link | Submitted by Erik on Mon, 08/20/2007 - 00:42.
Danielle: I wrote “...would not be pleased...” rather than “would be insulted.” You also mentioned random women. The fact is that the majority of women selected at random will not look sufficiently masculine to be describable as looking like male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites. I wouldn’t use these phrases to describe the looks of a woman unless she had the requisite looks and it were necessary to do so, and using descriptive terminology when it is apt and required is neutral usage even if it is unflattering. The same cannot be said about your terms such as “fugbeast.”
Your criticism of the models related to their nude modeling is meaningless. This site does not address behavior, just looks. You cannot disparage looks by taking behavior into account.
You used the term low class in reference to “trailer trash,” and the phrase would have little meaning to start with if it didn’t refer to behavior associated with people having low socioeconomic status. Strange that you accuse me of making up definitions but come up with your own.
Many of the women that I have featured are taken from sites depicting artistic nudity, which you do not have a problem with by your own admission, but you still insult them.
If it is very nice of me to describe people with physical deformities as ugly then I suppose it is extremely nice of you to describe women without physical deformities as not only ugly, but as fugbeasts (fuc*ing ugly + beastly). How will this help the self-esteem of the poor women who look like these fugbeasts? And these women look untidy and smelly to you!
You wrote, “Striving to be “feminine” isn’t as bad as striving to be thin,” i.e., I didn’t misinterpret your comment. How will my site lower the self-esteem of the women who already believe that feminine beauty is desirable (which most women believe)?
It is strange that you talk about reasonable people in reference to yourself and then come up with a critique relying on descriptors such as stupid, rubbish data, weirdos, bullshit, raging morons, etc!
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
Danielle: I wrote “...would not be pleased...” rather than “would be insulted.” You also mentioned random women. The fact is that the majority of women selected at random will not look sufficiently masculine to be describable as looking like male-to-female transsexuals or male transvestites. I wouldn’t use these phrases to describe the looks of a woman unless she had the requisite looks and it were necessary to do so, and using descriptive terminology when it is apt and required is neutral usage even if it is unflattering. The same cannot be said about your terms such as “fugbeast.”
Your criticism of the models related to their nude modeling is meaningless. This site does not address behavior, just looks. You cannot disparage looks by taking behavior into account.
You used the term low class in reference to “trailer trash,” and the phrase would have little meaning to start with if it didn’t refer to behavior associated with people having low socioeconomic status. Strange that you accuse me of making up definitions but come up with your own.
Many of the women that I have featured are taken from sites depicting artistic nudity, which you do not have a problem with by your own admission, but you still insult them.
If it is very nice of me to describe people with physical deformities as ugly then I suppose it is extremely nice of you to describe women without physical deformities as not only ugly, but as fugbeasts (fuc*ing ugly + beastly). How will this help the self-esteem of the poor women who look like these fugbeasts? And these women look untidy and smelly to you!
You wrote, “Striving to be “feminine” isn’t as bad as striving to be thin,” i.e., I didn’t misinterpret your comment. How will my site lower the self-esteem of the women who already believe that feminine beauty is desirable (which most women believe)?
It is strange that you talk about reasonable people in reference to yourself and then come up with a critique relying on descriptors such as stupid, rubbish data, weirdos, bullshit, raging morons, etc!