George Bush doesn't care about boob jobs.

Why?

Who should give a fuck?

MSG Tripps wrote:

Why?

Who should give a fuck?

I think it's funny whenever anyone dies from cosmetic surgery disasters.

tojo2000 wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

Why?

Who should give a fuck?

It's getting harder and harder to tell whether Dhally Llama got up on the wrong side of the beard again or if he's finally settled on being crotchety in his old age.

I suspect it's just a case of Baby Boomer Late-life Disenchantment.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Men really don't understand.

Try selling that shit to all the men who disfigure themselves with steroids, tucks and pec implants. Do you blame society because people drive sport's cars?

headkicker_girl wrote:

sad that society

Born yesterday, north side?

orangeplus wrote:

Try selling that shit to all the men who disfigure themselves with steroids, tucks and pec implants. Do you blame society because people drive sport's cars?

Here are the statistics.

Women had 91 percent of cosmetic procedures.

I wouldn't equate having invasive surgical procedures with shooting up, but I am aware that steroid use has risen as well.  But here's something else to consider:  men are considered sexy well into old age;  woman are perceived as having hit a brick wall when that pass 30 or have children, whichever one comes first.

This is going to sound odd coming from me but here goes; why is this something to cackle and talk trash about?  There isn’t any indication that she is the sort of person who deserved to die from malpractice.

headkicker_girl wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

Why?

Who should give a fuck?

I think it's funny whenever anyone dies from cosmetic surgery disasters.

I think it's sad that society makes women feel so bad about themselves that they feel the need to make that choice.  Men really don't understand.

Actually, although you can blame it on 'society' - and I would tend to agree - I don't really think it's men that are doing it.... after all, most of the guys I know like a little bit of meat on the bone, and a nice round tush to go with it - stick figures don't really turn us on.   Instead, I think it's the women that are to a great extent doing it to their own kind, and it's really sad.  I think most guys would take a woman that is slightly soft and voluptious (not a bloater, but you know what I mean) to one that's a bone-bag.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2007-11-12 22:01:08)

headkicker_girl wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

Actually, although you can blame it on 'society' - and I would tend to agree - I don't really think it's men that are doing it.... after all, most of the guys I know like a little bit of meat on the bone, and a nice round tush to go with it - stick figures don't really turn us on.   Instead, I think it's the women that are to a great extent doing it to their own kind, and it's really sad.  I think most guys would take a woman that is slightly soft and voluptious (not a bloater, but you know what I mean) to one that's a bone-bag.

I think you are right, but women don't know this.  Look at fashion magazines, all the women on television, all the female recording artists.  Women see that and thinks it's what men want.  it's an impossible standard to live up to.

And look at the female pictures posted by men on cruel...I haven't seen anyone over 30 with thinning hair, a little extra belly fat or cellulite...at least not posted for its fappability.

And I bet that if we hetero women had a thread for male eye candy, few to none of them would look like most of the men we encounter in the real world, either.    For that matter, I've seen a few of what are/were considered the great male beauties in real life and had to be informed that they were celebrities because they just didn't look "that good" in real life.  Brad Pitt in 1994-1995, probably the height of his "beauty"?  I thought he was just some guy on shrooms, veering into the edgy and paranoid as he sought fresh juice - until he spoke up, and then I felt bad for him, since I assumed he was trying to hide, and still suspected that he was on shrooms, and how much must that suck to try to have a pleasant trip when people keep LOOKING ar you?

headkicker_girl wrote:

DoucheEllington wrote:

And I bet that if we hetero women had a thread for male eye candy, few to none of them would look like most of the men we encounter in the real world, either.    For that matter, I've seen a few of what are/were considered the great male beauties in real life and had to be informed that they were celebrities because they just didn't look "that good" in real life.  Brad Pitt in 1994-1995, probably the height of his "beauty"?  I thought he was just some guy on shrooms, veering into the edgy and paranoid as he sought fresh juice - until he spoke up, and then I felt bad for him, since I assumed he was trying to hide, and still suspected that he was on shrooms, and how much must that suck to try to have a pleasant trip when people keep LOOKING ar you?

Brad Pitt looks dirty, like he has body odor....but that's for another thread. 

If we posted any hot male eye candy it would matter because all the male models are gay.

Ha! He supposedly has the funkiest B.O. in Hollywood!

Good call!

For the record, I love bald men.

*hangs head in shame*

Nope.  He didn't then, & lately I think the Jolie might be making him take baths with the kids or hosing him down in the driveway when he annoys her.  And he didn't smell 12 years ago, although he did look like he might burst into tears, which is almost as gross to me.

My point - why not belabor it, it's a slow night in crazy town - was not about what YOU find attractive, it is about what is culturally referenced AS attractive, and that those people are not as hot without visual MSG from lighting, makeup, airbrushing, etc. And whining that real women past 30 don't look like what men post as jerk-aids here is disingenuous - the vast majority of women and girls under 30 bear little resemblance to those images.

Re male models being gay:  The fact that the women in the images you reference would not, unless drugged and bound, have any physical contact with most of the men twirling their meat over them has no effect on the desire of men to stick something into them somehow.  Got some shots of a man who's hot? Who give's a rat's ass if he's gay - his images are fuel for sexual fantasy, not imagining a dreary world of comparing pore size and watching Oprah together.  I don't apply my makeup over a paper bag, but I have fuckall's chance of bagging a 24 year old rugby player, whether he's gay or straight.  Conversely, no gay man or woman I know looks at someone he or she thinks is hot and expresses a lack of attraction to them because he or she is straight - they might ridicule them, but they don't pull their images out of rotation.  Sexual attraction or appreciation has nothing to do with whether we think we could pull that person in real life.

The realm of fapping, online and off, is about consumption.  You don't get your knickers in a bunch about your breakfast cereal not wanting to be eaten with soy or skim milk - you eat it as you please.  Images of men & women posted as eye-candy are presented to be consumed the same way - as you like, when you like, and the image of the person pictured is really not of that person but a product, tweaked to peak appetites.  A bunch of people make money off of it, directly & indirectly, & those profiting are not the young and beautiful.

Prove it.  I have yet to see... wait. were you the guy who burned his 2-month-old alive with its mom's corpse as he was on his way to see another girlfriend?

DoucheEllington wrote:

Prove it.  I have yet to see... wait. were you the guy who burned his 2-month-old alive with its mom's corpse as he was on his way to see another girlfriend?

He's pretty cute, but he treats his women like shit.  He'll tell you that himself.

Oh, and you're far too sane for him!

headkicker_girl wrote:

If REAL women didn't buy fashion magazines, the demand would go away, as would the profit.

Precisely. 

The point of advertising is to make you uncomfortable with the status quo. 

Now that you are uncomfortable, let me sell you the item that will make you comfortable again.

Now that you are almost comfortable, let me move the goal-posts and make you uncomfortable again.

Now that you are uncomfortable, let me sell you the item that will make you comfortable again.

(Rinse.  Repeat.)

So... advertising will always show women's body images that are unattainable, making the 'object' women uncomfortable and wanting to try to achieve that standard.  And the vendors will happily sell you whatever it is  - makeup, fashion, surgery, diets, whatever - to approach that goal.  And as soon as you get close to the goal they'll move the goal-posts again.  After all, if you're not uncomfortable with yourself, you're not buying, kiddo!  And it's *all* about buying.

It's like Pokie-mon, or whateverthefuck that card game was for kids.  The theme of that gig was "Gotta catch'em all!"... remember?... now, with all the crap they made for pokie-mon, was that goal ever really possible?  Of course not.  The more stuff that they made, the more uncomfortable the kids became because they didn't "catch'em all" - there was always that new cool thing that they didn't have yet.  And it made millions of kids spend every last dime they had on the damn stuff in the quest to "catch'em all".  Hell, they're still selling the damned things.

headkicker_girl wrote:

DoucheEllington wrote:

Prove it.  I have yet to see... wait. were you the guy who burned his 2-month-old alive with its mom's corpse as he was on his way to see another girlfriend?

He's pretty cute, but he treats his women like shit.  He'll tell you that himself.

Oh, and you're far too sane for him!

Maybe you've only seen me in profile...did I ever tell you about the time I made a special cucumber salad for my ex's family, with a rare & secret pre-monostat marinade?  I hated those fuckers & they looooved cukes in "yoghurt. "

headkicker_girl wrote:

Now while I agree with everything you said, I think people who actually "get" that fact are in the majority.  The fact is that REAL women are making choices, sometimes dangerous or risky choices in the case of surgeries and eating disorders to try to look like those fake women.  If REAL women didn't buy fashion magazines, the demand would go away, as would the profit.  See, I understand (and understood even in my teens) that those magazines are selling a fantasy.  Real women don't need runway fashions, yet who buys Vogue?  They're not getting rich of the rich and famous.  Unfortunately, far too many women don't realize it's a fantasy and they want it to be a reality.  Now on that convoluted note, I'm out for the evening.

Harrumph. The issue that you are skirting around is the fact that people are reetards. Is there a gun being held to your head to buy these magazines / pre-fab fantasies ? Nope. They buy it from personal choice.

The most disgusting example of this pea-brainedness is the death of the uber-slut Princess Di - everyone blames the paparazzi. No one stops for a second to consider that if there wasn't a sufficient biomass of reetards, the paparazzi wouldn't have a job.

Lemme get you in on a secret of the Patriarchal Conspiracy - this shit in the fashion rags kills woodies. Most of us tockley-enhanced prefer REAL wimmen - cellulite, cottage cheese ass, love handles and all. My favourite piece of graffiti ever is "cellulite is beautiful".

YOU, with your innies CREATED this problem. DON'T blame US.

Felch