BYU Students Making a Difference

[_Ren]

Alright...was that offensive enough?

No - try harder!
...you put on padding to play Rugby! Ner ner ner ner ner! :p

British men count as American women ;)

Oh oh! I don't think it should be ME you should be worried about offending with this one!!

[_Yoda]

I have a penis.

Is there some Freudian reason why you have posted this in small print, Bond?

;)

[_Bond...James Bond]

I have a penis.

Is there some Freudian reason why you have posted this in small print, Bond?

;)

I forgot to add:


...and it's so goddamn powerful that it can only be mentioned in this tiny print. Any larger print and it would get an even bigger ego and it would start punching out bodybuilders again while writing adventure novels about raping sharks and water buffalo.

[_Yoda]

I have a penis.

Is there some Freudian reason why you have posted this in small print, Bond?

;)

I forgot to add:


...and it's so goddamn powerful that it can only be mentioned in this tiny print. Any larger print and it would get an even bigger ego and it would start punching out bodybuilders again while writing adventure novels about raping sharks and water buffalo.

LOL! OK, Bond....stop making me laugh out loud at work. No fair!

[_harmony]

I have a penis.

Is there some Freudian reason why you have posted this in small print, Bond?

;)

I forgot to add:


...and it's so goddamn powerful that it can only be mentioned in this tiny print. Any larger print and it would get an even bigger ego and it would start punching out bodybuilders again while writing adventure novels about raping sharks and water buffalo.

Kinda like the guys who buy the pickups with the huge tires. Overcompensating

[_Bond...James Bond]

I have a penis.

Is there some Freudian reason why you have posted this in small print, Bond?

;)

I forgot to add:


...and it's so goddamn powerful that it can only be mentioned in this tiny print. Any larger print and it would get an even bigger ego and it would start punching out bodybuilders again while writing adventure novels about raping sharks and water buffalo.

Kinda like the guys who buy the pickups with the huge tires. Overcompensating

Overcompensating? Me? Nah...overhyperbolating...making up words (such as overhyperbolating)...oh hell yeah!

[_asbestosman]

Am I saying it bothers me? I didn't -- and if you think I did you are missing my point as well.

No. I suppose I am at fault for using "you" too liberally when I meant "someone" and not you, Moniker, in particular. When I spoke about women who get bothered by shallow thoughts of men, I did not have you, Moniker, in mind. Why are we going in circles? I think it's because I am not talking to your point, but instead I am changing it into something that isn't an issue for you. I brought it up not to support or clarify your idea so much as understand your take on my take of how some females view men--upset with men paying attention to their bodies even when they didn't want the stares (baggy jeans, etc.). That does not in any way describe what I thought were your, Monker's, views.

I don't believe I place blame on women for making me feel anything. In fact, I try to extend that principle in myself universally--I do not restrict it to attraction. If someone says unkind things about me or something dear to me (say the church), that's their issue. If I let that upset me, then it's my issue. It's not their fault I'm upset. If I crossdress, and walk outside, that's my issue. If someone is upset by it , it's their issue. It's not my fault they are upset. If a person (male or female) walks outside naked, it's that person's problem. How people react is their (the reactiors) issue. That said, there is a difference between public nudity and wearking a bikini (or jeans or whatever). The first is illegal so it is expected for people to react by getting law-enforcement involved.

Now if I let this thread upset me, it's my issue (I'm not upset). But just to be fair, I think if I upset you it's my issue too. ;)

[_asbestosman]

If a man likes what he sees then HE likes what he sees. That's all there is to it.

It should be. Unfortunately I had it in my head that some women (not you, but some) don't like that men like what they see (at least if the man isn't married to that woman he likes looking at).

The unfairness is manifest in this manner: in my culture, a wife is allowed to have crushes on movie and TV stars. The husband is not allowed to find anyone attractive except his wife.

To your point: no, the intentions of the woman don't mean she is responsible for the reaction. Only a clear and explicit invitation warrants that she be responsible for that which she clearly and explicitly invited. Walking in public warrants nothing other than a normal look. Yet, is she responsible for the looks? No. She is responsible only for herself. Making someone responsible for the actions of others only works in certain situations such as parent/child, or company/employee. It simply does not work for strangers walking around outside, or on a message board, or even with close friends.

On further thought though, one can be held responsible for the reaction of people to you yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. One can also be held responsible for inciting people to violence. Yet somehow I think that dress is quite different from these situations. That I cannot articulate it is pershaps all the more reason I am not a lawyer. Maybe it has something to do with threats. There are no threats involved with bikinis or jeans that I am aware of.