Posted on 11/11/2014 12:44:00 AM PST by Secret Agent Man
The Cranberries prior posting about the gal singer who assaulted the flight attendant and cop was the last stupid straw about posting about guilt based on looks. (Note I am not a big Cranberries fan, I have no dog in this particular hunt - it's just an example.)
I am not against posts that discuss a person's looks per se. Particularly if it factors into the issue being discussed. If it's relevant, it's relevant.
What I am objecting to are the stupid inane posts that add nothing of value to the thread and detract from the reputation of this site as being a far better place than any liberal discussion site out there.
I am just so flipping tired of idiots claiming to be conservatives posting comments of absolutely zero value about the guilt or innocence of - almost always - a female person, based solely on her looks.
It's stupid. After being done a billion times, it's not even funny. Why so-called conservatives here think this is appropriate every time a female is in a news story that has potential criminal/illegal actions, what it really is is just tiresome. It adds nothing substantive to the thread. It makes the image of this place look crass.
And it makes light of actual crimes committed by people based on if they have breasts and vaginas. And it's entirely one way. Note we do not have thousands of post replies over the years discussing the guilt or innocence of male criminals based on how good looking they are. The female conservatives here (and the pervy guys who post all the time about females) have somehow restrained themselves from any posts of this kind, yet they cannot help themselves to go this way when there's a legal controversy with a female. Then it's find a photo, and let the idiotic guilt or innocence comment postings commence.
Can we just try to keep it classy here? Do we always have to devolve to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gutter humor here when women make the news for bad behavior/crimes? Don;t we have better standards as conservatives? Having a sense of humor is important, but why is it funny that a woman is innocent or guilty because of her looks? What makes this funny? Because ugly women deserve to be locked up? Because hot women can always get out of crimes or bad behavior and ugly women can't? This is the funny stereotype these comments are playing off of?
And when the crimes are sexual crimes, as they often are, in the articles these comments surface in, why should this be made fun of? Because there aren't any negative consequences that occur to a young boy or girl when an adult female decides to satisfy their sexual urges with usually an underage boy or girl? The same stuff isn't treated lightly or humorously when an adult male does it, in fact death threat statements and the like are posted. But it's all fun and games and smart-ass humor when a woman does it.
What makes it wrong is conservatives ought to know better. They do know that there are negative consequences to teens who have sex with adults, BOTH men and women. It's not victimless only if a woman does it. It screws up their viewpoint of sex and male-female relationships. In both cases these posters KNOW that it's wrong to have an adult authority figure having sex with kids they are in positions of overseeing. It's wrong for male and female adults to look at students as potential personal sexual conquests.
This is sick behavior for a site supposedly made up of conservatives.
Lets just face the facts here.
If they’re hot, and most of the guys here(not Laz - he’d hit anything) would ‘hit it’, they can do no wrong, and are “not guilty”.
On the other hand, if they look like they could go into a haunted house and walk out with a paycheck, it’s OFF TO THE GALLOWS!!! GUILTY!!!!!!
Then for you a woman (or man) would have to make the incentive enouqh to overcome your intention to resist. If a .22 was held to your head would it be enouqh incentive for you to allow yourself to comply with what was asked of you?
Have you watched “Sherlock”? There’s a place where Maqnussen tweaks John’s eyes, demonstratinq how it’s a power struqqle. Maqnussen knew who to contact to brinq out the uqly past of John’s wife, Mary. And in order to keep Maqnussen from doinq that, John was willinq to let Maqnussen do whatever he wanted - because the incentive was qreater than the desire to resist.
That’s what rape is. When it’s “rape-rape”, as Whoopi would say. And it’s very possible for a woman to do to a man. It’s a matter of what the incentive is.
But this thread apparently isn’t supposed to be serious so I think I’ll just qo away.
You can ALWAYS be counted on for words of wisdom on most any topic.
(you should seriously write a book, start a talk show or something lol)
Do you happen to have her number handy?
Sorry, I had the day off and slept in ... what did I miss?
Personally, I use the word homosexual instead of slang words. I try to treat people with respect, regardless of their disorder. I doubt that freepers are using faggot and queer in real life encounters with homosexuals.
The exception would be zero. He deserves zero respect. And I would say everything to his face that I say on here if given the opportunity.
Use any of these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_slang_terms
I have to say this one is my favorite:
Crafty Butcher, “One who likes to take his meat round the back”
Dont get this one, but will research:
Chutney ferret
Didn’t click on the link. But no, I don’t use slang for the term homosexual.
I have taken a vow not to hit it until Barry Soetoro is back living in Djakarta. Mombasa? Soho?
Don’t even start with me, Laz. You know that I appreciate your humor 99% of the time and the 1% that’s stupid, I can successfully ignore.
For the love of Pete. I named a freaking cat after you.
So don’t start with that “Marie’s so uptight” crap. I have a very few lines and one of them is adult/minor sex.
And you damn well that MANY of these posters are reveling in the subject, not just joking. You’re not a stupid man, Laz. So take off the blonde wig and fake eyelashes, unstuff your bra, and stop pretending.
Why are there more for males than for females?
*laugh* Haven’t talked to her for more than 25 years.
Seriously doubt that she got any better looking since then, though. *grin* Kind of a shorter and wider version of an S.E. (not even a “B”) Cupp, and much less attractive. With glasses.
Not that I have anything against glasses, mind.
I'm sure all the queers, faggots, peter-puffers, turd burglars and sausage smugglers appreciate that.
Are you talking to me?
Pretty sure that term refers to male homosexuals, so it wouldn’t work for my gender. :)
I have no idea. I noticed that too.
It would seem, evidenced by the number of perpetually offended individuals posting herein, that the insidious cancer of PC is seeping its way into FR as well.
Tho I'll grant that some of the stuff can occasionally get a bit crass, give me crass over corncob-retentive any day.
(ps: you crack me up .. cheers d:^)
Brevity is..wit.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh You are a lady. I now understand.
You are sensitive.
Thought you were a man with lady parts until you cleared that up for me. (Sorry, no idea why I thought that)
Also explains why male humor is lost on you.
No worries. Men are men (At least most of us) and women are women (Ditto). We are innately different. Women make men better, and men make women better.
True.
Ever notice how the "Bride of Frankenstein" was far more articulate than the male monster?
She was made better.
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.