Here many suggest the femininity is the ace of base when it comes to attractiveness and a post by Erik said there was a research that indicated this. Can you post the research? This is weird because I've always believed and witnessed that proportionality and symmetry come before femininity when it comes to attractiveness in a woman and most guys would pick a beautiful child faced woman (child features are attractive in women) over a plain feminine face and body.
Dorian Yates is ugly, I have a better body without exercising.
I measured my index ratio, it is high (1.01) - effeminate, but I have wide shoulders narrow waist, narrow hips and good muscles, I was somewhat effeminate and cowardly as child then turned 180 after puberty does that mean I have been exposed to little testosterone in the womb but high testosterone after puberty? What does that say about my penis size I have no clue ? BTW my penis is very straight. What does that say about my sexual performance ? I have been told I'm amazing but I could have been lied to so as not to be hurt.
In this linkkkkkkkk it is writter that high prenatal testosterone contributes to robustness more that masculinity, white pubertal testosterone contributed to masculinity more that robustness.
Considering women, I heard that high testosterone women have higher libidos, more prone to cheating, more promiscuous and prefer masculine men, low testosterone/high estrogen women are the contrary of the above.
BTW this Swedish man is so beautiful I love this pic
I could never fathom how rail thin hollywood models are portrayed as attractive, who the hell wanna watch boys? That's pedophilia, we want proper women for gods sake
Any image editing program will do the job of placing the mask on the face in accordance with Marquardt’s specifications. If you don’t have one, get the open source program GIMP.
You need to scale one of the images so that the distance between eyes and lips (see details above) is the same in both the mask and the target face. Then copy and paste the mask on the face. If you have a mask with a white background, then you will have to erase this white background (make the background transparent).
You have misrepresented what you call my a priori assumptions. It is not that the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but that it is dominated by homosexual men because most of the big names or those on top are homosexual men, which is verifiable.
You also described my argument as … “conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined.” But the argument is that those who have cited the masculine ancient Greek female figures or the obese women of Rubens as examples of changing historical standards have not shown that these were the ideal of female beauty held by most people. This is a topic that I have not fully discussed so far, but you can find an example in this discussion on overweight women being appreciated in medieval Europe: http://www.femininebeauty.info/medieval-body-size-preferences . My argument is that some abstract correlates of beauty (not necessarily minutiae or specific details) have remained the same since antiquity.
I have also not argued that “homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda.” The argument is that once you dominate an industry that makes highly desirable products (clothes, fashion merchandize that would make one look good or associate one with higher class), then you have the freedom to choose models that most people find less appealing and still not affect your business because the people desire the items you are selling. My argument has not been that the homosexual designers are selecting their female models to push a homosexual agenda; they are doing it because it pleases their aesthetic sense.
And I have not accused the homosexuals designers of pushing communist agenda. Leftists have promoted the homosexual rights movement in recent decades but have an extensive previous history of persecuting homosexuals. So there is no intrinsic relationship between homosexuality and communism. Starting from the early 1970s, leftists found the nascent political homosexual rights movement useful to their major goals, and the leftist/communist leadership led a change in attitude toward homosexuals.
Regarding 80% of men being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, this was derived from a representative study of Americans where people were anonymously asked if they had ever experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844 . The figure is not set in stone and varies by a few percent points in different nations, but you get the idea, and most people would not have a need to lie in an anonymous survey.
Your defense of same-sex marriage is based on consent among adults and lack of harm. Either argument is poor.
Let us look at consenting adults. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other, both adult and both sterile? What harm would result since they are not going to have children together? But society will deny them the right to marry and typically prosecute them if they marry each other or indulge in a sexual relationship. The issue here is that most people find this kind of relationship disgusting. Whereas I have no wish to criminalize this behavior or relationship, I draw the line at having to accept this relationship as morally or legally equivalent to non-incestuous sexual relationships between consenting adults and I will not be pleased if I am called a bigot because of this. Being consenting adults is not enough.
The other issue is lack of harm. Do you believe that the numerous state or federal legal benefits made available to opposite-sex marriages are based on lack of harm? No, they are based on some benefits that such relationships potentially offer, benefits that do not result from homosexual behavior. The major societal benefit here is that long-term-stable heterosexual relationships among consenting adults tend to result in couples having children with each other and raise them together, which is of obvious value to any society. This occurs in such frequency that society is justified in granting benefits to those who enter marriage, thereby indicating their potential or promise to contribute to society in said manner, even though not all marriages will last in the long run or lead to children. In contrast, homosexuals cannot have children with each other and at best can raise children together that are the biological offspring of one parent only. Thus, we can grant legal recognition to homosexual relationships and offer various legal benefits to homosexual couples, but there is no justification for legally equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships because such relationships are different; there is no justification for granting homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same benefits package because the societal consequences of these relationships are different.
If one points out that, say, both pedophilia and homosexuality are statistically uncommon, is this a comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality? Yes it is, but only with respect to the issue being considered, which here is statistical prevalence, and there is nothing offensive about it. Anyone who extrapolates this comparison to unmentioned issues is coming up with a nonsense argument or straw man that will then be used to complain about being offended.
Why do you need to contrast homosexuality with sexual perversions involving victimization and abuse? Nobody is saying they are the same, and it is telling that one would need to defend homosexuality by contrasting it with extreme abusive and victimizing sex acts.
It's been a long time since I looked at your site, but I thought I would just offer my two cents once again on this new issue. First, I want to apologize for calling you uneducated in my last post. It was unintentional. When I said that of the three options, being sexually inexperienced, homophobic, or uneducated, it was clear you were not the former, I had intended to say that you were not the later. On further review, it would probably be best if I just retract the whole statement all together, but I will stick my general reservations from earlier and apply them to this new situation.
Your argument is tautological. In order for it to remain logically valid, one must accept several apriori assumptions. First, the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but not just this, that it is also driven primarily by their aesthetic preferences. Second, that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, or at least that the majority of men are. Third, that the primary motive for women when they buy their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. is to attract and arouse heterosexual men. Fourth, that the conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined. Finally, that homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda. If one accepts these axioms, he or she will inevitably come to the same conclusions that you have, but only as some sort of thought exercise because I do not believe that these apriori assumptions hold true.
I don't know if the fashion industry is or is not populated primarily by homosexual men, and I don't think it matters. It seems clear enough to me that it is not driven solely or even primarily by homosexual aesthetic preferences. Even if my personal experience is not a counter to your assumption, the rest of your assumptions pose a problem for your first one. If indeed 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, and heterosexual women bought their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. in order to attract and arouse their attention, and this arousal is a stable evolutionary response to certain visual stimuli, then it seems it would be a disastrous business decision to ignore your main demographics needs and wants in order to push a politically and culturally driven agenda and that even if they were willing to take this risk, it would be doomed to result in failure. On top of this, you have not established that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, only that when asked, 80% of men will "report" that they are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, but I will concede that the majority of men are heterosexuals, whether lifetime exclusive or not.
As for the more recent issue, I want to respond to Emily on the entitlement of marriage. Gays are not "entitled" to be married in a Christian Church. Frankly, I can't see why they would want to be. But gays should be entitled to be married, whether in a court house, in a willing religious congregation, or their backyard. Here's why: when marriage was made an advantageous political status (i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, financial benefits, inheritance, etc.) it ceased to be solely a religious sacrament controlled by the religious authority. It became a civil arrangement controlled by the state, and thus subject to civil law, like nondiscriminatory laws. What separates a marriage between two people of the same sex and a marriage between a human and an animal or an adult and a child is consent. Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm. This is the issue that is most debated: what is the harm? Incestuous marriage is illegal (at least to a point) base on definitive proof that there is a greater probability of mental and physical deformity in the children of these unions. Well, to date, there has been no definitive proof that homosexual marriage poses a social harm, and even if you believe that homosexual parents do pose a threat, which also has not, and most likely cannot, be definitively established either way, whether a married gay couple has the right to adopt is a separate issue from whether they have the right to marry. The comparison of homosexuality, to bestiality and pedophilia is offensive, not just to homosexuals, but to those who have been the victims of bestiality or pedophilia, not to mention the vast numbers of open-minded heterosexuals. Erik, even though we disagree on everything else, I would hope that you would agree that there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and sexual perversions that involve direct victimization and abuse.
It was said by "Visitor" (Emily), that the only reason she has been going on, ad nauseum, about grammar, etc., on my part was because I was the first to criticize others' grammar. That is not true. In fact, I've been re-reading my previous commments and have found no such thing even resembling criticism, on my part, of anyone's commmand of English. She has cited that I'm arrogant, called me insane, and compared me to Dubya (twice, which is pretty funny), based on the reason stated above: because I was the first to be critical. However, no where here has such a thing taken place, as if it actually had, I'm sure she would've cited it by now. Yet, she hasn't.
My sincerest apologies, Visitor, for using an incorrect pronoun preceding the predicate case that I'd written. There you go. I've admitted a grammatical mistake. However, this does not make me insane, or arrogant for that matter.
I have enough academic, personal and professional experience to know that you have very little of any of these things at all. I've witnessed people being born, and I've watched people die. I have seen people in varying states of health and disease. I know who I am, and what I've done with my life. I'm well aware of the achievements I've earned, and know enough about life, and people in general, to know that it is you who is insane, if you still believe that pointing out grammatical errors, and lying about the nature of my past posts is going to discredit me.
My sincerest apologies to the site administrator, for taking part in this idiocy. It is not my wish to denegrate this site with any more silly, childish arguments about what pretty much amounts to be pointless lunacy. It is more than fair to say any further interaction on my part with Emily/Emigree/Visitor is no longer feasible, as she is unreasonable, and embarassingly immature.
Visitor, if it is your wish to continue this dialogue, than it will have to be with the numerous alter egos you've invented, as I am no longer biting the bait. This has been fun for you, I'm sure, as childish debates like these usually do entertain the more simple- minded, you see.
"Where wings take dream!" -Dubya
It is my sincerest wish, Visitor, that your life takes a dramatic turn for the better.
Hell no. She has a GORGEOUS nose ... I love it.
And somebody said she has thick eyebrows. What the ...? First of all, they're not THAT thick. Okay, for Frida Kahlo you can say she had thick eyebrows. But Miranda? Nope. Her eyebrows are just right. And second of all, thick eyebrows are beautiful (well not Frida Kahlo thick). Way better than those drawn with pencil or those that are very, very thin.
american girl wrote:
"Emigree/Emily are now grabbing at straws and trying to do anything and everything to descredit those on this site who do not share her/their views."
american girl,
I can only speak for myself, but let me be clear: DO NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND OTHER PEOPLE'S BACKS AND DRAG THEM DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone else on this site but only you. I have absolutely no problem reading other people's views, even if I happen to disagree with them. What I found disgusting was only your behaviour on this forum. I hope this clarifies the subject.
"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling." — G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
american girl,
I am starting to believe that you're kind of a "insane nurse". You seem to be utterly unable to grasp the point.
SO I AM REPEATING: You yourself started the bad grammar wars. Yes, you were the first to accuse others of swearing, poor punctuation, etc. But when you were shown that you make way more mistakes than others in your postings you said: Oh, well, I just had a bad day and my back aches. Ok, fine, so why are you, stupid nurse, still keep accusing others of bad grammar? Even in your newest post you wrote about a missing comma in one of my sentences. How relevant is it? But, of course, you fail to see the point and keep fuming and jumping incoherently from topic to topic in every post.
What really did you have to say about me? The only thing really repeating in every single post so far was that I've made a couple of language errors (and so did you btw) all of this liberally spiced with expletives and badmouthing.
I am not American, so please get off my back and learn your own language better first! I speak three foreign languages in addition to my native one. How many languages do you speak, superduper-educated American nurse?
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" — G.W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
Alessa vs Camile | Submitted by Mr. Krishan on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 13:36.
"Erik, I don't understand the vehemence from the idiots you let post here. By idiots, I mean those who can't or won't use a spellchecker, proper grammar, and logic to communicate. But it takes all kinds, I suppose."
Poor grammer does not qualify or define one as being an idiot but trying to understand something that does not exist and then not understanding why one cant understand it not understanding one cant understand it because it doesnt exist or else one may have understood and if one may still not have understood it it may just be that they may come to your conclusion not understanding they have not understood it because of there lack of ability to understand does.If you re-read your sentence you will find it doesnt make sense its nonsensical there is no logic to it.
It is natural spelling mistakes/grammatical errors will occur. There are different types of english e.g American english and Standard UK english in which words are spelt differently etc...
Alessa vs Camile | Submitted by Mr. Krishan on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 13:36.
"Erik, I don't understand the vehemence from the idiots you let post here. By idiots, I mean those who can't or won't use a spellchecker, proper grammar, and logic to communicate. But it takes all kinds, I suppose."
Poor grammer does not qualify or define one as being an idiot but trying to understand something that does not exist and then not understanding why one cant understand it not understanding one cant understand it because it doesnt exist or else one may have understood and if one may still not have understood it it may just be that they may come to your conclusion not understanding they have not understood it because of there lack of ability to understand.If you re-read your sentence you will find it doesnt make sense its nonsensical there is no logic to it.
It is natural spelling mistakes/grammatical errors will occur. There are different types of english e.g American english and Standard UK english in which words are spelt differently etc...
The participants were not dependent on nicotine? Usually, or at least in my own experiences e.g. seeing casual smoking at bars, people usually looked nauseated, at least at first. People dependent on nicotine will definitely look more relaxed because they were probably having a nic fit prior. Very interesting study.
I was the first on this site to point out swearing and poor grammar? Hardly. Just checked, in case I'd somehow had a complete loss of short-term memory. Once again, grasping at straws to try to discredit me. As a matter of fact, most of my posts are written rather informally, and some do contain swearing. Once again...(sigh)...your point is...? Just leave it alone, Emigree/Emily.
Mousecat: thank you for proving my point. And thank you for saying what you did specifically to me. I think in her attempt to discredit me and accuse me of arrogance, she only discredited herself, and proved herself more arrogant.
I apologize to anyone that I offended by the "coarseness" of my language. We "ugly Americans" have a tendency to swear maybe a little more than most I suppose. I do not, nor would not use that type of language around mixed company, at work, in any professional setting, and especially around my children. I consider this type of forum to be relatively informal, so we can expect, to some degree, some swearing every now and again. In regards to the words I used explicitly to Emily/Emigree the other evening: while I'm sure other words, phrases, etc. made have sounded more appropriate, at that moment, only those would do. I wanted to be deliberate in the extremity of my language, and to express my total and absolute disagreement and disapproval. I believe I succeeded.
Meredith, none of what was said to Emigree was directed toward you. Emigree/Emily are now grabbing at straws and trying to do anything and everything to descredit those on this site who do not share her/their views. My hostility was aimed at her for picking apart my posts as if it were English Comp 101. If it is not too late to change, than I hope she/they do, and soon. Most of my posts have been full of grammatical errors since coming here. The "others" that I've criticized in the past were Emily, so of course she will pick apart my posts, and try to play semantics games here, claiming arrogance on my part. And as far as the organ/tissue/marrow mistake, I was speaking in generalizations. Of course I know the difference between the two, who doesn't? So far, she/they have still not managed to discredit me, or anyone else who's disagreed with her/their agenda. It's sad and useless to even try. If the basis of one's arguments is to point out other's mistakes, without having any valid points of your own to present, than you really have no argument at all. What has "Emigree" contributed to this conversation, aside from bashing me? What original points has she made, other than wondering why Greta Garbo was never pictured as an example of Nordic Beauty? I've looked several times, and I've not seen her make any valid points of her own, other than "Emily you rock girl" (notice no comma after Emily in that sentence, haha).
And as far as Nordic extinction, I called up a college friend who was born and raised in Sweden. She said for Emily not to worry. The Northern Europeans are a strong race of people. The ancients should have died out long ago, what with the inter-fighting, famines, as well as the rugged and barren terrain that it was then, making it difficult for farming, and animal survival. If they were weak and fragile people, they'd be gone already. I think that her hysteria isn't so much about saving her people, as it is about the fact that she is a supremicist. If she were only a preservationist, she could've made her points, without adding that Asian women only appealed to men with pedophilia, and blacks look like "primates". It was not necessary to hurl insults like that unless she does feel "superior". If she does, her hopes of expressing that superiority without offending others is futile. Comments like those do and will offend others. She was looking for a fight, and she got one, from the majority of people who post here, it would seem. Even from her fellow white "brethren". One can still be white, Nordic, and proud of their race and ethnicity, without putting other races down. Any white person who disagrees with her she accuses of being non-white, or disloyal race-mixers, which I am not. Most whites I know are not supremicists. They are proud, and probably would not choose for themselves to race-mix, but do not become incensed by those who don't share their veiws.
I don't believe that my fair skin, light blue-green eyes, and European features are dying out. And just to be sure, I did have some blond, blue eyed children to contribute to Emily's perfect world. Get to breedin', Emily.
Here many suggest the femininity is the ace of base when it comes to attractiveness and a post by Erik said there was a research that indicated this. Can you post the research? This is weird because I've always believed and witnessed that proportionality and symmetry come before femininity when it comes to attractiveness in a woman and most guys would pick a beautiful child faced woman (child features are attractive in women) over a plain feminine face and body.
Dorian Yates is ugly, I have a better body without exercising.
I measured my index ratio, it is high (1.01) - effeminate, but I have wide shoulders narrow waist, narrow hips and good muscles, I was somewhat effeminate and cowardly as child then turned 180 after puberty does that mean I have been exposed to little testosterone in the womb but high testosterone after puberty? What does that say about my penis size I have no clue ? BTW my penis is very straight. What does that say about my sexual performance ? I have been told I'm amazing but I could have been lied to so as not to be hurt.
In this linkkkkkkkk it is writter that high prenatal testosterone contributes to robustness more that masculinity, white pubertal testosterone contributed to masculinity more that robustness.
Considering women, I heard that high testosterone women have higher libidos, more prone to cheating, more promiscuous and prefer masculine men, low testosterone/high estrogen women are the contrary of the above.
BTW this Swedish man is so beautiful I love this pic
I could never fathom how rail thin hollywood models are portrayed as attractive, who the hell wanna watch boys? That's pedophilia, we want proper women for gods sake
Any image editing program will do the job of placing the mask on the face in accordance with Marquardt’s specifications. If you don’t have one, get the open source program GIMP.
You need to scale one of the images so that the distance between eyes and lips (see details above) is the same in both the mask and the target face. Then copy and paste the mask on the face. If you have a mask with a white background, then you will have to erase this white background (make the background transparent).
Billy: I don’t see circular arguments on my part.
You have misrepresented what you call my a priori assumptions. It is not that the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but that it is dominated by homosexual men because most of the big names or those on top are homosexual men, which is verifiable.
You also described my argument as … “conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined.” But the argument is that those who have cited the masculine ancient Greek female figures or the obese women of Rubens as examples of changing historical standards have not shown that these were the ideal of female beauty held by most people. This is a topic that I have not fully discussed so far, but you can find an example in this discussion on overweight women being appreciated in medieval Europe: http://www.femininebeauty.info/medieval-body-size-preferences . My argument is that some abstract correlates of beauty (not necessarily minutiae or specific details) have remained the same since antiquity.
I have also not argued that “homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda.” The argument is that once you dominate an industry that makes highly desirable products (clothes, fashion merchandize that would make one look good or associate one with higher class), then you have the freedom to choose models that most people find less appealing and still not affect your business because the people desire the items you are selling. My argument has not been that the homosexual designers are selecting their female models to push a homosexual agenda; they are doing it because it pleases their aesthetic sense.
And I have not accused the homosexuals designers of pushing communist agenda. Leftists have promoted the homosexual rights movement in recent decades but have an extensive previous history of persecuting homosexuals. So there is no intrinsic relationship between homosexuality and communism. Starting from the early 1970s, leftists found the nascent political homosexual rights movement useful to their major goals, and the leftist/communist leadership led a change in attitude toward homosexuals.
Regarding 80% of men being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, this was derived from a representative study of Americans where people were anonymously asked if they had ever experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7611844 . The figure is not set in stone and varies by a few percent points in different nations, but you get the idea, and most people would not have a need to lie in an anonymous survey.
Your defense of same-sex marriage is based on consent among adults and lack of harm. Either argument is poor.
Let us look at consenting adults. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other, both adult and both sterile? What harm would result since they are not going to have children together? But society will deny them the right to marry and typically prosecute them if they marry each other or indulge in a sexual relationship. The issue here is that most people find this kind of relationship disgusting. Whereas I have no wish to criminalize this behavior or relationship, I draw the line at having to accept this relationship as morally or legally equivalent to non-incestuous sexual relationships between consenting adults and I will not be pleased if I am called a bigot because of this. Being consenting adults is not enough.
The other issue is lack of harm. Do you believe that the numerous state or federal legal benefits made available to opposite-sex marriages are based on lack of harm? No, they are based on some benefits that such relationships potentially offer, benefits that do not result from homosexual behavior. The major societal benefit here is that long-term-stable heterosexual relationships among consenting adults tend to result in couples having children with each other and raise them together, which is of obvious value to any society. This occurs in such frequency that society is justified in granting benefits to those who enter marriage, thereby indicating their potential or promise to contribute to society in said manner, even though not all marriages will last in the long run or lead to children. In contrast, homosexuals cannot have children with each other and at best can raise children together that are the biological offspring of one parent only. Thus, we can grant legal recognition to homosexual relationships and offer various legal benefits to homosexual couples, but there is no justification for legally equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships because such relationships are different; there is no justification for granting homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same benefits package because the societal consequences of these relationships are different.
If one points out that, say, both pedophilia and homosexuality are statistically uncommon, is this a comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality? Yes it is, but only with respect to the issue being considered, which here is statistical prevalence, and there is nothing offensive about it. Anyone who extrapolates this comparison to unmentioned issues is coming up with a nonsense argument or straw man that will then be used to complain about being offended.
Why do you need to contrast homosexuality with sexual perversions involving victimization and abuse? Nobody is saying they are the same, and it is telling that one would need to defend homosexuality by contrasting it with extreme abusive and victimizing sex acts.
It's been a long time since I looked at your site, but I thought I would just offer my two cents once again on this new issue. First, I want to apologize for calling you uneducated in my last post. It was unintentional. When I said that of the three options, being sexually inexperienced, homophobic, or uneducated, it was clear you were not the former, I had intended to say that you were not the later. On further review, it would probably be best if I just retract the whole statement all together, but I will stick my general reservations from earlier and apply them to this new situation.
Your argument is tautological. In order for it to remain logically valid, one must accept several apriori assumptions. First, the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but not just this, that it is also driven primarily by their aesthetic preferences. Second, that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, or at least that the majority of men are. Third, that the primary motive for women when they buy their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. is to attract and arouse heterosexual men. Fourth, that the conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined. Finally, that homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda. If one accepts these axioms, he or she will inevitably come to the same conclusions that you have, but only as some sort of thought exercise because I do not believe that these apriori assumptions hold true.
I don't know if the fashion industry is or is not populated primarily by homosexual men, and I don't think it matters. It seems clear enough to me that it is not driven solely or even primarily by homosexual aesthetic preferences. Even if my personal experience is not a counter to your assumption, the rest of your assumptions pose a problem for your first one. If indeed 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, and heterosexual women bought their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. in order to attract and arouse their attention, and this arousal is a stable evolutionary response to certain visual stimuli, then it seems it would be a disastrous business decision to ignore your main demographics needs and wants in order to push a politically and culturally driven agenda and that even if they were willing to take this risk, it would be doomed to result in failure. On top of this, you have not established that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, only that when asked, 80% of men will "report" that they are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, but I will concede that the majority of men are heterosexuals, whether lifetime exclusive or not.
As for the more recent issue, I want to respond to Emily on the entitlement of marriage. Gays are not "entitled" to be married in a Christian Church. Frankly, I can't see why they would want to be. But gays should be entitled to be married, whether in a court house, in a willing religious congregation, or their backyard. Here's why: when marriage was made an advantageous political status (i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, financial benefits, inheritance, etc.) it ceased to be solely a religious sacrament controlled by the religious authority. It became a civil arrangement controlled by the state, and thus subject to civil law, like nondiscriminatory laws. What separates a marriage between two people of the same sex and a marriage between a human and an animal or an adult and a child is consent. Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm. This is the issue that is most debated: what is the harm? Incestuous marriage is illegal (at least to a point) base on definitive proof that there is a greater probability of mental and physical deformity in the children of these unions. Well, to date, there has been no definitive proof that homosexual marriage poses a social harm, and even if you believe that homosexual parents do pose a threat, which also has not, and most likely cannot, be definitively established either way, whether a married gay couple has the right to adopt is a separate issue from whether they have the right to marry. The comparison of homosexuality, to bestiality and pedophilia is offensive, not just to homosexuals, but to those who have been the victims of bestiality or pedophilia, not to mention the vast numbers of open-minded heterosexuals. Erik, even though we disagree on everything else, I would hope that you would agree that there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and sexual perversions that involve direct victimization and abuse.
Probably just a better hair cut, one that does not accentuate her flaws.
"It's just that the formula for beauty is complex and holds countless possibilities. You try to box it, and it won't work." - Samantha
This is so true, there is no right answer to what beauty should be.
Josie Maran is beautiful, she may have a masculine jaw, but this is not a flaw.
french actress Emma de Caunes
Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com
sometimes a feminine jaw can be lacking, she would more attractive if square jaw.
It was said by "Visitor" (Emily), that the only reason she has been going on, ad nauseum, about grammar, etc., on my part was because I was the first to criticize others' grammar. That is not true. In fact, I've been re-reading my previous commments and have found no such thing even resembling criticism, on my part, of anyone's commmand of English. She has cited that I'm arrogant, called me insane, and compared me to Dubya (twice, which is pretty funny), based on the reason stated above: because I was the first to be critical. However, no where here has such a thing taken place, as if it actually had, I'm sure she would've cited it by now. Yet, she hasn't.
My sincerest apologies, Visitor, for using an incorrect pronoun preceding the predicate case that I'd written. There you go. I've admitted a grammatical mistake. However, this does not make me insane, or arrogant for that matter.
I have enough academic, personal and professional experience to know that you have very little of any of these things at all. I've witnessed people being born, and I've watched people die. I have seen people in varying states of health and disease. I know who I am, and what I've done with my life. I'm well aware of the achievements I've earned, and know enough about life, and people in general, to know that it is you who is insane, if you still believe that pointing out grammatical errors, and lying about the nature of my past posts is going to discredit me.
My sincerest apologies to the site administrator, for taking part in this idiocy. It is not my wish to denegrate this site with any more silly, childish arguments about what pretty much amounts to be pointless lunacy. It is more than fair to say any further interaction on my part with Emily/Emigree/Visitor is no longer feasible, as she is unreasonable, and embarassingly immature.
Visitor, if it is your wish to continue this dialogue, than it will have to be with the numerous alter egos you've invented, as I am no longer biting the bait. This has been fun for you, I'm sure, as childish debates like these usually do entertain the more simple- minded, you see.
"Where wings take dream!" -Dubya
It is my sincerest wish, Visitor, that your life takes a dramatic turn for the better.
The correct way of stating: you're an "insane nurse", not "a". Now fuck off, insane Swedish cunt.
Is that all you've got? Ha, you're a FUCKING JOKE. Do you want/need more swearing to prove yourself, Emily?
so does anyone no if the program dr steven marquardt uses to morph and sculpture the faces of anyone photographed "available for download on the net?
erik,
i'm 5ft 3, my waist is 24 inches, my bust is 27 inches and my hips are 33 inches. this makes me a pear right?
High testosterone improves facial symmetry in men. High testosterone also strengthens the immune system.
Hell no. She has a GORGEOUS nose ... I love it.
And somebody said she has thick eyebrows. What the ...? First of all, they're not THAT thick. Okay, for Frida Kahlo you can say she had thick eyebrows. But Miranda? Nope. Her eyebrows are just right. And second of all, thick eyebrows are beautiful (well not Frida Kahlo thick). Way better than those drawn with pencil or those that are very, very thin.
I love her nose. It's beautiful. And so is she.
american girl wrote:
"Emigree/Emily are now grabbing at straws and trying to do anything and everything to descredit those on this site who do not share her/their views."
american girl,
I can only speak for myself, but let me be clear: DO NOT TRY TO HIDE BEHIND OTHER PEOPLE'S BACKS AND DRAG THEM DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone else on this site but only you. I have absolutely no problem reading other people's views, even if I happen to disagree with them. What I found disgusting was only your behaviour on this forum. I hope this clarifies the subject.
"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling." — G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
american girl,
I am starting to believe that you're kind of a "insane nurse". You seem to be utterly unable to grasp the point.
SO I AM REPEATING: You yourself started the bad grammar wars. Yes, you were the first to accuse others of swearing, poor punctuation, etc. But when you were shown that you make way more mistakes than others in your postings you said: Oh, well, I just had a bad day and my back aches. Ok, fine, so why are you, stupid nurse, still keep accusing others of bad grammar? Even in your newest post you wrote about a missing comma in one of my sentences. How relevant is it? But, of course, you fail to see the point and keep fuming and jumping incoherently from topic to topic in every post.
What really did you have to say about me? The only thing really repeating in every single post so far was that I've made a couple of language errors (and so did you btw) all of this liberally spiced with expletives and badmouthing.
I am not American, so please get off my back and learn your own language better first! I speak three foreign languages in addition to my native one. How many languages do you speak, superduper-educated American nurse?
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" — G.W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
cocaine works even better
Alessa vs Camile | Submitted by Mr. Krishan on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 13:36.
"Erik, I don't understand the vehemence from the idiots you let post here. By idiots, I mean those who can't or won't use a spellchecker, proper grammar, and logic to communicate. But it takes all kinds, I suppose."
Poor grammer does not qualify or define one as being an idiot but trying to understand something that does not exist and then not understanding why one cant understand it not understanding one cant understand it because it doesnt exist or else one may have understood and if one may still not have understood it it may just be that they may come to your conclusion not understanding they have not understood it because of there lack of ability to understand does.If you re-read your sentence you will find it doesnt make sense its nonsensical there is no logic to it.
It is natural spelling mistakes/grammatical errors will occur. There are different types of english e.g American english and Standard UK english in which words are spelt differently etc...
Alessa vs Camile | Submitted by Mr. Krishan on Wed, 07/15/2009 - 13:36.
"Erik, I don't understand the vehemence from the idiots you let post here. By idiots, I mean those who can't or won't use a spellchecker, proper grammar, and logic to communicate. But it takes all kinds, I suppose."
Poor grammer does not qualify or define one as being an idiot but trying to understand something that does not exist and then not understanding why one cant understand it not understanding one cant understand it because it doesnt exist or else one may have understood and if one may still not have understood it it may just be that they may come to your conclusion not understanding they have not understood it because of there lack of ability to understand.If you re-read your sentence you will find it doesnt make sense its nonsensical there is no logic to it.
It is natural spelling mistakes/grammatical errors will occur. There are different types of english e.g American english and Standard UK english in which words are spelt differently etc...
The participants were not dependent on nicotine? Usually, or at least in my own experiences e.g. seeing casual smoking at bars, people usually looked nauseated, at least at first. People dependent on nicotine will definitely look more relaxed because they were probably having a nic fit prior. Very interesting study.
I was the first on this site to point out swearing and poor grammar? Hardly. Just checked, in case I'd somehow had a complete loss of short-term memory. Once again, grasping at straws to try to discredit me. As a matter of fact, most of my posts are written rather informally, and some do contain swearing. Once again...(sigh)...your point is...? Just leave it alone, Emigree/Emily.
Mousecat: thank you for proving my point. And thank you for saying what you did specifically to me. I think in her attempt to discredit me and accuse me of arrogance, she only discredited herself, and proved herself more arrogant.
I apologize to anyone that I offended by the "coarseness" of my language. We "ugly Americans" have a tendency to swear maybe a little more than most I suppose. I do not, nor would not use that type of language around mixed company, at work, in any professional setting, and especially around my children. I consider this type of forum to be relatively informal, so we can expect, to some degree, some swearing every now and again. In regards to the words I used explicitly to Emily/Emigree the other evening: while I'm sure other words, phrases, etc. made have sounded more appropriate, at that moment, only those would do. I wanted to be deliberate in the extremity of my language, and to express my total and absolute disagreement and disapproval. I believe I succeeded.
Meredith, none of what was said to Emigree was directed toward you. Emigree/Emily are now grabbing at straws and trying to do anything and everything to descredit those on this site who do not share her/their views. My hostility was aimed at her for picking apart my posts as if it were English Comp 101. If it is not too late to change, than I hope she/they do, and soon. Most of my posts have been full of grammatical errors since coming here. The "others" that I've criticized in the past were Emily, so of course she will pick apart my posts, and try to play semantics games here, claiming arrogance on my part. And as far as the organ/tissue/marrow mistake, I was speaking in generalizations. Of course I know the difference between the two, who doesn't? So far, she/they have still not managed to discredit me, or anyone else who's disagreed with her/their agenda. It's sad and useless to even try. If the basis of one's arguments is to point out other's mistakes, without having any valid points of your own to present, than you really have no argument at all. What has "Emigree" contributed to this conversation, aside from bashing me? What original points has she made, other than wondering why Greta Garbo was never pictured as an example of Nordic Beauty? I've looked several times, and I've not seen her make any valid points of her own, other than "Emily you rock girl" (notice no comma after Emily in that sentence, haha).
And as far as Nordic extinction, I called up a college friend who was born and raised in Sweden. She said for Emily not to worry. The Northern Europeans are a strong race of people. The ancients should have died out long ago, what with the inter-fighting, famines, as well as the rugged and barren terrain that it was then, making it difficult for farming, and animal survival. If they were weak and fragile people, they'd be gone already. I think that her hysteria isn't so much about saving her people, as it is about the fact that she is a supremicist. If she were only a preservationist, she could've made her points, without adding that Asian women only appealed to men with pedophilia, and blacks look like "primates". It was not necessary to hurl insults like that unless she does feel "superior". If she does, her hopes of expressing that superiority without offending others is futile. Comments like those do and will offend others. She was looking for a fight, and she got one, from the majority of people who post here, it would seem. Even from her fellow white "brethren". One can still be white, Nordic, and proud of their race and ethnicity, without putting other races down. Any white person who disagrees with her she accuses of being non-white, or disloyal race-mixers, which I am not. Most whites I know are not supremicists. They are proud, and probably would not choose for themselves to race-mix, but do not become incensed by those who don't share their veiws.
I don't believe that my fair skin, light blue-green eyes, and European features are dying out. And just to be sure, I did have some blond, blue eyed children to contribute to Emily's perfect world. Get to breedin', Emily.
Pages