| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"yuluwirri" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 11:41:32 PM |
| Object: |
It's not only a female "thing" |
x-no-archive: yes
O.k. Imagine this. You are a father of an attractive female teenager,
and you are walking down the street with her. She is dressed in jeans,
and a shirt that shows just a little belly.
You walk into your local grocery store, and a bloke, about your age,
starts ogling her in a lusty, noticeable manner.
Do you stop and think to yourself; "well this is a natural
evolutionary response. He's just doing what any other hot-blooded male
would be doing and after all she *is* wearing that top that shows a
little bit of belly, so really she is seeking this attention and
behaviour".
Well? In reality is this what you would think?
I doubt it very much. I think that the majority of blokes with
daughters would want to hunt that dude down and give him a good smack
in the face. More than likely a fierce stare and a protective arm
would be thrown about her shoulders and they would get on with their
shopping, but I can't see that father sitting down with his daughter
and lecturing her on the "evils" of wearing her "teenager suite" to
Woolworths because it is inciting the local perverts to salivate in
her presence.
So? What do you think?
--
yuluwirri
~~~~~~~
Fish know.
~~~~~~~
yuluwirri@hotmail.com
.
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 07:23:42 AM |
|
|
"yuluwirri" <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rlih70td2p2ovck1p2ftirvhgtluto9bkf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
<snip>
So? What do you think?
I know what D's father would do. He would stick out his chest, make eye
contact with pervman and put his shoulders back to show off his full
6'2" height. He would walk up to pervman and instruct him to begin
looking at his shoes.
I've made the odd "take a picture it'll last longer" remark, at times
like that I really wish I was a 6'2" man. My eldest son Conor is even
taller then his dad and thanks to the gym, much bigger. (I think
pervmen tend to back off when girls are with young strong looking guys).
Once last year there was a bizarre situation in which this guy started
screaming at me (he was mentally ill, I had no idea who he was or what
he was yelling about) and Conor put his hands on him and pushed him
back, hard. It was a reflexive response.
Anyway, Conor and Diana are pretty much best friends (15 months apart)
and they do most of their "partying" together, which is a great comfort
to me wrt Diana and her safety, Conor's safety too. They really look
out for one another. Both of them are heading to university (different
ones) in the fall and I think they'll miss each other very much, far
more than they'll miss their parents, natch.
Jean
--
yuluwirri
~~~~~~~
Fish know.
~~~~~~~
yuluwirri@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGBs Neighbot" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:13:00 AM |
|
|
In article <rlih70td2p2ovck1p2ftirvhgtluto9bkf@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
So? What do you think?
I think this discussion belongs in the thread in which it was taking
place. Scoring points by creating extra shelf-footage by starting new
threads is a rather percentile way of pumping up the volume.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 07:41:19 AM |
|
|
"RGB's Neighbot" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:--C51392.22131410042004@news.easynews.com...
In article <rlih70td2p2ovck1p2ftirvhgtluto9bkf@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
So? What do you think?
I think this discussion belongs in the thread in which it was taking
place. Scoring points by creating extra shelf-footage by starting new
threads is a rather percentile way of pumping up the volume.
You're such a grouch. If you don't like the discussion - simple - don't
participate in it. Bitching about it just adds to that despised volume.
Jean
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGBs Neighbot" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:29:31 AM |
|
|
In article <c5bedf$2rh2fk$1@ID-66050.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you don't like the discussion - simple -
don't participate in it.
It has nothing to do with the discussion, it has to do with trying to
dominate a debate by spreading your position out over multiple threads.
Janithor is perhaps its most frequent practitioner here and it pisses me
off when he does it, too. It's a cheap debating tactic and a rude Usenet
practice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:30:57 AM |
|
|
"RGB's Neighbot" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:--C82B98.08293111042004@news.easynews.com...
In article <c5bedf$2rh2fk$1@ID-66050.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
If you don't like the discussion - simple -
don't participate in it.
It has nothing to do with the discussion, it has to do with trying to
dominate a debate by spreading your position out over multiple
threads.
Janithor is perhaps its most frequent practitioner here and it pisses
me
off when he does it, too. It's a cheap debating tactic and a rude
Usenet
practice.
Rudeness on Usenet?
Jean, aghast
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yuluwirri" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:46:13 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:13:00 GMT, RGB's Neighbot <-@-.-> wrote:
In article <rlih70td2p2ovck1p2ftirvhgtluto9bkf@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
So? What do you think?
I think this discussion belongs in the thread in which it was taking
place. Scoring points by creating extra shelf-footage by starting new
threads is a rather percentile way of pumping up the volume.
Hey I have a right to my snit just like everybody else does :P
--
yuluwirri
~~~~~~~
Fish know.
~~~~~~~
yuluwirri@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
10 Apr 2004 11:44:35 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
yuluwirri wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
O.k. Imagine this. You are a father of an attractive female teenager,
and you are walking down the street with her. She is dressed in jeans,
and a shirt that shows just a little belly.
You walk into your local grocery store, and a bloke, about your age,
starts ogling her in a lusty, noticeable manner.
Do you stop and think to yourself; "well this is a natural
evolutionary response. He's just doing what any other hot-blooded male
would be doing and after all she *is* wearing that top that shows a
little bit of belly, so really she is seeking this attention and
behaviour".
Well? In reality is this what you would think?
I doubt it very much. I think that the majority of blokes with
daughters would want to hunt that dude down and give him a good smack
in the face. More than likely a fierce stare and a protective arm
would be thrown about her shoulders and they would get on with their
shopping, but I can't see that father sitting down with his daughter
and lecturing her on the "evils" of wearing her "teenager suite" to
Woolworths because it is inciting the local perverts to salivate in
her presence.
So? What do you think?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "judith" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:12:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:44:35 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
It's in my headers and it has changed my life! Can I get an "amen",
brothers and sisters?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
Let me know if I'm on track.
Because of the way men perceive, totally independent of social
conditioning, when they see a sexually attractive woman they respond
on a physical level. They think, however fleetingly, about having sex
with her.
When you factor in social conditioning, sexual attractiveness is
clearly defined. Where you and I live, a young woman in revealing
clothes is the standard illustration of that definition.
A mature, decent man, upon seeing a sexually attractive young woman,
will have an initial physical response, kind of like the rush of
adrenaline I feel when someone tailgates me. It happens by itself, so
to speak. However, just as I try not to flip off the ***** in my
rear-view mirror, he will have a secondary reaction that tempers this
initial response. He may glance, but then he will glance away because
it's the mature, decent thing to do.
If he sees that she is very young, 13 or 14 or 16, it won't matter to
him that she has big breasts. Having sex with her will not be
something he wants to do, even if she acts in a way that seems
seductive.
A less mature man will have less success in stepping away from his
initial response. He may stare for too long so that the girl is
uncomfortable, but that doesn't make him a pervert -- it just means he
isn't as mature as the guy described above.
My understanding of sexual violence or "perversion" among males is
that the secondary reaction involves something different entirely.
There is usually conditioning that encourages violence and degradation
as acceptable ways of interacting, not just with women but with
everyone. An abusive family can provide this conditioning, or it can
be learned later in life. For instance, what I know about prison or
reform school is that there is often a clearly defined system of
dominance, where sex and violence are connected.
Is this more or less what you're trying to say?
judith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 07:11:04 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
judith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:44:35 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
It's in my headers and it has changed my life! Can I get an "amen",
brothers and sisters?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
Let me know if I'm on track.
Because of the way men perceive, totally independent of social
conditioning, when they see a sexually attractive woman they respond
on a physical level. They think, however fleetingly, about having sex
with her.
Not even a conscious visual of having sex with her. It's simply an
awareness that a physically attractive female with fully developed
secondary sex characteristics is near you.
e.g. I remember riding in a car down a back road with a friend once.
We passed a woman who was stopped by the road, I don't know why. It was
summer, she was dressed for the weather. I mean, we probably drove past
her going about 45-55. I only saw her out of my peripheral vision, I
didn't even look at her, it wasn't anything conscious on my part. For
some reason, I asked him if he noticed her, he said yes, but he hadn't
looked either. It's instanteous, and it's gone as soon as it comes.
You're not playing out a sex scene with her in your mind, it's just a
sub-conscious awareness, I don't know how else to describe it. But what
was funny was that neither of us looked at her, but we both knew that
there was a good looking woman that we had very quickly passed in the car.
That's it. Nothing big, we didn't have to fight a compulsion to slam on
the brakes and go out and try to have sex with her. Just a simple
awareness that passes as soon as it enters your subconscious.
The immature guy you describe, he's going to latch on to that initial
awareness and carry it further. The pig is going to press the issue
even if it's completely wrong - like going after a 16 yr old when you're 35.
When you factor in social conditioning, sexual attractiveness is
clearly defined. Where you and I live, a young woman in revealing
clothes is the standard illustration of that definition.
A mature, decent man, upon seeing a sexually attractive young woman,
will have an initial physical response, kind of like the rush of
adrenaline I feel when someone tailgates me. It happens by itself, so
to speak. However, just as I try not to flip off the ***** in my
rear-view mirror, he will have a secondary reaction that tempers this
initial response. He may glance, but then he will glance away because
it's the mature, decent thing to do.
Exactly.
If he sees that she is very young, 13 or 14 or 16, it won't matter to
him that she has big breasts. Having sex with her will not be
something he wants to do, even if she acts in a way that seems
seductive.
DING DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER FOLKS!
Couldn't have stated it better myself.
Although there is even a big difference between 13-14 and 17. I think
you'll find that male response increasingly drop off the younger she
looks. 13 yr old girls to me look like kids. A 17 yr old can look 20+,
most of the secondary sex characteristics are there by 17, they're just
starting at 13. That's the trigger I'm talking about - fully developed
secondary sex characteristics. Men are biologically programmed to
respond to this as I described above. What each individual man does
with that response is his own choice.
A less mature man will have less success in stepping away from his
initial response. He may stare for too long so that the girl is
uncomfortable, but that doesn't make him a pervert -- it just means he
isn't as mature as the guy described above.
He may be immature, or he may simply be a pig. Some men are evil, and
will actually rape the woman.
My understanding of sexual violence or "perversion" among males is
that the secondary reaction involves something different entirely.
There is usually conditioning that encourages violence and degradation
as acceptable ways of interacting, not just with women but with
everyone. An abusive family can provide this conditioning, or it can
be learned later in life. For instance, what I know about prison or
reform school is that there is often a clearly defined system of
dominance, where sex and violence are connected.
Is this more or less what you're trying to say?
judith
Yes.
I don't know about perversion or violence, haven't studied to any
degree. But the sexual drive in men does not equal abuse towards woman.
They're 2 completely different things. It's evil men who abuse women.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yuluwirri" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
10 Apr 2004 11:55:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:44:35 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
yuluwirri wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
O.k. Imagine this. You are a father of an attractive female teenager,
and you are walking down the street with her. She is dressed in jeans,
and a shirt that shows just a little belly.
You walk into your local grocery store, and a bloke, about your age,
starts ogling her in a lusty, noticeable manner.
Do you stop and think to yourself; "well this is a natural
evolutionary response. He's just doing what any other hot-blooded male
would be doing and after all she *is* wearing that top that shows a
little bit of belly, so really she is seeking this attention and
behaviour".
Well? In reality is this what you would think?
I doubt it very much. I think that the majority of blokes with
daughters would want to hunt that dude down and give him a good smack
in the face. More than likely a fierce stare and a protective arm
would be thrown about her shoulders and they would get on with their
shopping, but I can't see that father sitting down with his daughter
and lecturing her on the "evils" of wearing her "teenager suite" to
Woolworths because it is inciting the local perverts to salivate in
her presence.
So? What do you think?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
Okay well then we have a problem with communication because this is
what I am "hearing". I've thought again and made sure and yep, I'm
really confused now.
By the way, what do you think you would be feeling if the above
happened to you?
--
yuluwirri
~~~~~~~
Fish know.
~~~~~~~
yuluwirri@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:04:47 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
yuluwirri wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:44:35 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
yuluwirri wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
O.k. Imagine this. You are a father of an attractive female teenager,
and you are walking down the street with her. She is dressed in jeans,
and a shirt that shows just a little belly.
You walk into your local grocery store, and a bloke, about your age,
starts ogling her in a lusty, noticeable manner.
Do you stop and think to yourself; "well this is a natural
evolutionary response. He's just doing what any other hot-blooded male
would be doing and after all she *is* wearing that top that shows a
little bit of belly, so really she is seeking this attention and
behaviour".
Well? In reality is this what you would think?
I doubt it very much. I think that the majority of blokes with
daughters would want to hunt that dude down and give him a good smack
in the face. More than likely a fierce stare and a protective arm
would be thrown about her shoulders and they would get on with their
shopping, but I can't see that father sitting down with his daughter
and lecturing her on the "evils" of wearing her "teenager suite" to
Woolworths because it is inciting the local perverts to salivate in
her presence.
So? What do you think?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
Okay well then we have a problem with communication because this is
what I am "hearing". I've thought again and made sure and yep, I'm
really confused now.
That's what I've been saying since yesterday, but nobody listened to me.
They've been debating with me, but the problem is their rebuttals are
to arguments I've never once made.
By the way, what do you think you would be feeling if the above
happened to you?
If I had a daughter, I think I'd probably be a bit over-protective. I
mean, I worry about leaving my dog in the car because I don't want
anyone to steal him. So yes, if I had a daughter, and some slobbering
old twit started drooling on her, I would disabuse him of that notion
very quickly.
I mean, please, what the heck do you think I'd think? "Here ya go
buddy, she's all yours, but you have to pre-pay me first"? Of course
I'd be pissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "yuluwirri" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:42:55 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:04:47 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:44:35 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
(snipped scenario)
So? What do you think?
I think you're not understanding me at all. This is not an argument I'm
making, that's for sure.
Okay well then we have a problem with communication because this is
what I am "hearing". I've thought again and made sure and yep, I'm
really confused now.
That's what I've been saying since yesterday, but nobody listened to me.
They've been debating with me, but the problem is their rebuttals are
to arguments I've never once made.
But I just want to talk about your and my communication for the
moment. I am having trouble remembering our own let alone everyone
else's responses.
By the way, what do you think you would be feeling if the above
happened to you?
If I had a daughter, I think I'd probably be a bit over-protective. I
mean, I worry about leaving my dog in the car because I don't want
anyone to steal him. So yes, if I had a daughter, and some slobbering
old twit started drooling on her, I would disabuse him of that notion
very quickly.
I mean, please, what the heck do you think I'd think? "Here ya go
buddy, she's all yours, but you have to pre-pay me first"? Of course
I'd be pissed.
Well then that's exactly how Luna felt when she first wrote her
original message. That's why I couldn't understand why you responded
the way that you did and I (and some others) jumped to the conclusion
that you were supporting the right's of the "onlooker" as if it were a
natural and normal thing to do.
For example: (you were responding to Luna)
Guys, being genetically programmed to look at young attracive
women, look. That's why she dresses like that. She can't pick and
choose who's going to look, just like you can't pick and choose who and
how people will respond to you in a newsgroup. She can't control the
general public, she can only respond to it.
I think my argument is this: Why *should* they have to deal with the
filthy looks in the first place? A glance, an appreciative look, sure
- that's all reasonable and very normal.
This is the point.
It is wrong to leer at our teenagers male and female alike.
And no, she cannot control the general public as you say, however nor
should that limit her from wearing what she chooses to wear (within
limits).
To me, it just felt as if you were standing up for the pricks of
society. That's what rattled my bones. You say that this definitely
wasn't your intent, so that's it then.
Just a final thought. I really don't understand why "it" (what Luna
posted originally at the very start of all of this) was commented on
in the first place. I just don't understand why it just couldn't stand
alone as a comment made by an outraged parent having a normal reaction
to a possible threat to her daughter.
--
yuluwirri
~~~~~~~
Fish know.
~~~~~~~
yuluwirri@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGBs Neighbot" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:52:50 AM |
|
|
In article <dcmh70tp2eptb28kmv8lva563q5cu9o4oa@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is wrong to leer at our teenagers male and female alike.
As has been said too many times already, fine.
But give Luna her due in keeping this nonsense going (and going and
going) with ill-considered and -- yes -- "provocative" nonsense about
how her gorgeous, tall, beautiful daughter exposes that luscious band of
flesh above her pubic bone not as a self-conscious woman but as a
helpless, naive agent of The Zeitgeist of Her Generation, innocently
flashing coded signals to her horny little peers that are, however,
supposed to be out of receiving range for those filthy, disgusting,
worthy-of-being-tortured-to-death over-30 spectators whose only value
lies in giving Juicy Fruit something convenient to spit on.
I mean, give me a fucking break. Some people just do not know how to
conduct an argument in civil terms.
<SMILEY>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 07:32:06 AM |
|
|
"RGB's Neighbot" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:--557235.22524910042004@news.easynews.com...
In article <dcmh70tp2eptb28kmv8lva563q5cu9o4oa@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is wrong to leer at our teenagers male and female alike.
As has been said too many times already, fine.
But give Luna her due in keeping this nonsense going (and going and
going) with ill-considered and -- yes -- "provocative" nonsense about
how her gorgeous, tall, beautiful daughter exposes that luscious band
of
flesh above her pubic bone not as a self-conscious woman but as a
helpless, naive agent of The Zeitgeist of Her Generation, innocently
flashing coded signals to her horny little peers that are, however,
supposed to be out of receiving range for those filthy, disgusting,
worthy-of-being-tortured-to-death over-30 spectators whose only value
lies in giving Juicy Fruit something convenient to spit on.
I mean, give me a fucking break. Some people just do not know how to
conduct an argument in civil terms.
Crikey AhrGeeBee - it's a fucking stomach. Sometimes there's a belly
button visible. No thong strings, no pasties, no t shirts that read
"jailbait". Are you saying that because she's tall and beautiful
(she's 17 remember, when most of 'em are) this somehow exempts her from
her right to wear a belly shirt?
Nowhere did I say she was helpless and so far as being naive, she's
sevenfuckingteen. Oh, and gawking creeps aren't worthy of Juicy Fruit
spittage.
So far as keeping this thing "going on and on", it's a newsgroup and
that's how we do things here.
Jean
<SMILEY>
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGBs Neighbot" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:23:37 AM |
|
|
In article <c5bds6$2qrv0t$1@ID-66050.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are you saying that because she's tall and beautiful
(she's 17 remember, when most of 'em are) this somehow exempts
her from her right to wear a belly shirt?
Of course not. I wasn't even talking about the belly, I was talking
about how and why you brought it up. Frankly, all your worshipful
hyperbole about what a babe your daughter is has the ring of a kind of
exhibitionism by proxy.
Does she know your using the subject of her body to flog your own
dolphin out here like this?
Nowhere did I say she was helpless and so far as being naive, she's
sevenfuckingteen.
Then why all the crap about "dress codes" and "uniforms"? Make up your
mind, is she a blazing free spirit, unconcerned with the opinions of all
but herself, or a peer pressured slave to teenage fashion, dressing as
she does because that's how she's "supposed" to dress?
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 01:48:35 AM |
|
|
RGB's Neighbot wrote:
In article <c5bds6$2qrv0t$1@ID-66050.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Are you saying that because she's tall and beautiful
(she's 17 remember, when most of 'em are) this somehow exempts
her from her right to wear a belly shirt?
Of course not. I wasn't even talking about the belly, I was talking
about how and why you brought it up. Frankly, all your worshipful
hyperbole about what a babe your daughter is has the ring of a kind of
exhibitionism by proxy.
Does she know your using the subject of her body to flog your own
dolphin out here like this?
Nowhere did I say she was helpless and so far as being naive, she's
sevenfuckingteen.
Then why all the crap about "dress codes" and "uniforms"? Make up your
mind, is she a blazing free spirit, unconcerned with the opinions of all
but herself, or a peer pressured slave to teenage fashion, dressing as
she does because that's how she's "supposed" to dress?
Actually, to move things further into unknown territory, isn't a
flat stomach *exactly* what we are talking about?
Tight butts, shapely lines and a pronounced bust are just the basics
of male attraction. Yet, what really gets 40+ hormones raging is a
flat stomach.
Very few woman can have a flat stomach after childbirth. Even less
after two or three births. The flat belly is the first thing to go.
Most of us men allow for that and are happy that we have traded our
wive's flat stomach for an offspring.
It still doesn't change the fact that "lo-riders" are an older man's
biggest turn on. Flat stomachs on show are going to be more
attractive than nearly any other body part.
So my point is who's cynicism are we talking about? The fashion
designers who have made this discovery, the children who wear them,
the parents that allow their children to wear them or the poor sod
who hasn't seen a bare flat stomach on public display for a very
long time?
GlennT
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 10:31:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:48:35 +1200, GlennT <ask@noname.com> wrote:
Very few woman can have a flat stomach after childbirth. Even less
after two or three births. The flat belly is the first thing to go.
Most of us men allow for that and are happy that we have traded our
wive's flat stomach for an offspring.
All it takes is a reduced fat diet and some sit-ups.
---
BIGOT, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion
that you do not entertain.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 08:23:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:31:01 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:48:35 +1200, GlennT <ask@noname.com> wrote:
Very few woman can have a flat stomach after childbirth. Even less
after two or three births. The flat belly is the first thing to go.
Most of us men allow for that and are happy that we have traded our
wive's flat stomach for an offspring.
All it takes is a reduced fat diet and some sit-ups.
from puberty on I've not had a flat tummy. Even when I was in YCC and
did hard labor all summer and was the best shape in my life. No extra
fat on that bod either.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 10:53:08 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:48:35 +1200, GlennT <ask@noname.com> wrote:
Very few woman can have a flat stomach after childbirth. Even less
after two or three births. The flat belly is the first thing to go.
Most of us men allow for that and are happy that we have traded our
wive's flat stomach for an offspring.
All it takes is a reduced fat diet and some sit-ups.
IIRC, (i.e. I may be full of crap, I'm simply regurgitating what I've
heard), you can't exercise and isolate particular points in your body.
Where fat gets deposited is determined by your geness. So situps will
not reduce the fat in your stomach necessarily. Situps only affect the
muscles beneath the stomach. In other words, what I remember reading,
is that you could have rock-hard abs covered under a layer of fat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pinwheel" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 06:11:47 PM |
|
|
Aerobic exercise burns the fat. There's no getting around it, but there are
different ways to do it that don't involve punishing oneself.
--
--Pinwheel
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:407C0CC9.1040009@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
CyberDroog wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:48:35 +1200, GlennT <ask@noname.com> wrote:
Very few woman can have a flat stomach after childbirth. Even less
after two or three births. The flat belly is the first thing to go.
Most of us men allow for that and are happy that we have traded our
wive's flat stomach for an offspring.
All it takes is a reduced fat diet and some sit-ups.
IIRC, (i.e. I may be full of crap, I'm simply regurgitating what I've
heard), you can't exercise and isolate particular points in your body.
Where fat gets deposited is determined by your geness. So situps will
not reduce the fat in your stomach necessarily. Situps only affect the
muscles beneath the stomach. In other words, what I remember reading,
is that you could have rock-hard abs covered under a layer of fat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
14 Apr 2004 06:00:49 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
pinwheel wrote:
Aerobic exercise burns the fat. There's no getting around it, but there are
different ways to do it that don't involve punishing oneself.
Right, but what I read is that you can't isolate the area where you plan
to lose weight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 01:50:07 AM |
|
|
hey Glenn , go ***** yourself
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
13 Apr 2004 02:48:42 AM |
|
|
% wrote:
hey Glenn , go ***** yourself
I could if it would reach...
GlennT (Not as big as necessary)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "elegy" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 01:45:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 05:52:50 GMT, RGB's Neighbot <-@-.-> wrote:
In article <dcmh70tp2eptb28kmv8lva563q5cu9o4oa@4ax.com>,
yuluwirri <yuluwirri@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is wrong to leer at our teenagers male and female alike.
As has been said too many times already, fine.
But give Luna her due in keeping this nonsense going (and going and
going) with ill-considered and -- yes -- "provocative" nonsense about
how her gorgeous, tall, beautiful daughter exposes that luscious band of
flesh above her pubic bone not as a self-conscious woman but as a
helpless, naive agent of The Zeitgeist of Her Generation, innocently
flashing coded signals to her horny little peers that are, however,
supposed to be out of receiving range for those filthy, disgusting,
worthy-of-being-tortured-to-death over-30 spectators whose only value
lies in giving Juicy Fruit something convenient to spit on.
I mean, give me a fucking break. Some people just do not know how to
conduct an argument in civil terms.
<SMILEY>
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH. i have one. it sees the light
of day from time to time. i don't consider myself to be dressing to
attract attention, men, or anything else.
---
"what does my body have to do
with my gratitude?" (ani d)
http://shattering.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 07:34:36 AM |
|
|
"elegy" <elegy@shattering.org> wrote in message
news:h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com...
<snip>
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH. i have one. it sees the light
of day from time to time. i don't consider myself to be dressing to
attract attention, men, or anything else.
Oh, haven't you heard? That stomach of yours is EVIL.
Jean
..
---
"what does my body have to do
with my gratitude?" (ani d)
http://shattering.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "elegy" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:01:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:34:36 -0400, "Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"elegy" <elegy@shattering.org> wrote in message
news:h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com...
<snip>
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH. i have one. it sees the light
of day from time to time. i don't consider myself to be dressing to
attract attention, men, or anything else.
Oh, haven't you heard? That stomach of yours is EVIL.
no doubt! it's that sexy navel ring of mine :p it's planning world
domination.
---
"what does my body have to do
with my gratitude?" (ani d)
http://shattering.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "|||| || | ||||| ||||||||" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:33:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:34:36 -0400, "Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
"elegy" <elegy@shattering.org> wrote in message
news:h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com...
<snip>
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH. i have one. it sees the light
of day from time to time. i don't consider myself to be dressing to
attract attention, men, or anything else.
Oh, haven't you heard? That stomach of yours is EVIL.
Stomachs = sexy & evil?!?!
I must be one seriously horny psychopath!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nina" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 12:34:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:33:26 +0100, "|||| || | ||||| ||||||||"
<bahcod@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:34:36 -0400, "Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
"elegy" <elegy@shattering.org> wrote in message
news:h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com...
<snip>
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH. i have one. it sees the light
of day from time to time. i don't consider myself to be dressing to
attract attention, men, or anything else.
Oh, haven't you heard? That stomach of yours is EVIL.
Stomachs = sexy & evil?!?!
I must be one seriously horny psychopath!
You are. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGBs Neighbot" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:11:46 AM |
|
|
In article <h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com>,
elegy <elegy@shattering.org> wrote:
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH.
Whose stomach was brought up here, and in what context? Think back to
Luna's original reference to Precious's tumbly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "elegy" |
|
| Title: Re: It's not only a female "thing" |
11 Apr 2004 10:23:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:11:46 GMT, RGB's Neighbot <-@-.-> wrote:
In article <h8qh70tvu4alf8jopivpo05i3vsuan9r5a@4ax.com>,
elegy <elegy@shattering.org> wrote:
for crying out loud it's just a STOMACH.
Whose stomach was brought up here, and in what context? Think back to
Luna's original reference to Precious's tumbly.
but it's still a stomach.
---
"what does my body have to do
with my gratitude?" (ani d)
http://shattering.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
