What, the guy with the dog’s head?
Ah. Maybe you’re just responding to her natural charisma, which is likely far and away above those other students and is why she’s done so well in politics.
Or maybe it was her tighter clothing and more sexual moves (at the beginning).
ETA: It’s a bit premature to say she has done “so well in politics”. Time will tell.
I’m not so sure about this. I don’t think we can really say in any objective way what’s inherently sexual, although I certainly agree her primary intent was not to be salacious.
And I’m not sure that the moderation hinges only on this, although I agree it’s relevant to the charge of misogyny. I mean, if it turned out that some public figure had acted in a porn movie in their youth, I would hope that a pornhub-level discussion of the merits of the movie as a masturbation aid would still be out of bounds on this forum.
It seems to me that primary point is more what SmartAleq said rather eloquently above. There’s nothing inherently wrong with sexual feelings, whether they are stimulated by AOC dancing or the sight of an erotically-shaped vegetable. But unless you’re in an appropriate social setting, those thoughts should remain inside your head. In general, the world doesn’t need to know about when and how much your penis might be twitching.
Political people are people who do political things. People who write about people who do political things are writers. The people who you pointed to are not actively involved in politics.
Also, none of them were discussing how sexy they think Alexandria Occasio-Cortez is. That was all you.
Anyway. Go back and read SmartAleq’s post about how it’s inappropriate to talk about your penis feelings, out loud, in public. Keep reading it until you understand that describing women in terms of your penis is treating them like sex objects, which is bad and wrong. If you have any questions, ask Fenris.
If it were remotely possible to decide what is and is not inherently sexual then Rule 34 wouldn’t exist. It does, therefore all ascribing of sexuality is in the head of the observer. Where it should remain.
No, I was referring to UV saying hey that’s the sexy bitch from the video- no, you didn’t call her a bitch while telling us all that you want to fap to the video. Thanks?
Either way, posting what you posted in Elections was clearly out of line, which is what you were warned for.
Since it’s been amply explained to you what the problem was, and now we’re just going around in circles once again, I think we’re done here. We’re not going to re-litigate this issue every week.
As a thought exercise, Slacker - what would be the limit past which someone shouldn’t make certain comments of a sexual nature towards those whose roles is not inherently realted to sex appeal?
Should we allow talk of bukkake and one’s desire to perform it with Congress people too? Your answer will inform my understanding.
Edit - didn’t see Colbri closed the thread. My point was that if you accept there should be likits, then it’s a judgmentcall l where that line is. The mod staff disagree with where you’d place it.