Posted on 10/15/2009 7:15:04 AM PDT by pissant
“Sounds like you need to get l*id friend. You have woman issues, maybe bitter about the prom queen turning you down. Let it go.”
Irrelevant! Everything I’m saying could be said by the world’s handsomest man. Why is it so difficult for people to remain objective when sex and looks are involved?
No, there is a difference between saying someone is attractive and saying you want to bang her.
“I find it ironic that a game of make-believe caused you to cast dispersions on my understanding of it.”
Dangit, meant to say casting Aspersions.
and that's what makes it pleasant to daydream. Why take that away from somebody?
“Do you then agree that there might be a difference between
‘oh, she is an attractive woman’
and
‘I’d f’ that!’”
There is no fundamental difference. It’s not the way you’d phrase it in certain company, and it’s not something we’re encouraged to admit. But to most men, finding a woman attractive is to find them sexually attractive. And to find them sexually attractive is to want to have sex with them, given the right circumstances.
As I’ve been saying, there are factors that could stand in the way. For some people, their sexual history or ideology, for instance, might be a turn-off. Forgiving as we are, most of us are willing to look past such shortcomings.
What is pathetic is that an heiress is so lacking in a life that she sits alone in a hotel room twittering her boobs for a cheap thrill. Her family needs to stage an intervention.
Again, you are saying it doesn’t matter if she is a mass murderer, a Bill Ayers devotee, an Obama lover.... if you find her pretty you’d have sex with her. So she is just a pretty package with a vagina. Fence jumping dogs G...
“No, there is a difference between saying someone is attractive and saying you want to bang her.”
To (some) women, yes. To (most) men, no.
Will you just stop - all you are doing is convincing me more and more that you need therapy. Go fantasize about Meghan....
“Will you just stop - all you are doing is convincing me more and more that you need therapy. Go fantasize about Meghan...”
Enough with the ad hominem attacks. If you don’t like what I’m saying, don’t respond.
Frankly I've been suspicious for years now that women act weird in front of me just to make sure I have enough to subtract so as I'll leave them alone. Take XS for example - a person can't really be like that, right?
“If you don’t like what I’m saying, don’t respond.”
Correction, if you don’t consider what I’m saying worthy of response, don’t respond. The point being, either respond to my arguments or don’t. Please don’t psychoanalyze.
And xs is going to ream you over that remark.. lol
dang it, why does that last 1/3rd of a complete fantasy always bite me in the butt (so to speak).
You be right though, Whyisa(nametoolongtocare) - I should have read more - behavior totally fits into the attractiveness equation.
I’d click on Meghan McCain’s thread with a sexually promising title and a knowledge of Freepers habit of posting pictures w/ the wife not around... but that is about all.
Darned human nature! :)
I don’t discuss, in public, if I would be willing to have sex with someone. You DO know what the term “I’d hit that” means don’t you? It’s one thing to say someone is attractive. I think that going further is really more info than most people want (and those who really want to hear about that—are they folks you want to share with??!)
Then hon, if you’re simply trying to say she’s attractive, why don’t you say that? Why do you have to say it in a crude and sexual manner? That’s really what puzzles me.
Like females do not go after bad boys and criminals. It is a harmless verbal game, just like with the guilty not guilty for female teaches (that have sex with students.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.