link | Submitted by Danielle on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 17:29.
LOL!! Did I make wittle Ewica angwy?
None of your cited material argues that the women in your attractive women section would be found better looking than Victoria's Secret supermodels. The skanks in your "attractive" women section are average to butt ugly so most people would not find them better looking than VS models. The only way for you to prove that most heteros would find your skanks better looking is to survey a sizeable group of them and ask them to comparatively rate the attractiveness of these groups of women. You would have to current images of the VS girls at the lingerie show instead of old images of them at high fashion shows or in editorials.
I don't need to cite any peer reviewed journals or studies because most of my arguments do not require scientific data to back them up.
Any reasonable person can see that one video showcasing the Victoria’s secret girls does not prove that homosexuals are heavily promoting them. If you can prove that homosexuals are responsible for hiring these models for Victoria's Secret then you will have some proof to back up you statements. Victoria's Secret is a business and the public always has the option of rejecting their products and/or the models they use to promote them.
I am not the one with the website dedicated to promoting "feminine beauty" and exposing the mental illness of the dastardly fashion pederasts. You would bolster your arguments by comparing the looks of popular sex symbols with your nude skanks in a controlled laboratory study. I don't have tome to look up a bunch of sources or to do any studies.
I don't see why "the homosexuals" would need to hire women who look like your nude skanks for the VS show. The models they have now do their jobs very well.
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
LOL!! Did I make wittle Ewica angwy?
None of your cited material argues that the women in your attractive women section would be found better looking than Victoria's Secret supermodels. The skanks in your "attractive" women section are average to butt ugly so most people would not find them better looking than VS models. The only way for you to prove that most heteros would find your skanks better looking is to survey a sizeable group of them and ask them to comparatively rate the attractiveness of these groups of women. You would have to current images of the VS girls at the lingerie show instead of old images of them at high fashion shows or in editorials.
I don't need to cite any peer reviewed journals or studies because most of my arguments do not require scientific data to back them up.
Any reasonable person can see that one video showcasing the Victoria’s secret girls does not prove that homosexuals are heavily promoting them. If you can prove that homosexuals are responsible for hiring these models for Victoria's Secret then you will have some proof to back up you statements. Victoria's Secret is a business and the public always has the option of rejecting their products and/or the models they use to promote them.
I am not the one with the website dedicated to promoting "feminine beauty" and exposing the mental illness of the dastardly fashion pederasts. You would bolster your arguments by comparing the looks of popular sex symbols with your nude skanks in a controlled laboratory study. I don't have tome to look up a bunch of sources or to do any studies.
I don't see why "the homosexuals" would need to hire women who look like your nude skanks for the VS show. The models they have now do their jobs very well.