Re: List your top 5 - you no what I mean ;)
anonymous
November 29 2011, 01:50:17 UTC
What's disrespectful about that?
Somebody's sexual desirability isn't the only worth they have. Some people I wouldn't have sex with because they've made a commitment to others, not because I dislike them! And there are plenty of people I just wouldn't put on that list because I like them VERY much, but don't WANT them!
People are great whether I'd sleep with them or not. But I can't make a list because I have too many to choose a top 5. I'm sorry anon!
Re: List your top 5 - you no what I mean ;)
anonymous
November 29 2011, 02:12:18 UTC
I thought they were listing the five people they thought were most sexually attractive. That doesn't mean they're putting all the rest of the huge number of people on the ship into the "ugly" category.
Just because there's a "Five sexiest" category doesn't mean there isn't also a number six, seven, eight, forty two . . . not everybody has a five-person limit!
And whether or not somebody wants to sleep with someone doesn't depend on their appearance for everyone! You would probably think some of the people I've slept with are ugly, but they had beautiful spirits and a deep understanding of the techniques of physical love.
Re: List your top 5 - you no what I mean ;)
anonymous
November 29 2011, 02:28:33 UTC
best looking/most fuckable
to who? the ugly people who don't get mentioned?
Nope.
You keep steering this back to yourself for some reason. I have a problem with the poster objectifying people. Not their interest in multiple partners or their right to find people attractive in the first place.
You can find someone attractive without reducing them to an object. You can find someone unattractive without lumping them in with a bunch of 'ugly people' you find un-'fuckable'.
Re: List your top 5 - you no what I mean ;)
anonymous
November 29 2011, 02:43:59 UTC
I'm sorry, I just don't see how that means we're required to list people we thought were un-fuckable! Or to assume that anyone who goes unmentioned isn't!
If we DID have to make that list, I hope that list would be a list of all the children on the ship! >:( >:( >:(
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have a feeling this will be like reasoning with a brick wall, though.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Somebody's sexual desirability isn't the only worth they have. Some people I wouldn't have sex with because they've made a commitment to others, not because I dislike them! And there are plenty of people I just wouldn't put on that list because I like them VERY much, but don't WANT them!
People are great whether I'd sleep with them or not. But I can't make a list because I have too many to choose a top 5. I'm sorry anon!
Reply
Reply
Just because there's a "Five sexiest" category doesn't mean there isn't also a number six, seven, eight, forty two . . . not everybody has a five-person limit!
And whether or not somebody wants to sleep with someone doesn't depend on their appearance for everyone! You would probably think some of the people I've slept with are ugly, but they had beautiful spirits and a deep understanding of the techniques of physical love.
Reply
to who? the ugly people who don't get mentioned?
Nope.
You keep steering this back to yourself for some reason. I have a problem with the poster objectifying people. Not their interest in multiple partners or their right to find people attractive in the first place.
You can find someone attractive without reducing them to an object. You can find someone unattractive without lumping them in with a bunch of 'ugly people' you find un-'fuckable'.
Reply
If we DID have to make that list, I hope that list would be a list of all the children on the ship! >:( >:( >:(
Reply
Leave a comment