It’s the first time I hear of it with that meaning, as well. To me the rule of three is a mathematical thing (specifically, the mechanism used to solve a proportionality problem), although that appears to be a name that’s not used in every country (I’ve had coworkers from multiple countries who knew it by that name in the local language, others who didn’t and others who didn’t even know it was a thing).
:rolleyes: By this logic, if Hitler had managed to conquer the entire world, he wouldn’t be oppressing anyone because there would be no other states!
Likewise, it will not surprise you that not only did I not say all men share the sexual proclivities I mentioned, not even all heterosexual men, I actually acknowledged this fact as well. I am a bit saddened by your lack of good faith summation of my post but i am glad that you and Huey have found (even more) common ground to build upon.
A rabbi, a minister, and a Wiccan High Priest walk into a bar…
Only if he tried to merge all countries under one banner and somehow I doubt he intended the Third Reich to have Kenya, Ethiopia or the like as member states.
Did you catch my use of the word “most”? When i spoke for myself I made it clear that that was what I was doing. When I was referring to the cultural conditioning of sex attraction in our society I said “most men” (heterosexual) share common attri**butes, generally speaking, that they find attractive and relatively unattractive in women. These tend to be what is considered “feminine” attributes. Keep in mind I am referring exclusively to physical attraction and exclusively in what the majority of men in our skin-deep beauty-centric society have been conditioned to find attractive.
Also, I never claimed that those who are attracted to woman with physical features like Serena must be attracted to them for the very same reason most other man are specifically not attracted (meaning attracted to masculine features). I merely said it was a common truth in our culture that the basis of the same “masculine” physical traits in women as a general rule were seen as something to be contained and limited, not developed to proportions that are seen as desirable in men. Its why a fit, flat stomach is seen as attractive on a woman in many mens eyes but a rippling six pack is not.
Well, there’s this dude. Not going to get into a tedious “what exactly is white” discussion.
He can only talk about rabid right-wing xenophobic racism in order to fuel his diatribe. Without it, he got nuttin’. Hey Huey, what about the millions upon millions of white people who arent knee-jerk reactionary racists and zero-sum xenophobes from the far right of the country’s political ideology? Do you have anything to say about this vast section of the melanin-challenged American populace?
I think folks around here can be forgiven for unfamiliarity with a concept from an absurd, transparently fabricated occult religion that appeals mostly to teenagers from the nineties.
Again, just speak for yourself. Not “most” heterosexual men. Just yourself.
Ambivalid, I agree with your statement in general terms and it describes why I don’t find Amelie Mauresmo attractive. But Serena is much curvier and more feminine if you ask me.
ETA:
Oh snap!
God, you’re dumb, you sad motherfucker.
Even assuming hegemony *necessitated *oppression, that’s *still *affirming the consequent, you stupid prick.
Not that a single global state could be hegemonic - by definition. You *ignorant *fuck.
Tell us again how you have papers that prove how smart you are, you moronic chucklefuck. That never gets old.
Up next, no doubt - a desperate troll through the more obscure dictionary definitions of *hegemon *in a pathetic attempt to pretend you knew what you were talking about. Well, jump to it, boy…
Fair enough. I just have an extremely hard time understanding how anyone could disagree with the notion I was describing if they are discussing this in good faith. Are you suggesting that no one can comment on the nature of our sexualized culture and the (admittedly arbitrarily) constructed gender lines that this culture has (d)evolved along? We are beginning to make progress but surely one can’t argue that the archetypal “gorgeous woman” is still considered the ideal by a large section of our population? I’m not inserting value judgment into this being true, I’d like to see it continue to be dismantled. But until it approaches the galaxy of “full circle” it will be a cultural truth whether you or I as individuals subscribe to it or not.
Care to get into a tedious “what exactly is modern” discussion, instead?
I agree with you about much of media and culture. I just don’t extrapolate that to determining what “most” men find attractive.
Not a huge deal. I had a much bigger problem with the first post I responded to (the one where you talked about Serena’s physical features) than the ones since.
I wouldn’t characterize it that way, but to each their own, yes? The whole last page or so illustrates that concept rather well.
Moving on to Huey. I agree with Ambivalid and likely with some of what SlackerInc is saying if I were to wade through it. Huey, being a shit-stirring troll, is throwing out news stories with his own special racial bias like meat to the lions. Whites, all whites, are evil. Blacks, all blacks, are good. This is nonsense. When he gets tired of that uproar, he pulls out “autism” is caused by in-breeding. Blacks don’t have it. So sad, too bad for you folks. Data be damned.
There’s a lot to discuss about racial issues in America. It’s unfortunate that Huey’s contributions are a literate version of “eat shit and die”.
You know, if I would have been asked before this U.S. Open match, I think I probably would have shared your sentiments. But she looked different this time. Altered. Her face and head seemed larger, wider. She was massive like ive never seen her, and she has always been a superb physical specimen. She has mass, she has definition and she has aggression that even higher-normal levels of male-testosterone can’t match. Add to that the temper, the growth (to my eyes at least) of non-muscle bodily components (connective tissue? bone?) and I see a pharmaceutically enhanced warrior who has sacrificed a degree of her natural beauty in the pursuit of competitive glory. Non of this enhances her innate talent. I’m not saying any of this to denigrate or lessen her amazing place in the history of tennis. Like Lebron James, I feel like she is a pure athlete of such caliber that only comes around once in a century or so. She has an unmatched combination of athletic talents and traits that make her a legend. She was just prettier earlier on in her career. In MY humblest of opinions. Indubitably!
But if a majority of men (since we’re talking about men in this instance) are conditioned from childhood by media and culture as to the roles for men and the roles for women, would not part of that include being conditioned to what is considered “attractive” in women, as well as what they should be in possession of (as far as traits) in order to attract women? Granted, we are talking somewhat narrow-mindedly but that is the whole point. Society at large isn’t exactly a bastion of enlightenment. Be forthright here, do you disagree that more men than not would be more attracted (sexually) to what our culture defines as a woman with feminine traits than to a woman with more unconventional, even tradition-rejecting traits? I’m not asking what you would be more attracted to but rather what you believe is true of our society in general.
I suspect just about everyone who lives in our society is affected by that culture, I just wouldn’t extrapolate that to being able to make conclusions about traits that “most” men find unattractive.
Being a Nazi at one point in time or a drug dealer or something shouldn’t exclude one from employment. That’s empathy, son.
You are doing a good job finding anecdotes. But I could go to WorldStar and find all sorts of anecdotes as well. C’mon Huey you got to engage with at least a tiny bit of honesty otherwise you look like a caricature.