I'm not sure she's looking for people like us.
Ed
>
> Not me, because my husband is active duty military. This guy is active
duty
> Army and the shot was taken in Iraq probably. The Army wears desert BDUs,
> but doesn't issue (or authorize the use of ) desert camo field jackets.
> Duh.... :-)
>
> Carmen
Yes, but his pants are still Woodland pattern too.
PatrickFalcon31
>From: "Carmen " Carm...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/22/03 6:03 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de>
Well, at first I thought he might just feel like getting rated. Nothing wrong
with that, married or not. But then I read his profile:
"Profesional male, driven to excellence looking for a fun relationship with a
sane, driven, "friend with benifits", and a kinky mind. Lets break a few rules,
and have a fuckload of fun."
I hope he's not a profesional English teacher or ethics counselor.
Patrick Falcon
Kirk Roy
Guys with wedding rings or poor guys?
Kirk
Robert Dorf
Dave H
news:b83kmj$54vl6$1...@ID-156790.news.dfncis.de...
Guys period. Did you read her paragraph above the pic, or did you not see
anything but the pic. ;-)
"hey ladies, I would like to meet some sexy women who love pleasures and
know how to get wild. I enjoy swimming and meeting new women online. Want to
know more?"
dave h
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Nina
I think you're disrepsecting Wendy with those aqua boobs!
Cheers,
Nina
FWIW, I like that one better too.
Kirk Roy
> "Kirk Roy" <ki...@mail.vei.net> wrote in message
> news:b83kmj$54vl6$1...@ID-156790.news.dfncis.de...
>> PatrickFalcon31 <patrick...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>I like this one better:
>> >>http://www.hotornot.com/r/?emid=KYG8RRS
>> >
>> > Well, yeah, but I'm not sure she's looking for people like us.
>>
>> Guys with wedding rings or poor guys?
>>
>> Kirk
>
> Guys period. Did you read her paragraph above the pic, or did you not see
> anything but the pic. ;-)
What's a paragraph?
> "hey ladies, I would like to meet some sexy women who love pleasures and
> know how to get wild. I enjoy swimming and meeting new women online.
> Want to know more?"
Ah, I see. So it's not just me...
Kirk
Dave H
news:48taavg1hv1mfjhqn...@4ax.com...
Enough for an Oil Wrestling match to be webcast? :-) <please say yes,
please say yes,...>
Jacob Andersen
Lucas Buck
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
>> Hi,
>> Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
>> random photos that came up was this one:
>> http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
>> You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
>> Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
>> don't care.
>
>
>Hmmm, it wasn't the wedding ring but "I'm a psycho militia nut" look that
>sort of freaked me out.
>Krista
PSYCHO MILITIA NUTS NEED LOVE TOO!
Lucas Buck
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
One just does NOT wear a _desert_camo_field_jacket_ to shoot up a Burger King.
That would be a serious faux pas.
Dave H
news:rv6bav05f8ir4ahln...@4ax.com...
And if they don't get it, WATCH OUT! They're locked and loaded.
John Hanson
wrote:
Why don't you contact her to see if you can hook up. Make sure you
mention your Usenet buddy that turned you on to her:-) Three's
company ya know.
Carmen
I looked again, and you're right. They're so faded I went on that, instead
of the pattern. He may be a Marine. Considering he's a sleazebag I'd
prefer to think he's not a soldier. :-)
Carmen
Carmen
She's not my type. I scored 27% on the Gay Test a while back. :-)
Carmen
Carmen
On 22-Apr-2003, Top Sirloin <scottj...@notspam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:03:17 GMT, "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> >random photos that came up was this one:
> >http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> >You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> >Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
> >don't care.
>
> Maybe he just got off a diet and the wife isn't giving him any loving so
> he wants to feed his ego a little.
>
> It's not like he's out there trolling for a mistress.
Did you read his little blurb - oink, oink, oink. :-)
> DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!
<G>
Carmen
Mistress Krista
Tell me, do you dress to blend, or dress to stand out?
No reason for asking.
Carmen
On 22-Apr-2003, patrick...@aol.com (PatrickFalcon31) wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> >random photos that came up was this one:
> >http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> >You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> >Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
> >don't care.
> >Carmen
>
> Well, at first I thought he might just feel like getting rated. Nothing
> wrong with that, married or not. But then I read his profile:
> "Profesional male, driven to excellence looking for a fun relationship
> with a sane, driven, "friend with benifits", and a kinky mind. Lets break
> a few
> rules, and have a fuckload of fun."
>
> I hope he's not a profesional English teacher or ethics counselor.
I hope he's not in charge of troops. Those kids watch what their NCOs do,
and the unit's behavior follows. My husband got his E-8 and then his First
Sergeant's diamond in the past six months and when he got his unit it had
had two previous dirtbags for the slot. One cheated on his spouse and went
after one of the troops' wives and the other beat his spouse. Both of them
openly played favorites, too. It's taken a great deal of coordinated effort
on his and my part to give the visual message by the way we behave that
*this* first sergeant is a happily married man who respects his marriage
vows and his spouse. He's had some disbelief expressed that he really is as
he represents himself. It's breaking down, but it was a real challenge for
him to break through the distrust the prior first sergeants had sown.
I hope someone who knows this guy spots him.
Carmen
Nina
<jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:00:16 -0700, Nina <ninaS...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:58:24 GMT, John Hanson
>><jha...@northernlinks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:03:17 GMT, "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
>>>>random photos that came up was this one:
>>>>http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
>>>>You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
>>>>Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
>>>>don't care.
>>>>Carmen
>>>
>>>I like this one better:
>>>http://www.hotornot.com/r/?emid=KYG8RRS
>>>
>>
>>I think you're disrepsecting Wendy with those aqua boobs!
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Nina
>>FWIW, I like that one better too.
>
>Why don't you contact her to see if you can hook up. Make sure you
>mention your Usenet buddy that turned you on to her:-) Three's
>company ya know.
And four is Pay-Per-View.
Cheers,
Nina
J. Thiessen
Hm. If you're walking along a city street, and you want to blend in, do
you choose to dress like a bum, or like a businessman?
The one suit I own doesn't fit, so you can guess what category I fall
into.
J.
Harry Mofo
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>Hmmm, it wasn't the wedding ring but "I'm a psycho militia nut" look that
>sort of freaked me out.
He obviously live in Montana.
--
Harry
William Brink
"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> random photos that came up was this one:
> http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed or
> don't care.
Yes, but we also know women have the worst taste possible in men, so
this comes as no big shock to me.
> Carmen
--
Will Brink
http://www.brinkzone.com/
http://musclebuildingnutrition.com/
http://www.aboutsupplements.com/
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2003 14:45:44 GMT, patrick...@aol.com (PatrickFalcon31)
> wrote:
>
> I often think it is a shame more men are not gay. They would be much
> happier and working with people who share their sexual ambitions.
I dont see gay men as any happier and seem to have to put up with the
same stuff, or more, than everyone else. They do get laid faster, being
men are pigs, but then again, they are sleeping with men, so its a
wash...
>
>
>
> --
>
> We are stardust.
Carmen
On 24-Apr-2003, William Brink <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> > random photos that came up was this one:
> > http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> > You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> > Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed
> > or don't care.
>
> Yes, but we also know women have the worst taste possible in men, so
> this comes as no big shock to me.
So then, you're married? <G>
Carmen
Slider2699
"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b839h3$5sqro$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
> Hi,
> On 22-Apr-2003, "Mistress Krista"
> <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
> > "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among
the
> > > random photos that came up was this one:
> > > http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> > > You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> > > Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed
> > > or
> > > don't care.
> >
> >
that
> > sort of freaked me out.
>
duty
> Army and the shot was taken in Iraq probably. The Army wears desert BDUs,
> but doesn't issue (or authorize the use of ) desert camo field jackets.
> Duh.... :-)
>
Looks like he's wearing woodland camo to me. I think he's wearing a MOPP
suit.
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:06:08 GMT, William Brink
> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I dont see gay men as any happier and seem to have to put up with the
> >same stuff, or more, than everyone else. They do get laid faster, being
> >men are pigs, but then again, they are sleeping with men, so its a
> >wash...
> >
>
> They like it as much if not more than you like women.
Sad but true.
> It isn't a wash
> man, it is a huge advantage.
Glad you think so. I consider it a wash.
William Brink
"Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 24-Apr-2003, William Brink <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <b837ce$5pv21$1...@ID-151855.news.dfncis.de>,
> > "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Lately a number of folks have posted photos on Hot or Not, and among the
> > > random photos that came up was this one:
> > > http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=NRNLRSO&key=GJT
> > > You think he'd have taken off his wedding ring......
> > > Sad part is the guy's got a 9.4 rating. People either haven't noticed
> > > or don't care.
> >
> > Yes, but we also know women have the worst taste possible in men, so
> > this comes as no big shock to me.
>
> So then, you're married? <G>
No, I fired her a while ago.
ATP
>
> I dont see gay men as any happier and seem to have to put up with the
> same stuff, or more, than everyone else. They do get laid faster,
> being men are pigs, but then again, they are sleeping with men, so
> its a wash...
>
they will need to wash.....
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <wbrink-365A4F....@nnrp02.earthlink.net>, William
> says...
> >
> >In article <cg7havo960dgcrvic...@4ax.com>,
> > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:06:08 GMT, William Brink
> >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I dont see gay men as any happier and seem to have to put up with the
> >> >same stuff, or more, than everyone else. They do get laid faster, being
> >> >men are pigs, but then again, they are sleeping with men, so its a
> >> >wash...
> >> >
> >>
> >> They like it as much if not more than you like women.
> >
> >Sad but true.
> >
>
> I don't see what is sad about it.
Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy bung
hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
>
> >> It isn't a wash
> >> man, it is a huge advantage.
> >
> >Glad you think so. I consider it a wash.
>
> Riiiiight, and if you could have amazing sex with a different hottie every
> night
> AND the vast majority thought of sex the same way you do, would it still be a
> wash?
I refer to said hairy brown bung hole. Dont expect you to understand
son. Gay men get laid for more often and far more easy, thats for sure.
Remove the female resistance from the equation, and its bung holes for
all...enjoy!
> Nukka please!
>
> --
>
> "No Roger....no Rerun....no RENT!"
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:24:32 GMT, William Brink
> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> I don't see what is sad about it.
> >
> >Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy bung
> >hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
> >
>
> I don't think that myself but I'm evolved enough to know that a vagina
> is not inherently more attractive than a bung.
But it is Mike.
> Context, contrast and
> perspective my man.
Or, its a mans hairy bung hole...
>
> >>
> >> >> It isn't a wash
> >> >> man, it is a huge advantage.
> >> >
> >> >Glad you think so. I consider it a wash.
> >>
> >> Riiiiight, and if you could have amazing sex with a different hottie every
> >> night
> >> AND the vast majority thought of sex the same way you do, would it still
> >> be a
> >> wash?
> >
> >I refer to said hairy brown bung hole. Dont expect you to understand
> >son. Gay men get laid for more often and far more easy, thats for sure.
> >Remove the female resistance from the equation, and its bung holes for
> >all...enjoy!
>
> Exactly my point! Distinctly NOT a "wash" as you said.
It's a wash, but if it makes you happy, by all means.
>
>
>
> --
>
> We are stardust.
John M. Williams
>
> MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> William Brink <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >I refer to said hairy brown bung hole. Dont expect you to understand
>> >son. Gay men get laid for more often and far more easy, thats for sure.
>> >Remove the female resistance from the equation, and its bung holes for
>> >all...enjoy!
>>
>> Exactly my point! Distinctly NOT a "wash" as you said.
>
>It's a wash, but if it makes you happy, by all means.
Mike prefers his hairy brown bung holes unwashed.
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:52 GMT, William Brink
> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <gd4pavscucb9vi2s4...@4ax.com>,
> > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:24:32 GMT, William Brink
> >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I don't see what is sad about it.
> >> >
> >> >Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy bung
> >> >hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't think that myself but I'm evolved enough to know that a vagina
> >> is not inherently more attractive than a bung.
> >
> >But it is Mike.
> >
>
> You meant to say "But it is, to me, Mike"
In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
> I hope...
Whats more attractive, a pile of dog poop or a rose? Is that
perspective? Nope...
Mistress Krista
"William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
> face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
> pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
>
Sorry, Will, you need to brush up on your art history. The male form has
received plenty of attention historically. There are even some artists,
such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
Krista, putting that BA in Fine Arts to good use
whit
"William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:52 GMT, William Brink
> > <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <gd4pavscucb9vi2s4...@4ax.com>,
> > > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:24:32 GMT, William Brink
> > >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> I don't see what is sad about it.
> > >> >
> > >> >Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy
bung
> > >> >hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that myself but I'm evolved enough to know that a
vagina
> > >> is not inherently more attractive than a bung.
> > >
> > >But it is Mike.
> > >
> >
> > You meant to say "But it is, to me, Mike"
>
> In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> whether gay or not.
also noted that male sexuality is more visually oriented (on average) than
females who are more diffuse (on average).
and men spend more time, and always will, looking at nekkid women than the
other way around.
and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the other way
around
and that's just the way it is
whit
Robert Dorf
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
>> In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
>> asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
>> been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
>> whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
>> face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
>> pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
>>
>
>
>Sorry, Will, you need to brush up on your art history. The male form has
>received plenty of attention historically. There are even some artists,
>such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
>female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
<Insert Fashion Model and/or Female Bodybuilder Snark Here>
Lee Michaels
"Mistress Krista" wrote
>
> Krista, putting that BA in Fine Arts to good use
>
Does being Bad Ass in the Gym AND in Fine Arts make you a *well rounded*
woman?
Adam Fahy
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>There are even some artists,
>such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
>female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
Did conventions of decorum at the time allow females to pose nude as
figure models for male artists, especially for the purpose of
comissioned art for religious institutions?
-Adam
Mistress Krista
"Adam Fahy" <mai...@myobligatory.com> wrote in message
news:5pctavstq1kq5i6ij...@4ax.com...
Conventions of decorum have never been huge on artists' models, who were
often viewed as similar to prostitutes. Nevertheless one could always find
women who would hang out naked for money.
Krista
Adam Fahy
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>"Adam Fahy" <mai...@myobligatory.com> wrote in message
>news:5pctavstq1kq5i6ij...@4ax.com...
>> Did conventions of decorum at the time allow females to pose nude as
>> figure models for male artists, especially for the purpose of
>> comissioned art for religious institutions?
>
>Conventions of decorum have never been huge on artists' models, who were
>often viewed as similar to prostitutes. Nevertheless one could always find
>women who would hang out naked for money.
I'm talking less about the models, and more about the artists. I was
under the impression that often artists *did* have to use men as
figure models.
-Adam
J. Thiessen
<snip>
Yeah, nekkid women don't spend much time looking at men.
Unless of course you count the planet-wide distribution of women's
locker-room-based ground receiver stations for all those super-secret
male-focused Hi-Res US military spy satellites.
Of course the women usually just drape their sweaty workout clothes
over the monitors and spend their time having naked towel fights and
discussing the ethics of modern cheese production, so I guess you're
still right.
J.
Jacob Andersen
wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net says...
> In article <tavravs7arf1fmpq8...@4ax.com>,
> MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:52 GMT, William Brink
> > <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <gd4pavscucb9vi2s4...@4ax.com>,
> > > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:24:32 GMT, William Brink
> > >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >> I don't see what is sad about it.
> > >> >
> > >> >Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy bung
> > >> >hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that myself but I'm evolved enough to know that a vagina
> > >> is not inherently more attractive than a bung.
> > >
> > >But it is Mike.
> > >
> >
> > You meant to say "But it is, to me, Mike"
>
> In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
> face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
> pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
Simon the fag in as good as it gets.
/Jacob
>
> > I hope...
>
> Whats more attractive, a pile of dog poop or a rose? Is that
> perspective? Nope...
Yes it is. Flies may disagree.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis* says...
>
> "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> > In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> > asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> > been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> > whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
> > face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
> > pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, Will, you need to brush up on your art history. The male form has
> received plenty of attention historically. There are even some artists,
> such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
> female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
>
>
> Krista, putting that BA in Fine Arts to good use
Boy you sure have education in some wussy subjects. I guess that's ok
though, you being a woman and all.
/Jacob
Peter Rosa
The former, of course. Ten billion flies can't be wrong.
--
Peter Rosa
pros...@yahoo.com
Peter Rosa
> Sorry, Will, you need to brush up on your art history. The male form has
> received plenty of attention historically. There are even some artists,
> such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
> female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
Wasn't that because Michaelangelo was, well, not interested in girls?
--
Peter Rosa
pros...@yahoo.com
Mistress Krista
"Peter Rosa" <pros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41d2a06a.03042...@posting.google.com...
Well, there was that aspect, yes. :)
Krista
Mistress Krista
Depends on who they were, how much $$ they had. El cheapo artist would use
whoever would sit still, or copy from others. Or they wouldn't get to create
original images at all, but be employed at an art studio doing exciting
things like filling in the landscapes for a bigger name artist. An artist
subsidized by a wealthy patron could use whoever they wanted. Many artists
used their mistresses. It provides lots of intrigue for art critics several
centuries later, figuring out who was doing who, which figure represented
which courtesan, etc. However there was never a time when women were
entirely unavailable as models.
Mistress Krista
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nada-spam*@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Rdyra.133667$gK.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
No, my squatter's bootay does that.
Krista, still striving for "TV Tray Ass"
Lee Michaels
Given the time periods you are referring to, did these women directly
benefit from the modeling work? I mean, were there lives better for doing
it? Any special perks?? Or were they scorned??
It seems to me any women who was employed in the mistress capacity would
look at this as one more job in the life of a "kept woman". It also would
have been an ego thing to have images of themselves up on the wall. And this
in a time long before film, cameras or JPEG's.
Hank
> In article <wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>,
> wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net says...
>>
>> perspective? Nope...
> Yes it is. Flies may disagree.
Don't forget the Dung Beetles.
NEVER forget the dung beetles...
Hank
Hank
> Nevertheless one could always find
> women who would hang out naked for money.
Thank <insert your favorite deity or deity-substitute here> for that.
Hank
Mistress Krista
>
> Given the time periods you are referring to, did these women directly
> benefit from the modeling work? I mean, were there lives better for doing
> it? Any special perks?? Or were they scorned??
Well, most people's lives have pretty much sucked for most of history.
Maybe some of them got the "privilege" of boinking an artist, or a few extra
shekels. But it wasn't really a very prestigious occupation. Certainly nice
girls didn't do it, just like nice girls didn't work in the theatre. Nice
girls actually didn't do much of anything.
>
> It seems to me any women who was employed in the mistress capacity would
> look at this as one more job in the life of a "kept woman". It also would
> have been an ego thing to have images of themselves up on the wall. And
this
> in a time long before film, cameras or JPEG's.
Yes, there are a variety of occupations under the industrial classification
of Kept Woman. They vary in quality, compensation, job perks, etc. :)
William Brink
Jacob Andersen <rep...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Exatly, and Helen Hunt has GREAT tits.
>
> /Jacob
>
>
>
> >
> > > I hope...
> >
> > Whats more attractive, a pile of dog poop or a rose? Is that
> > perspective? Nope...
>
> Yes it is. Flies may disagree.
>
> /Jacob
--
William Brink
William Brink
<F3yra.45667$kYH....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
> "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net...
> > In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> > asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> > been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> > whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
> > face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
> > pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
> >
>
>
> Sorry, Will, you need to brush up on your art history. The male form has
> received plenty of attention historically.
Of course it has, but the female form is far greater.
> There are even some artists,
> such as Michelangelo, who were so into creating male figures that their
> female figures basically looked like men with breasts.
True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
>
>
> Krista, putting that BA in Fine Arts to good use
--
Mistress Krista
>
> True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
> hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
>
It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in certain
cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a certain
point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
even existed.
Krista
John M. Williams
>
>you'll note i have yet to state my opinion on the relative attractiveness of a
>vagina and a man's hairy bung.
Based upon your personal history, your preference might be best
expressed by the old adage "any port in a storm."
Jacob Andersen
They sure don't suck nearly as much as I wish I did.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis* says...
>
> "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> >
> > True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
> > hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
> >
>
>
> It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in certain
> cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a certain
> point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
> even existed.
You know where this is going right?
...but the greeks prefered the .....
/Jacob
Robert Dorf
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>>
>> True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
>> hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
>>
>
>
>It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in certain
>cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a certain
>point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
>even existed.
>
Sheep and wine on the other hand are well established.
J. Thiessen
So the original phrase was: "Wine, sheep, and song?"
Hm...
J.
Robert Dorf
Baklava.
Robert Dorf
wrote:
Well, as I recall there weren't much singin' in those days. Mostly it
was "Wine, sheep, and more wine." Then some passin' out.
Yep.
J. Thiessen
This is where the models for the original "Life Drawing" courses came
from. After a few millenia of grading compositions imaginatively titled
"Plastered with Woolly", brave instructors defied tradition and hired some
non-inebriated models.
J.
Mistress Krista
"Jacob Andersen" <rep...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.191a79e96...@news.stofanet.dk...
Yeah, but regardless, the issue is the frequency of depiction, not the
sexual orientation of the artists. And in mfw, the main thing is to squabble
over a stupid irrelevant point, like a terrier shaking a rat to death. I am
just doing my part for group cohesion.
Adam Fahy
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>Yeah, but regardless, the issue is the frequency of depiction, not the
>sexual orientation of the artists. And in mfw, the main thing is to squabble
>over a stupid irrelevant point, like a terrier shaking a rat to death. I am
>just doing my part for group cohesion.
I was genuinely curious in my question.
-Adam
Adam Fahy
I hear it's empty, at the eye of that storm.
-Adam
Lucas Buck
And of course, they would never wear Trojans.
Mistress Krista
Did you feel it was answered?
Jacob Andersen
mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis* says...
Yes. Good. Carry on then.
/Jacob
aj
You're just hoping Bob will misidentify you as a pack member.
--
-aj
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <wbrink-D82575....@nnrp01.earthlink.net>, William
> says...
> >
> >In article <tavravs7arf1fmpq8...@4ax.com>,
> > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:46:52 GMT, William Brink
> >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <gd4pavscucb9vi2s4...@4ax.com>,
> >> > MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:24:32 GMT, William Brink
> >> >> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't see what is sad about it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course you would not as you can look at another mans brown hairy
> >> >> >bung
> >> >> >hole and think "man, I want me some of dat!"
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think that myself but I'm evolved enough to know that a vagina
> >> >> is not inherently more attractive than a bung.
> >> >
> >> >But it is Mike.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You meant to say "But it is, to me, Mike"
> >
> >In fact i did not. The female form has always been better looking,
> >asthetic, etc, than the male form, which is why the female form has
> >been the focus of artists, photographers, etc etc for thousands of years
> >whether gay or not. As the gay artist said in that movie to whats her
> >face with the great tits abd butter face "you are why cavemen drew
> >pictures on walls" or something to that effect.
> >
>
> I'm not really sure about your training but isn't it as a scientist? I
> thought
> it was but maybe I'm mistaken. You're writing in a fashion I'd expect from a
> high school educated redneck.
A redneck who is correct and simply talking about histoty ansd asthetics.
>
> I know it is knee-jerk to be "programmed" hetero so I do understand.
So you dont feel there is a biological basis for sexual orientation?
> However,
> as a scientist I'd hope you understand the difference between the absolute of
> what a thing is and how we perceive it.
Sure, but so what? If some one wants to see a guts hairy bung hole as
subjectivly equal to a vag, all the more power to them.
> I'd never argue that _to you_ a
> vagina
> is the most lovely thing in the universe
Depends on the vag!
> but I would argue that it is not
> inherently more "attractive" than anything else without the intervention of
> individual context, perspective, and contrast.
I would argue it is more asthetic to the human brain in most cases, gay
or not, and that Mr Mike, IS a scientific opinion! :-)
>
> you'll note i have yet to state my opinion on the relative attractiveness of
> a
> vagina and a man's hairy bung.
And this matters why again?
>
> >> I hope...
> >
> >Whats more attractive, a pile of dog poop or a rose? Is that
> >perspective? Nope...
>
> Of course it is Will. The very word "attractive" implies a contrast to
> something(s) else. As a couple of other people noted, to flies a pile of
> shit
> is heaven. Of course that is an extreme example that tries to make a subtle
> point.
And my point is that some things are hard wired into us to be more
asthetic/pleasing to the eye in the vast majority of cases, regardless
of culture. Such is a the socio biological concept of behavior that goes
in and out of popularity, but is correct.
William Brink
<fDXra.31790$M81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
> "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> >
> > True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
> > hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
> >
>
>
> It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in certain
> cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a certain
> point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
> even existed.
Still exceptions, not the rule in human history.
>
>
> Krista
William Brink
Lucas Buck <le...@dodgerssuck.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Why bother? You cant get young boys covered in olive oil pregnant anyway.
Mistress Krista
> In article
> <fDXra.31790$M81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
> > "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
> > > hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
> > >
> >
> >
> > It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in
certain
> > cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a
certain
> > point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
> > even existed.
>
> Still exceptions, not the rule in human history.
>
I'm sorry Will. No matter how appealing and convenient your theory, it is,
in general, unsupportable by cross cultural and historical representational
evidence. The rule in human history is that there aren't many rules.
Wendy Marsden
> >
> >I like this one better:
> >http://www.hotornot.com/r/?emid=KYG8RRS
> >
>
> I think you're disrepsecting Wendy with those aqua boobs!
I didn't feel disrespected. Besides, I would definitely call them
turquoise. Shall we both go look again and decide?
Wendy
Robert Dorf
<mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>"William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:wbrink-938FF0....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>> In article
>> <fDXra.31790$M81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> "Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>> > "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
>> > > hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in
>certain
>> > cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a
>certain
>> > point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
>> > even existed.
>>
>> Still exceptions, not the rule in human history.
>>
>
>
>I'm sorry Will. No matter how appealing and convenient your theory, it is,
>in general, unsupportable by cross cultural and historical representational
>evidence. The rule in human history is that there aren't many rules.
>
"Don't trust a dog with orange eyebrows."
John M. Williams
> John says...
Just a good memory and a desire to place your smugness
in perspective.
William Brink
<zNjsa.71670$kYH....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
> "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wbrink-938FF0....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> > In article
> > <fDXra.31790$M81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> > "Mistress Krista" <mistres...@stumptuous.com*rem0vethis*> wrote:
> >
> > > "William Brink" <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:wbrink-AC0FFE....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > True, but thats the exception, not the rule and Angelo did prefer the
> > > > hairy male bunghole ove the vag...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It certainly was not the exception during certain periods, and in
> certain
> > > cultures. Depictions of women were sometimes the exception. At a
> certain
> > > point in Greek history it is somewhat dubious as to whether or not women
> > > even existed.
> >
> > Still exceptions, not the rule in human history.
> >
>
>
> I'm sorry Will. No matter how appealing and convenient your theory, it is,
> in general, unsupportable by cross cultural and historical representational
> evidence.
Really? Such as?
> The rule in human history is that there aren't many rules.
You are incorrect sir.
William Brink
MJL <jert...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2003 15:32:13 GMT, William Brink
> <wbrink@*remove*earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> I know it is knee-jerk to be "programmed" hetero so I do understand.
> >
> >So you dont feel there is a biological basis for sexual orientation?
> >
>
> "PUT DOWN THE STRAWMAN AND BACK AWAY!!"
What ever you say.
Eric Witte
> around
Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
personality, motivation and tons of money.
Eric
Robert Dorf
Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
approach...
Ok, so men looking for a long term relationship care about
personality, wit, education, etc. in addition to or more than looks.
Much more fun to play to the stereotype.
;-)
whitster
Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
>
> >> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
other way
> >> around
> >
> >Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
> >personality, motivation and tons of money.
> >
> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
> approach...
>
males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
big diff.
males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
whit
whitster
i totally agree.
men are more interested in the appearance of women than women are in the
appearance of men. period. and that is in part due to biology.
people like to fight facts like this, because the claim is that it is
'society's fault' (and thus fixable with proper amounts of social
engineering) that these things are the way they are. now, of course,
society tends to reinforce these things. but at the root, is biological
reality. just as men are stronger, taller, hairier, leaner, more
aggressive, etc. these are biological realities.
out of the billions of people, and all the societies on earth, where are all
those societies where:
women are more aggressive/prone to crime than men?
men are less warlike than women?
magazines with nekkid men outsell magazines with nekkid women?
etc.
etc.
people will trot out tired and exceptional sporadic "exceptions" (dept. of
redundancy dept.) to try to 'prove' otherwise.
and the history of art subjects is not about those we find necessarily most
attractive anyways. people weren't painting kings and queens because they
were lookers. there are all sorts of political, intellectual, artistic,
etc. concerns involved there, as to why things were chosen. look at our
modern art. does that represent what we want to look at - ie the general
public. most definitely NOT. so, using past artworks to try to make claims
about the relative importance of male vs. female visuals is silly.
men have always, and will always place more emphasis on women's looks than
the other way around.
vive la difference.
whit
Robert Dorf
>
>Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
>news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
>>
>> >> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
>other way
>> >> around
>> >
>> >Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
>> >personality, motivation and tons of money.
>> >
>> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
>> approach...
>>
>males do not focus on looks alone.
Sure we do Whit. As much as we can be said to focus at all, what with
the grunting and chasing of antelope and such...
>males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
>
>big diff.
>
>males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
Nothing makes a lass happier than to have a lad stare deep into her
eyes and declare "My deah, you is lookin' the very picture of
fecundity this fine evenin'."
Perhaps followed by a reference to child bearing hips...
Robert Dorf
>
>Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
>news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
>>
>> >> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
>other way
>> >> around
>> >
>> >Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
>> >personality, motivation and tons of money.
>> >
>> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
>> approach...
>>
>males do not focus on looks alone.
>
>males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
>
>big diff.
>
>males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
>
>whit
Insert quibble: fecundity and youth are certainly communicated first
and foremost by looks.
Lee Michaels
> On Sun, 04 May 2003 05:20:19 GMT, "whitster" <wh...@whit.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
> >news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
> >> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
> >other way
> >> >> around
> >> >
> >> >Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
> >> >personality, motivation and tons of money.
> >> >
> >> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
> >> approach...
> >>
> >males do not focus on looks alone.
>
> Sure we do Whit. As much as we can be said to focus at all, what with
> the grunting and chasing of antelope and such...
>
> >males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
> >
> >big diff.
> >
> >males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
>
> Nothing makes a lass happier than to have a lad stare deep into her
> eyes and declare "My deah, you is lookin' the very picture of
> fecundity this fine evenin'."
>
> Perhaps followed by a reference to child bearing hips...
>
Ain't biology romantic??
whitster
> On Sun, 04 May 2003 05:20:19 GMT, "whitster" <wh...@whit.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
> >news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
> >> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
> >other way
> >> >> around
> >> >
> >> >Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
> >> >personality, motivation and tons of money.
> >> >
> >> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
> >> approach...
> >>
> >males do not focus on looks alone.
> >
> >males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
> >
> >big diff.
> >
> >males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
> >
> >whit
>
>
> Insert quibble: fecundity and youth are certainly communicated first
> and foremost by looks.
well, yes.
but that is part of why looks matter, and also how you can be fooled.
fecundity is also related to youth. a lot more chance a 25 yr old will be
fertile than a 45 yr old, for example. and it isn't practical to cut
somebody in half and count the rings, so looks are the way to tell,
generally. people lie, too. so, a background check is better than asking
how old the person is. :)
that's part of the reason why the younger woman/older man coupling is so
much more common than the other way around.
well, and then there's the whole maturity thing, too.
whit
Eric Witte
> much more common than the other way around.
>
> well, and then there's the whole maturity thing, too.
>
> whit
Historically it has happened a lot the other way too. It has more too
do with the older woman and younger mans sex drives being closer in
sync. I know I find a lot of women 6-8 years older than me very
attractive. It does seem to go down hill a lot there after.
Eric
ATP
> Robert Dorf <rober...@japan.com> wrote in message
> news:jlu8bvoe84jn00a86...@4ax.com...
>> On 3 May 2003 19:27:53 -0700, ewi...@hotmail.com (Eric Witte) wrote:
>>
>>>> and looks matter more when men look at women (on average) than the
>>>> other way around
>>>
>>> Sad but true :( Most women want EVERYTHING. Looks, education,
>>> personality, motivation and tons of money.
>>>
>> Yes, the male focus on looks and looks alone is a far kinder
>> approach...
>>
> males do not focus on looks alone.
>
> males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
>
> big diff.
>
> males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
>
> whit
>
Eric Witte
>
> males emphasize looks far more than women, on average.
>
> big diff.
>
> males also emphasize fecundity, youth, etc.
>
> whit
Not when all that matters is what happens that night :) I think the
lines between what men and women look for in reguards to long term
relationships are similar. Women just seem to look for everything
right off the bat.
Eric
William Brink
"whitster" <wh...@whit.com> wrote:
Agreed, our biology dictates much of our behavior.
>
> people like to fight facts like this, because the claim is that it is
> 'society's fault' (and thus fixable with proper amounts of social
> engineering)
Yes, there were many psycologists who for decades claimed there were no
differences between little boys and little girls and it was scocial cues
that made one like dollls and one like toy guns or what ever. Data now
makes it quite clear (as any parent can tell you) there are real
differences in the sexes, and little boys go toward some things and
little girls towards others and its truly biological in nature. Its
clear sociaty enforces biology, not the other way around.
> that these things are the way they are. now, of course,
> society tends to reinforce these things.
Exactly.
> but at the root, is biological
> reality. just as men are stronger, taller, hairier, leaner, more
> aggressive, etc. these are biological realities.
Yup.
>
> out of the billions of people, and all the societies on earth, where are all
> those societies where:
>
> women are more aggressive/prone to crime than men?
> men are less warlike than women?
> magazines with nekkid men outsell magazines with nekkid women?
In fact, 70% plus of the mags that seel pics of naked men (playgirl) are
purchased by men!