Symmetry wrote:4) ...you managed to reach your keyboard, in your final moments before collapsing from sheer exhaustion, to tap out that you had identified several flaws in my post, and to tease us with the promise of identifying them later.
It does happen. Writing is considerably easier than reading, just as eating is considerably easier than cooking. It is entirely plausible that someone can read something and have an intelligent opinion about it and yet not the remaining fortitude to turn that opinion into comprehensible prose.
And you're right, if I didn't have the fortitude to answer properly I probably should have said nothing at all (which would be what I'd normally do) but for some reason the "post of the year" comment annoyed me. I can't reproduce my annoyance now, so it probably was a function of the fatigue already cited...
Symmetry wrote:P.S. On an unrelated note, I corrected a few spelling errors in your post. Not everyone is comfortable with me doing that, but as you said, your post came at a point of absolute mental exhaustion.
Symmetry wrote:So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for.
I hope I'm being direct enough here, and that we're pretty much on the same page.
No more pretending that when I called KoolBack a "Master Baiter" that I wasn't referring to masturbation, or indeed when I suggested that posters were here to "mass debate" that I wasn't making a joke about that too. Let's be clear- this isn't a thread for appreciating feminine beauty, or about figuring out where women turn up in various degrees of ranking. It's about titillation and sexy kicks.
I can't speak for KoolBack or anyone else, but I can honestly tell you that I have never masturbated while reading any part of the CC forums. Never was even tempted. Admittedly that might be because I'm getting old and my testosterone levels are not what they used to be. I suppose if I was 17 and looking at these images it might be a different story. But then, a 17 year old can ejaculate by staring at a knothole in a cedar plank, so that too doesn't prove much.
Symmetry wrote:So let me level with the people on this thread absolutely and with no ambiguity. I think it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks. That's what it's for. It's not for aesthetic appreciation of women.
I'm not sure if you (or I, or anyone else) are qualified to judge where to draw the line between those two.
Our sense of aesthetics is driven by our basic animal instincts. A fresh strawberry looks lovely because it is edible. There is no inherent reason why a can of boot polish should be less attractive than a strawberry. The only reason we don't "ooh!" when we see a can of boot polish is that it doesn't correspond to anything we like to eat.
Similarly we see a woman as beautiful because, at the most basic instinctive level, we want to copulate with her. There's no objective, independent reason why a human female should be judged more beautiful than a female squid, or for that matter a male armadillo. There's no abstract, independent formula by which you could say that the curve of a woman's buttock is superior to the curve of a male armadillo's buttock. It's purely subjective, and that subjectivity is rooted in our instinct to pursue and investigate that buttock.
So, if you want to make accusation of us seeking imagery for sexual titillation, well, that kind of accusation is easy to make because it's to a large degree quite true, and yet, it contributes nothing to our understanding. You could make the point that the classic Coca-Cola bottle was chosen because it vaguely reminds us of a buxom woman's body, and again, you'd probably be right, but what are you really proving by it?
We are all (and I do mean all -- even though we are primarily talking about heterosexual men, I think the same impulses are found in a weaker form among women and homosexual men) to some degree attracted to the image of a fertile-looking woman, but there are lines drawn between the "normal" level of titilation and the "pornographic." These lines are highly subjective and vary strongly with culture, but they do exist. The typical respectably-dressed businesswoman in our culture would probably be considered a harlot if she was transported into 17th century England, or even 20th century Saudi Arabia.
Arguing that someone can get turned on by image #___ on page #___ of this thread is, even if true, a dishonest attempt at misdirection. Depending on one's personal tastes and preferences, the list of images we can get turned on by is pretty long and pretty variable.
No matter where you draw the line someone will argue that it's too conservative or too liberal. I think the makers of this website have done a decent job of drawing the line at a point that a majority of users can agree with. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself, but to get back to the original point:
Your statement that "it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks ... not for aesthetic appreciation of women.
" assumes a false distinction that doesn't exist. Our aesthetic sense is rooted in basic instincts for things we can eat, places we can live, and women we can impregnate.
Symmetry wrote:This thread went way off topic a long time ago, and it maintains its popularity by a kind of blind eye turned towards the OP and the general guidelines of the forum. Indeed, my posts seem to have actually required a moderator to change the title specifically to allow this thread to solely be about posting nudey pics of women. Guys in swimming trunks being completely off topic, and indeed, so offensive that I was reported.
So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for. No more beating around the bush (and I'm aware that might have sexual connotations, but I mean it in its more general sense), this is a thread for people to get sexually aroused by pictures of sexy women. We both know that there is no other way I could be accused of ruining this thread, as I have frequently been, without that being the case. Without that, there would be no complaints, no reports, no accusations.
Almost everywhere I've worked (admittedly in very male-dominated proletarian situations) the first order of business each day was for someone to bring in a copy of the Toronto Sun and for everyone to gather around and examine the Sunshine Girl. I'm told the Sunshine Girl is an idea directly stolen from your London Sun, so you're no doubt familiar with it. The only difference is that your British Sunshine Girl is topless and ours has to have a token covering up top as well as on the bottom (an illustration of the nuances of the line-drawing game being played differently in different places.)
Incidentally, I've never seen anyone looking at the Sunshine Girl and rushing off to a dark corner to relieve their pressure. It's just something to put a smile on their face while they set about their dull, dreary tasks of earning their daily bread.
The interesting part about all this is the various maneuverings of the Sunshine Girl over the years. The original 70's Sunshine Girl was on Page Three just like yours. In the early 80's, demand for equal time resulted in the addition of a Sunshine Boy. But since the Girl had a firm grip on Page Three, the Boy usually languished somewhere around Page Fifty. This led to further cries of favoritism, so various attempts were made during the 90s to put them on an equal footing -- first close to the front, and then close to the back. But putting the Girl and Boy on an equal footing, whether on Page 4+5 or on page 54+55, led to worse outcries than ever before. People of all genders and all sexual preferences didn't want their ideal beauty "contaminated" by the presence of their non-ideal beauty. Today they both languish somewhere in the second half of the tabloid, but on widely separated pages, so that someone looking for the Girl cannot be horrified by an accidental viewing of the Boy, and vice-versa.
That's just the way it is, in papers with a circulation of millions, just as much as in a forum with perhaps 20 regular readers. I think you know that, which is why your outrage doesn't follow. Nothing you have said hasn't been said a thousand times in Letters to the Editor of the Sun. Let Girl watchers have some girls, let Boy watchers have some boys, and don't assume the mantle of holiness and try to force a commingling, or try to make those who want an unsullied Girl seem somehow perverse.