930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 09:52:41 am

Title: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 09:52:41 am
What does everyone think about Lake Bell? Man, she reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry is dating the "two face" lady who looks completely different in different lighting. Sometimes, I think she's legitmately really good looking, but then other times, I think she looks like a worn out troll. She legitimately swings from like a 3 to 8 on a 10 point looks scale in my mind depending on the film. Amanda Peet is sort of that way too. Whaddaya think?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 10, 2015, 09:59:58 am
IMO Lake Bell is hot
she does have some manly features and that can certainly make her look sub par

peet, she is hot too, but I think she is really like the character in Saving Silverman ....so making her less hot

I really should have more to do  (actually I really DO have more to do)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 10, 2015, 10:09:31 am
Lake Bell is hot. I don't have a problem with "manly features" on a woman, though I don't necessarily see any on her. What does that even mean anyway? Does she have a bulging crotch in her bikini shots? Perhaps it just means she has ample pubic hair rather than a penis.

I don't know who Amanda Peet is but I'm going to say she's hot too.

I do think either of them would look about 25 IQ points less in an RG3 jersey.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 10:19:13 am
I do think either of them would look about 25 IQ points less in an RG3 jersey.
He is younger than her. What if it was a Johnny Unitas jersey?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 10, 2015, 10:26:41 am
Lake Bell is hot. I don't have a problem with "manly features" on a woman, though I don't necessarily see any on her. What does that even mean anyway? Does she have a bulging crotch in her bikini shots? Perhaps it just means she has ample pubic hair rather than a penis.

I don't know who Amanda Peet is but I'm going to say she's hot too.

I do think either of them would look about 25 IQ points less in an RG3 jersey.

her face is what I was refereeing to
with the rigid jawline, thick eyebrows, big lips and wide face
she is certainly not dainty
She wouldn't have any problem going as Bruce Jenner for Halloween

Don't get me wrong, she's a 7-9 in my book, but I could see how that could be unflattering to others

but what do I know
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 10, 2015, 10:37:21 am
Lake Bell is hot. I don't have a problem with "manly features" on a woman, though I don't necessarily see any on her. What does that even mean anyway? Does she have a bulging crotch in her bikini shots? Perhaps it just means she has ample pubic hair rather than a penis.

I don't know who Amanda Peet is but I'm going to say she's hot too.

I do think either of them would look about 25 IQ points less in an RG3 jersey.

her face is what I was refereeing to
with the rigid jawline, thick eyebrows, big lips and wide face
she is certainly not dainty
She wouldn't have any problem going as Bruce Jenner for Halloween

Don't get me wrong, she's a 7-9 in my book, but I could see how that could be unflattering to others

but what do I know

I've always thought of big lips on a woman as a desirable and arguably feminine feature. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 10:40:04 am
I don't agree with the lips bit but the jawline is definitely part of it for me.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 10, 2015, 10:45:58 am
Don't know who Lake Bell is, but Amanda Peet is smoking hot... in Saving Silverman. I didn't think she was all that in the Whole Nine Yards.... Those are the only times I recall seeing her. She was so hot in Saving Silverman though.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 10, 2015, 02:43:43 pm
yeah, who the fuck is lake bell?  is that a lake in I,da,ho?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 02:45:42 pm
yeah, who the fuck is lake bell?  is that a lake in I,da,ho?
Actress.

(http://media3.popsugar-assets.com/files/2011/11/46/5/192/1922398/3d5011b11d3efb8b_133230934_10/i/Lake-Bell-wore-revealing-dress-GQ-party.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 10, 2015, 03:19:28 pm
Ohhhhhh yeah she's like a high 5, tops out at 7 when she's doing it right. Not really my speed.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 10, 2015, 03:25:40 pm
Ohhhhhh yeah she's like a high 5, tops out at 7 when she's doing it right. Not really my speed.

Good lord, what score do you give yourself? I'm pretty sure your picture has been on this forum before, and i'm going to say she's hotter than you are.

At least one website apparently says Lake Bell and Amanda Peet are look-alikes.

http://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/34357837/image/34357860/Amanda-Peet-Lake-Bell
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 10, 2015, 03:30:30 pm
I don,t like her, nose.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ggw on September 10, 2015, 03:30:46 pm
What does everyone think about Lake Bell? Man, she reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry is dating the "two face" lady who looks completely different in different lighting. Sometimes, I think she's legitmately really good looking, but then other times, I think she looks like a worn out troll. She legitimately swings from like a 3 to 8 on a 10 point looks scale in my mind depending on the film. Amanda Peet is sort of that way too. Whaddaya think?

Could you post the pic where she doesn't look like a worn-out troll?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 03:35:04 pm
^^ Now that's the sort of shallow objectification I was looking for! This thread is on its way!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 10, 2015, 04:31:11 pm
Ohhhhhh yeah she's like a high 5, tops out at 7 when she's doing it right. Not really my speed.

Good lord, what score do you give yourself? I'm pretty sure your picture has been on this forum before, and i'm going to say she's hotter than you are.
This thread is about objectifying you dingus.

I also give myself like a 5. I'm average as fuck, brother.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 10, 2015, 04:38:31 pm
I would give DFA a 4, but I'm biased. I'm trying to keep my thoughts on his personality out of it altogether and be as objectifyingly shallow as possible about my ranking.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on September 10, 2015, 06:48:22 pm
just based on her tits she'd have to get a 6...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 10, 2015, 07:03:05 pm
just based on her tits she'd have to get a 6...

Are you saying her tits are a 6 out of 10 when judging the tits alone?

Or are you saying, she deserves at least a 6, no matter how horrible the rest of her is, because you like her tits?

I feel like i should have logged in with my atomic account to ask that question.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on September 10, 2015, 09:40:19 pm
just based on her tits she'd have to get a 6...

Are you saying her tits are a 6 out of 10 when judging the tits alone?

Or are you saying, she deserves at least a 6, no matter how horrible the rest of her is, because you like her tits?

I feel like i should have logged in with my atomic account to ask that question.

just based on her tits she should get a six..its a really nice rack...if you imagine a corresponding ass its hard to give her anything less than an 8 despite her manly jawline....she looks like a lot of fun in bed...i'm thinking doggystyle....
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 11, 2015, 09:17:32 am
Ok, how about:

Claire Danes
Reese Witherspoon
Adam Driver
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 09:51:42 am
Claire Danes weird "I'm about to cry and my face is contorting itself into a seizure" face loses her points because it is seared into my memory. 6 out of 10.

Reese is a solid 8 or 9 but in her prime was a 10.

Adam Driver looks like the kind of guy where if it was revealed he was diddling kids or drowning cats or something, I'd go, "yep, that sounds about right." BTW, Rhett, how are you aware of Adam Driver's existence considering HBO's Girls' low traditional Nielsen ratings?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 11, 2015, 10:06:41 am
LOVE DIES: A GALLERY

(http://i.imgur.com/Pb9i5d5.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Mq0v8ly.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/4ktPFAz.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/IZJNYYz.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ablq5Hd.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/v4PZwZn.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 10:08:13 am
People type LOL a lot online when they are not, in fact, laughing out loud. I, however, am literally LOLing.

(Would still hit it.)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 11, 2015, 10:12:35 am
Claire Danes weird "I'm about to cry and my face is contorting itself into a seizure" face loses her points because it is seared into my memory. 6 out of 10.

Reese is a solid 8 or 9 but in her prime was a 10.

Adam Driver looks like the kind of guy where if it was revealed he was diddling kids or drowning cats or something, I'd go, "yep, that sounds about right." BTW, Rhett, how are you aware of Adam Driver's existence considering HBO's Girls' low traditional Nielsen ratings?

I could answer your question by saying "I'm a subscriber to W magazine" but alas I'm not.

http://www.wmagazine.com/people/celebrities/2015/09/new-royals-october-issue/photos/


Claire Danes: I agree, she's about a six. That's the same score I'd give myself btw. Maybe a 6.5 if I got down to my optimal weight.

Reese Witherspoon: She's about my mom's (short) height. So she could never be a 10 imo. "Mannish features" loses points for Sidehatch....short height loses points with me (I am myself not tall, but hey that's life, I prefer tallish women). Still, I'd give Reese a solid 7.5. She seems more like the type of woman that straight, average looking women would pronounce a hottie than straight guys would. If that makes any sense.

Adam Driver: I don't watch Girls, but I've seen a slew of indie films where my wife pronounced, "Hey, that's the guy from Girls." I think maybe he's one of her pseudo-celebrity crushes, which is rare because she normally expresses disdain anytime I bring up anything celebrity culture. I think his score is sort of analogous to the way you gave Lake Bell a sliding score, but I'm going to go with a 7.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 11, 2015, 10:15:09 am
BTW, what's the over/under on how long it takes RB to post on this thread that he's never heard of any of these people because he's missed the last 25 years of movies (and books) because he's been perfecting his web design techniques for that whole time?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 10:27:39 am
BTW, what's the over/under on how long it takes RB to post on this thread that he's never heard of any of these people because he's missed the last 25 years of movies (and books) because he's been perfecting his web design techniques for that whole time?
I'm honestly stunned its taken this long but I'm chalking it up to him sitting in his house trying to run sports vs. music stats for the 50th time. BTW, his web design, the few times he's linked to something, is about as good as his grasp on STAT101 material.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 10:28:48 am
She seems more like the type of woman that straight, average looking women would pronounce a hottie than straight guys would. If that makes any sense.
No, I get what you're saying completely. And I sort of agree.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 11, 2015, 11:06:14 am
he's feeding her?  really?  and looking at her as she eats, as if the way he eats is better.  and that stare.  and that hair.  and that beard.  and that glass of what is that, queer rose?  and look at those salt, pepper shakers.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 11, 2015, 02:39:36 pm
Ok, how about:

Claire Danes
Reese Witherspoon
Adam Driver
Claire Danes, no way. She reminds me of that gross chick from The Faculty mixed up with the ugly/kind of trashy hot girl from The Craft/The Waterboy, know who I mean? Claire Danes is a solid 3.

Reese Witherspoon has her moments but she's still a 5, brother.

Don't know who Adam Driver is.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 02:52:37 pm
DFA1979, I think your age relative to the average age of the board is probably skewing your numbers somewhat.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 11, 2015, 03:03:41 pm
I'm surprised nobody has begun arguing over which is the hottest Kardashian/Jenner.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 03:10:51 pm
I'm surprised nobody has begun arguing over which is the hottest Kardashian/Jenner.
Well, get us started!

I personally subscribe to the old edict that one should never dip their pen in the gypsy-slore trash ink, so I'm probably not the best to kick things off.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 11, 2015, 04:17:51 pm
How about Serena Williams and Venus Williams?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 11, 2015, 04:21:41 pm
How about Serena Williams and Venus Williams?
-3 and -1
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 11, 2015, 04:37:08 pm
DFA1979, I think your age relative to the average age of the board is probably skewing your numbers somewhat.
I mean, I'm 28, I'm no spring chicken. Was just never big into Reese Witherspoon. How old is she? I could find someone her age way hotter. She's gotta be in her 40s right?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on September 11, 2015, 04:38:03 pm
I'm surprised nobody has begun arguing over which is the hottest Kardashian/Jenner.
Kim, no question. She'd be a 10 if she kept her mouth shut. Her voice is so irritating.

All the others I can do without.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 04:11:41 pm
Walkie, you can post that earlier-promised twitter link with photo of yourself here.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 04:43:36 pm
my twitter is barren and boring, due to me never posting on it, so I am embarrassed to link it, but here are two photos of me.  my photo for my webpage and a nice photo of me showing properties in the country side on july 4th weekend.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1477972_590929200979158_932722493_n.jpg?oh=3a070a09e4f720107a6e661345b70eff&oe=5696FC2D)


(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/11402958_10205797709455107_8956931853430449244_n.jpg?oh=c1609ae4070aae222b79442464f25a34&oe=56971869)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 04:52:14 pm
I was so excited to reverse google image search that first photo and immediately find your linkedin and website with your name and personal info all over the place, then I came back here to see you were wearing a namebadge in the second photo. :(
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 04:52:54 pm
I give your face an 8 in the top photo and a 6 in the bottom one but your body appears a 4.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 04:55:34 pm
thanks, though I can,t figure out how you can be so cruel with only a 4 for the body.  i,m going to have to hit the gym harder, now.

and yes, i provided the name on the name tag, because i just knew you were going to go all Sherlock on the photo, so i saved you the trouble.

so if you ever, need an excellent real estate agent, you know where to go.  my commas, seal deals.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 22, 2015, 04:57:09 pm
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3428/5803827915_256a7f50f6.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 22, 2015, 04:59:27 pm
I refuse to believe that real estate agent is walkie...I just can't!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 22, 2015, 05:00:52 pm
All right everyone, make with the selfies.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 05:05:10 pm
All right everyone, make with the selfies.
whoa,  whoa,  can we take the time to properly shallowly objectify walkie before we move onto another topic? 

( I feel like he is the only one of the regulars on here who has not posted a photo before to be honest.)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 05:07:15 pm
i, wanna see relaxer again.  man, that one photo that he deleted.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 05:08:54 pm
All right everyone, make with the selfies.
whoa,  whoa,  can we take the time to properly shallowly objectify walkie before we move onto another topic? 

( I feel like he is the only one of the regulars on here who has not posted a photo before to be honest.)

the only reason i posted it, if you want me to be honest, is because of your gwar thing.  i feel, that moment in time, was the best that ever happened here.  you are, Julian, a hero to forumkind.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 22, 2015, 05:09:38 pm
welp... after all these years I now have a face and name of walki,e... Hmmm... not sure how I feel about this.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ggw on September 22, 2015, 05:09:43 pm
Walkonby looks so...so...normal.  Very disillusioning.  If I find out that yada doesn't really have five foot dreads, I'll never be able to post here again.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 22, 2015, 05:10:59 pm
welp... after all these years I now have a face and name of walki,e... Hmmm... not sure how I feel about this.

I know how I feel. Great!
Seriously, I love finally seeing the face of someone I've known virtually for years.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 22, 2015, 05:12:19 pm
my most recent pic.

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/2133_49891108417_5047_n.jpg?oh=b273296b4ee0d674273c23ab09cb3110&oe=569A4C7D)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 05:14:05 pm
no one believes you, yada.  i,m still trying to deal with that 4.  ouch.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 22, 2015, 05:14:10 pm
Walkonby looks so...so...normal.  Very disillusioning.  If I find out that yada doesn't really have five foot dreads, I'll never be able to post here again.

interestingly enough, I just posted my most recent pic... I took about 2.5 feet off recently and donated to locks of love.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 22, 2015, 05:20:02 pm
.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1477972_590929200979158_932722493_n.jpg?oh=3a070a09e4f720107a6e661345b70eff&oe=5696FC2D)


(http://i.imgur.com/WoetAWD.gif)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 05:21:28 pm
that, is going to haunt me, in my dreams tonight.  thanks, kind sir.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 06:04:38 pm
my most recent pic.

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/2133_49891108417_5047_n.jpg?oh=b273296b4ee0d674273c23ab09cb3110&oe=569A4C7D)
This file has been fastidiously stripped of all exif metadata.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 06:13:34 pm
. . . however this one (http://www.iqst.ca/media/images/people/NathanBabcock2.jpg) which is a larger size has not been, and it was taken on a Nikon Coolpix 3200 camera at 3.2megapixel (which has not been mass produced in over a decade). It is timestamped as November 16th, 2005 which is an awful long time ago for your recent haircut.

That said, my sincerest congratulations on your recent Doctorate from the University of Calgary.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 22, 2015, 08:58:41 pm
Nathan babcock...you are a imposter
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 22, 2015, 09:07:27 pm
Nathan babcock...you are a imposter
Now, now, let's not be so hasty. Perhaps Yada really is a Doctor of Theoretical Physics who lives in Canada (http://www.sfu.ca/physics/sivakgroup/people.html) and attended Burning Man. (http://www.aps.org/units/gqi/newsletters/upload/summer-fall08.pdf) Its possible!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on September 22, 2015, 09:16:04 pm
Nathan babcock...you are a imposter
Now, now, let's not be so hasty. Perhaps Yada really is a Doctor of Theoretical Physics who lives in Canada (http://www.sfu.ca/physics/sivakgroup/people.html) and attended Burning Man. (http://www.aps.org/units/gqi/newsletters/upload/summer-fall08.pdf) Its possible!
except we met him...that is not him


how funny that after all this time walkie decides to come out of the closet....

you're slimmer than I thought...for some reason I always pictured you at least 50 pounds heavier and wearing flannel and jeans.....

I tell you what....looking at real estate in your area i'm tempted to move the family there..you can't get a closet in Arlington for what the stuff goes out there...and it sure looks nicer....i'd probably run over a few bikers and go to jail though...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on September 22, 2015, 09:20:22 pm
patsy cline was from Winchester,VA..i went to see Loretta lynn there about 6 years ago or so...only reason she was playing there was because of Patsy...

I bought an autographed Loretta Lynn cookbook that day. Still got it. Actually I got two now....I inherited another one....Loretta did not sing the Jack White song that day but she did at the 930 a couple of years later... Portland, Oregon is the name...They really ought to get her off the road...she was ok in Winchester but come on now..
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ggw on September 22, 2015, 09:48:17 pm
Go Dinos!!!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 22, 2015, 09:54:28 pm
Seeing Loretta on Sunday.  Can't wait!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on September 22, 2015, 10:02:11 pm
Seeing Loretta on Sunday.  Can't wait!

well if I'd not seen her I definitely would need to see her..enjoy the show.... the years pass for everyone though....Lincoln might be a better venue for her..

Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on September 22, 2015, 11:43:12 pm
so if you ever, need an excellent real estate agent, you know where to go.  my commas, seal deals.

it's funny that this comment was directed at jules, who IRL is himself associated with real estate (but not as an agent).
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 23, 2015, 10:30:05 am
it's interesting that ggw and walky both wear bowties and funny glasses... hmmm... has anyone ever seen the two of them at the same place at the same time?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 23, 2015, 10:44:34 am
it's interesting that ggw and walky both wear bowties and funny glasses... hmmm... has anyone ever seen the two of them at the same place at the same time?
wait the only photo I recall of GGW was a cat lying on a pile of money
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 23, 2015, 11:11:57 am
it's interesting that ggw and walky both wear bowties and funny glasses... hmmm... has anyone ever seen the two of them at the same place at the same time?
wait the only photo I recall of GGW was a cat lying on a pile of money

Julian posted his work picture once, you must've missed that one.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 11:21:34 am
so if you ever, need an excellent real estate agent, you know where to go.  my commas, seal deals.

it's funny that this comment was directed at jules, who IRL is himself associated with real estate (but not as an agent).
I have not been in real estate in many, many years. We discussed this at Belle and Seb a few years back, I believe.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 11:22:30 am
it's interesting that ggw and walky both wear bowties and funny glasses... hmmm... has anyone ever seen the two of them at the same place at the same time?
wait the only photo I recall of GGW was a cat lying on a pile of money

Julian posted his work picture once, you must've missed that one.
We're getting to the point where I forget my own exploits. *sigh*
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 23, 2015, 11:23:26 am
i,m obsessed with bowties, but I,m getting new glasses, because those are too heavy for my face, and I,ve had them for three years . . . the thrill is gone and the headaches are long.  

here,s my cat . . . Miss Cookiehead Jenkins, named after a character in the incredible movie, Hollywood Shuffle.

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10369190_10202896556208089_6142664728216321592_n.jpg?oh=a14da23448ad7922cc54041d2c556d31&oe=56A8D162)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on September 23, 2015, 11:31:53 am
I have not been in real estate in many, many years. We discussed this at Belle and Seb a few years back, I believe.

crap, if we did discuss this at the show i have completely forgotten.  i was probably distracted by the sea of caucasianess...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on September 23, 2015, 11:32:34 am
try being a realtor with three foot dreads.  :-\
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 11:35:33 am
I have not been in real estate in many, many years. We discussed this at Belle and Seb a few years back, I believe.

crap, if we did discuss this at the show i have completely forgotten.  i was probably distracted by the sea of caucasianess...
I have started playing your "Spot the Minority" game while watching SEC football games, with the proviso that only paying ticket holders count (no players, coaches, support staff, TV announcers, etc) when they pan the crowds. Took to the 4 minute mark of the 3rd quarter during Alabama/Miss State last year before someone spotted one.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 11:36:22 am
try being a realtor with three foot dreads.  :-\
Is it more or less difficult than being a theoretical physicists with three foot dreads?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on September 23, 2015, 11:44:37 am
i knew that Julian could not be in real estate.  see how long you last, telling your clients, that you won,t deal with hamplanets.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Justin Tonation on September 23, 2015, 12:45:49 pm
try being a realtor with three foot dreads.  :-\
Is it more or less difficult than being a theoretical physicists with three foot dreads?

How about nuclear physicist/DOE Secretary with this hair?

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wpr/files/201304/Moniz%20Energy%20Secretary.JPEG-0f9a1.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 23, 2015, 01:40:13 pm
I have started playing your "Spot the Minority" game

I am the master at this.  I am the first to point out a room without a minority and how long it's been since we've seen a minority.  Wine tasting is among my favorite times to play this game because it drives the liberals in NoCal insane when I say things like "the help doesn't count".  I also like playing it at tech conferences...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 01:43:42 pm
I have started playing your "Spot the Minority" game

I am the master at this.  I am the first to point out a room without a minority and how long it's been since we've seen a minority.  Wine tasting is among my favorite times to play this game because it drives the liberals in NoCal insane when I say things like "the help doesn't count".  I also like playing it at tech conferences...

It's a shame we've never actually met because I feel we'd get along swimmingly. (As long as sports are not on.)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 23, 2015, 01:47:51 pm
I've had a ball doing Spot the Minority during the two GOP debates. The fun is kind of tempered by the fact that the organizers always seat him immediately behind the moderator so it's more of a twitch/buzzer game than a Where's Waldo thing.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 01:52:13 pm
I've had a ball doing Spot the Minority during the two GOP debates. The fun is kind of tempered by the fact that the organizers always seat him immediately behind the moderator so it's more of a twitch/buzzer game than a Where's Waldo thing.
Does Ben Carson count?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 01:53:26 pm
I've had a ball doing Spot the Minority during the two GOP debates. The fun is kind of tempered by the fact that the organizers always seat him immediately behind the moderator so it's more of a twitch/buzzer game than a Where's Waldo thing.
And also, just to keep the thread on-topic, could you shallowly objectify the minority you spotted by commenting on their appearance?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 23, 2015, 01:54:17 pm
I've had a ball doing Spot the Minority during the two GOP debates. The fun is kind of tempered by the fact that the organizers always seat him immediately behind the moderator so it's more of a twitch/buzzer game than a Where's Waldo thing.
Does Ben Carson count?

No, he's the talent. Besides, he's rarely on-screen anyway.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on September 23, 2015, 01:54:50 pm
I've had a ball doing Spot the Minority during the two GOP debates. The fun is kind of tempered by the fact that the organizers always seat him immediately behind the moderator so it's more of a twitch/buzzer game than a Where's Waldo thing.
And also, just to keep the thread on-topic, could you shallowly objectify the minority you spotted by commenting on their appearance?

You know it, girlfriend.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 23, 2015, 04:10:08 pm
I have started playing your "Spot the Minority" game
I also like playing it at tech conferences...

I don't know about that in the bay area, Asians are still considered a monitory in the US... right?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 04:12:52 pm
I have started playing your "Spot the Minority" game
I also like playing it at tech conferences...

I don't know about that in the bay area, Asians are still considered a monitory in the US... right?

Their economic prosperity excludes them from minority status. We're clearly only talking about the  poor minorities, duh.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 04:31:48 pm
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wpr/files/201304/Moniz%20Energy%20Secretary.JPEG-0f9a1.jpg)
2 out of ten at best. Theoretical physics: it's not like getting laid. . . which this pumpkin-pie haircutted freak clearly has not in 2 decades.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 23, 2015, 04:36:26 pm
The fact that you both think there is only one category of Asians is why I am the master of this game...

At tech conferences, I like to to play the gender game with my fiancee, just to get her fired up.  And then she fires back with the gamer vs non-gamer profiling of men at the conference.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 23, 2015, 04:36:49 pm
Do you guys remember how Atomic used to brag about what a looker and ladies man he was? About how hot women half his age would throw themselves at him?

And then he posted his picture here and he looked like the psycho 50 year old version of what Kurt Cobain would have looked like had he lived? That was funny.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 04:41:18 pm
And then he posted his picture here and he looked like the psycho 50 year old version of what Kurt Cobain would have looked like had he lived? That was funny.
I do remember that. I also remember he had taken down the photo and 86ed the hosting account within 30 minutes. I swore that day, never again would someone post a photo of "themselves" without me downloading it immediately for a thorough online fisking.

But yeah, he was a creepy looking Scandinavian weirdo. Kinda guy who gets arrested for child porn and for a half beat you're shocked and then you go, "yeah, you know what? I could see that."
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on September 23, 2015, 04:49:49 pm
The fact that you both think there is only one category of Asians is why I am the master of this game...

At tech conferences, I like to to play the gender game with my fiancee, just to get her fired up.  And then she fires back with the gamer vs non-gamer profiling of men at the conference.
gender I get

But in the Bay Area it's heavy on the Indian/Pakistani at the tech conferences

but I agree...asia covers a lot of types...mostly not white (although Russia is obviously Asian)

Asia...that's a big land mass with a lot of people 4.something billion!
and we thing we are big shit with 320 million

Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 23, 2015, 05:00:53 pm
But in the Bay Area it's heavy on the Indian/Pakistani at the tech conferences

That's why I say things like "Holy shit, there's a Cambodian/Laos/Vietnamese over there. You don't see that everyday...."
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on September 23, 2015, 05:02:43 pm
At tech conferences, I like to to play the gender game with my fiancee, just to get her fired up. 

you take her to tech conferences?  wow... a true ladies man.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 23, 2015, 05:06:37 pm
you take her to tech conferences?  wow... a true ladies man.

You know damn well that she takes me...

Also, I'm very disappointed in your new nanny.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on September 23, 2015, 06:00:49 pm
Also, I'm very disappointed in your new nanny.

would you be shocked to learn that i was completely cut off from the nanny selection process?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 23, 2015, 06:34:52 pm
would you be shocked to learn that i was completely cut off from the nanny selection process?

Not any more after seeing the photo, but yesterday, when your wife said the new nanny was perfect, I was stoked for you!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 09:13:23 pm
And then he posted his picture here and he looked like the psycho 50 year old version of what Kurt Cobain would have looked like had he lived? That was funny.
I do remember that. I also remember he had taken down the photo and 86ed the hosting account within 30 minutes. I swore that day, never again would someone post a photo of "themselves" without me downloading it immediately for a thorough online fisking.

But yeah, he was a creepy looking Scandinavian weirdo. Kinda guy who gets arrested for child porn and for a half beat you're shocked and then you go, "yeah, you know what? I could see that."

Wait.  You're Yada?!? You're a mother fucker.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 23, 2015, 09:35:33 pm
i,m obsessed with bowties,



I went through a bow tie phase a couple years ago.... We had a bow tie day in the office where a couple always wore them, but alas i no longer feel the urge to wear any type anymore...  Did you ever pick up one the Tie The Knot bow ties?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 09:45:26 pm
(http://forum.930.com/wp-content/themes/930/images/global/logo.gif)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 09:46:03 pm
.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on September 23, 2015, 09:48:53 pm
Pretty woman, but someone needs to give her a burger or three.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 09:49:05 pm
9.8. Loses 0.2 for a weird belly button and needing to lose 3-5 pounds.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 09:58:47 pm
9.8. Loses 0.2 for a weird belly button and needing to lose 3-5 pounds.  (https://www.google.com/search?q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1600&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0CIwBEIkeahUKEwj13bLnxY7IAhVHjw0KHVHUDek#q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&tbs=rimg:CTOcLbiN6wDcIjh2yqxAb_1VGMld3QdyQuWQNTIriZdvB3MINPtHlFizODvuriPh6TkYdTHIh2Psw8oUEATsypsJRXioSCXbKrEBv9UYyEemYcwu8_1QP6KhIJV3dB3JC5ZA0Rhy_1175Eo_1WYqEglMiuJl28HcwhHPwRvS_17B_1hioSCQ0-0eUWLM4OEecbxN4eKOyeKhIJ-6uI-HpORh0RwRgw3iJVmTUqEglMciHY-zDyhRGr6EGzlI_11GyoSCQQBOzKmwlFeEZD4U85OpQ7K,itp:animated&tbm=isch)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 10:02:53 pm
9.8. Loses 0.2 for a weird belly button and needing to lose 3-5 pounds.  (https://www.google.com/search?q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1600&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0CIwBEIkeahUKEwj13bLnxY7IAhVHjw0KHVHUDek#q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&tbs=rimg:CTOcLbiN6wDcIjh2yqxAb_1VGMld3QdyQuWQNTIriZdvB3MINPtHlFizODvuriPh6TkYdTHIh2Psw8oUEATsypsJRXioSCXbKrEBv9UYyEemYcwu8_1QP6KhIJV3dB3JC5ZA0Rhy_1175Eo_1WYqEglMiuJl28HcwhHPwRvS_17B_1hioSCQ0-0eUWLM4OEecbxN4eKOyeKhIJ-6uI-HpORh0RwRgw3iJVmTUqEglMciHY-zDyhRGr6EGzlI_11GyoSCQQBOzKmwlFeEZD4U85OpQ7K,itp:animated&tbm=isch)
Look if you want to defend that belly button, that's your business.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 10:04:48 pm
9.8. Loses 0.2 for a weird belly button and needing to lose 3-5 pounds.  (https://www.google.com/search?q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&sa=X&biw=1600&bih=805&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0CIwBEIkeahUKEwj13bLnxY7IAhVHjw0KHVHUDek#q=emily+ratajkowski&safe=off&tbs=rimg:CTOcLbiN6wDcIjh2yqxAb_1VGMld3QdyQuWQNTIriZdvB3MINPtHlFizODvuriPh6TkYdTHIh2Psw8oUEATsypsJRXioSCXbKrEBv9UYyEemYcwu8_1QP6KhIJV3dB3JC5ZA0Rhy_1175Eo_1WYqEglMiuJl28HcwhHPwRvS_17B_1hioSCQ0-0eUWLM4OEecbxN4eKOyeKhIJ-6uI-HpORh0RwRgw3iJVmTUqEglMciHY-zDyhRGr6EGzlI_11GyoSCQQBOzKmwlFeEZD4U85OpQ7K,itp:animated&tbm=isch)
Look if you want to defend that belly button, that's your business.

If you're focused on her belly button, that's your own business, dude.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 23, 2015, 10:09:31 pm
Look, I objectified her shallowly to the tune of 9.8. That's hardly garbage. I'm nowhere near a 9.8 -- side note: I'm a little disappointed no one has shallowly objectified me in this thread yet :( -- it's not like I'm being negative. Just not a perfect ten. Sorry I hold out a PERFECT rating and don't hand it out the second week we are shallowly objectifying people on here by commenting solely on their appearance.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on September 23, 2015, 10:13:11 pm
.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 24, 2015, 08:50:19 am
I saw your insane rant before you .'ed it and I did not respond, half because I just assumed you were drunk (possibly off Chipotle) and half because, after several re-readings of it, I had no idea what you were attempting to communicate.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 26, 2015, 07:01:08 pm
It's a shame we've never actually met because I feel we'd get along swimmingly. (As long as sports are not on.)

I think it's inevitable - at some point you'll visit SF or head up to DC (the chances of me heading to Richmond are slight, at best).

And I don't think sports will be an issue - you are fairly knowledgeable about sports, which I would appreciate, despite your terrible taste in teams.   
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 27, 2015, 12:39:38 am
It's a shame we've never actually met because I feel we'd get along swimmingly. (As long as sports are not on.)

I think it's inevitable - at some point you'll visit SF or head up to DC (the chances of me heading to Richmond are slight, at best).

And I don't think sports will be an issue - you are fairly knowledgeable about sports, which I would appreciate, despite your terrible taste in teams.   
Look, I'm going to ignore the slight against my inpecably cheered-for teams, but if you know you're going to be in DC, a weeks notice gets me there and I will insure debauchery. Sorry my first trip to SF will overlap with your honeymoon, apparently!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 28, 2015, 02:44:07 pm
Sorry my first trip to SF will overlap with your honeymoon, apparently!

Shit, that's right.  What were the dates again?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 28, 2015, 03:56:07 pm
Sorry my first trip to SF will overlap with your honeymoon, apparently!

Shit, that's right.  What were the dates again?
8th - 12th.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on September 28, 2015, 08:35:15 pm
Sorry my first trip to SF will overlap with your honeymoon, apparently!

Shit, that's right.  What were the dates again?
8th - 12th.

Yep, definitely going to be in the South Pacific...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on September 28, 2015, 10:13:12 pm
Sorry my first trip to SF will overlap with your honeymoon, apparently!

Shit, that's right.  What were the dates again?
8th - 12th.

Yep, definitely going to be in the South Pacific...
Good decision. We'll pass like ships in the night. Keep the allure alive.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 01, 2015, 03:46:13 pm
(https://www.slimgr.com/images/2015/10/01/a1ccfb7ae7a0a7f4374b507bd3b80aa6.jpg)

Combined score on 1 to 10 scale: 3.

Combined estimated weights: 723 lbs.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on October 01, 2015, 07:00:28 pm
your, creep level, just went through the roof.  I wonder if there, is a pill for that.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on October 02, 2015, 09:39:50 am
woof
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 02, 2015, 09:53:00 am
woof
I believe oink is actually the sound they make. Or perhaps a moo.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 02, 2015, 11:33:17 am
(http://i.imgur.com/FZwL6Yh.jpg)

Doesn't deserve to live; should donate scooter to actual disabled person.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: killsaly on October 02, 2015, 11:36:05 am
Doesn't deserve to live
WTF?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on October 02, 2015, 11:36:33 am
wow went from shallowly objectifying to down right eugenic/final solution

this fat hating has got to have some deep psychological roots with you

Curious...is your mom overweight?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 02, 2015, 11:42:09 am
Curious...is your mom overweight?
Don't you ever talk about my mother like that.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on October 02, 2015, 01:19:27 pm
Doesn't deserve to live

i've wanted to post on those fatpeoplehate forums: at what point should people just give up and kill themselves?  is a BMI of 25.1 grounds for suicide, or is it more like 26?  30?

and really, at a certain point, shouldn't these people have the choice made for them?  i mean, above 35, thin people should take care of business and just off them, no?

</SARCASM>
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 02, 2015, 01:24:44 pm
No, but it's undeniable that that "woman" is using a ridiculous amount of resources, only one of which being food. For us to have a massive starvation problem worldwide and to have selfish hambeasts eating 5-10x the necessary amount of calories they need daily is not just absurd, it's an atrocity. She is, quite literally, taking food out of starving children's mouths.

If a company callously dumped toxic waste somewhere with wanton disregard for others and it led to children's deaths, people would want criminally negligent manslaughter charges brought up. Why not against Sally McButterbean over there as she stuffs a fifteenth Hot Pocket into her diabetes riddled soon-to-be carcass?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: killsaly on October 02, 2015, 01:29:51 pm
She is, quite literally, taking food out of starving children's mouths.
And we are supposed to believe that you give a shit about starving children?

Please.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 02, 2015, 01:34:46 pm
I think anyone over a BMI of 30 should be able to be detained and taken in front of a civil board we construct in municipalities. If they are judged to be obese and not "swole" (after hearing from a doctor and the defendants attorney), they should be indentured into servitude to the person who reported them. This should be closely regulated by local community services boards the same way the treatment of intellectually disabled or elderly people in group homes are to insure no human rights violations. In social workers monthly visits, the person should be monitored to see if their BMI has fallen below 30; when it does so, they are released.

This fixes virtually every ill in American society. The obesity problem goes away. Business can hire bounty hunters (wow, just created a new industry) to find fatties who then become temporary cheap labor, which in turn re-calibrates immigration rates on its own as a simple recourse that migrant workers, while willing to work for cheap, cannot work for free. (This makes America a manufacturing powerhouse on the level of China or Germany within 3 decades.) This also leads to fat people getting fired from their actual (higher paying) jobs which creates a huge number of white-collar jobs cutting our unemployment rolls to the lowest numbers in history. The by-product of less obese people cuts Medicaid and Medicare spending, ensuring the life of both programs for generations.  

Or, we can just tell Sally McButterhuffer over there she's healthy at every size and beautiful just the way she is.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on October 02, 2015, 05:18:56 pm
No, but it's undeniable that that "woman" is using a ridiculous amount of resources, only one of which being food. For us to have a massive starvation problem worldwide and to have selfish hambeasts eating 5-10x the necessary amount of calories they need daily is not just absurd, it's an atrocity. She is, quite literally, taking food out of starving children's mouths.

If a company callously dumped toxic waste somewhere with wanton disregard for others and it led to children's deaths, people would want criminally negligent manslaughter charges brought up. Why not against Sally McButterbean over there as she stuffs a fifteenth Hot Pocket into her diabetes riddled soon-to-be carcass?
I think anyone over a BMI of 30 should be able to be detained and taken in front of a civil board we construct in municipalities. If they are judged to be obese and not "swole" (after hearing from a doctor and the defendants attorney), they should be indentured into servitude to the person who reported them. This should be closely regulated by local community services boards the same way the treatment of intellectually disabled or elderly people in group homes are to insure no human rights violations. In social workers monthly visits, the person should be monitored to see if their BMI has fallen below 30; when it does so, they are released.

This fixes virtually every ill in American society. The obesity problem goes away. Business can hire bounty hunters (wow, just created a new industry) to find fatties who then become temporary cheap labor, which in turn re-calibrates immigration rates on its own as a simple recourse that migrant workers, while willing to work for cheap, cannot work for free. (This makes America a manufacturing powerhouse on the level of China or Germany within 3 decades.) This also leads to fat people getting fired from their actual (higher paying) jobs which creates a huge number of white-collar jobs cutting our unemployment rolls to the lowest numbers in history. The by-product of less obese people cuts Medicaid and Medicare spending, ensuring the life of both programs for generations.  

Or, we can just tell Sally McButterhuffer over there she's healthy at every size and beautiful just the way she is.

quoted for posterity, in case jules ever wakes up from this nightmare and decides to edit the record.  comments to follow...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on October 02, 2015, 05:25:41 pm
For us to have a massive starvation problem worldwide and to have selfish hambeasts eating 5-10x the necessary amount of calories they need daily is not just absurd, it's an atrocity. She is, quite literally, taking food out of starving children's mouths.

as killsaly noted, fat hating has ZERO to do with solving global hunger.  we already produce more food than we can consume.  the problem is economics and distribution.  no one is taking food out of starving children's mouths.  we're not putting any food there, despite our surpluses.

I think anyone over a BMI of 30 should be able to be detained and taken in front of a civil board we construct in municipalities. If they are judged to be obese and not "swole" (after hearing from a doctor and the defendants attorney), they should be indentured into servitude to the person who reported them.

you support slavery, got it.
 

This fixes virtually every ill in American society.

yes, enslaving the overweight will solve the gun problem, corruption in politics, the blind pursuit of greed at the expense of the environment, the AIDS epidemic, chronic underemployment of marginalized populations, racism, etc etc etc.

Or, we can just tell Sally McButterhuffer over there she's healthy at every size and beautiful just the way she is.

right, because are options are that blank and white.

admittedly, creative thinking isn't exactly the strong suit of fat-haters. 
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on October 02, 2015, 06:39:44 pm
while I hate fat people and believe in fat shaming I am a moderate fat people hater and would like to distance myself a little from the extremist elements in the fat people hater party such as Julian..
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on October 02, 2015, 10:30:32 pm
while I hate fat people and believe in fat shaming I am a moderate fat people hater and would like to distance myself a little from the extremist elements in the fat people hater party such as Julian..
so by that logic, can some one be moderately racist...and that be OK ?

Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on October 02, 2015, 10:44:25 pm
This thread, is going places.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on October 03, 2015, 01:40:01 am
while I hate fat people and believe in fat shaming I am a moderate fat people hater and would like to distance myself a little from the extremist elements in the fat people hater party such as Julian..
so by that logic, can some one be moderately racist...and that be OK ?



umm no.. your "logic" does not lead to that conclusion.... people can't control their skin color but they can control their weight.. except for a very small percentage...usually you can tell who has problems with their glands or what have you...but in the main people are fat because in America people eat too much or eat the wrong foods or a combination.. is it so wrong to say a fat person is destroying themselves and therefore not worthy of much respect? should we accept societal obesity, condone it, heck applaud it?  back to your ill chosen "logic": there is nothing harmful to oneself  about being black or white or yellow or brown or what have you... there is nothing "better" about any one color of skin and even if there were (like say people of one "color" had less chances of diseases not because of their color but because of genes more common to people of that color) one cannot control it..

it is remarkable how in America the entire population seems to have over the past 20 years become obese and yet nobody is to blame....I was struck watching the coverage of the Oregon shooting how every single young woman interviewed - students from the college- where all way overweight....every single one...WTF? it is bad to be obese...is it wrong to point it out? it has a cost to the individual and the society... there is an obesity epidemic going on in this country....people need to wake up... getting diabetes ain't something to dismiss as trivial... childhood diabetes due to childhood obesity is no joke...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ggw on October 03, 2015, 07:31:57 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/01/its-gotten-harder-to-lose-weight-and-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on October 03, 2015, 10:20:33 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/01/its-gotten-harder-to-lose-weight-and-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/


this article exemplifies exactly what is wrong with society.... just a bunch of excuses for people putting on weight.. "OH ITS SO HARD!"

I mean geez.. don't take so many prescription drugs.. don't drink so many sugary drinks... I mean accepting that eating meat is so terribly fattening- which I am skeptical about- don't eat so much meat (by the way I find it hard to believe that in 2015 people are eating the same amount of meat as the cited 2000 given how much meat prices have increased... go to any supermarket and you will see the meat section has gotten far smaller....a lot of cuts are no longer even offered..because its so pricey..to cite an example of increased prices which I have to believe are leading to decreased consumption: less than 10 years a go a pound of 80% ground beef at Trader Joes was $2.49.. .today that same pound is $5.49....)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 03, 2015, 10:22:35 am
Calories in, calories out has worked since time began. The second law of thermodynamics didn't stop working recently. Fucking fat logic.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 05, 2015, 12:04:51 pm
(https://slimgr.com/images/2015/10/05/bc83b75196779c83c014eab222f3fcd2.jpg)
BMI stage. I see what you did there, ACL.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on October 05, 2015, 12:44:05 pm
Hey Julian,

Do you obsess as much about your weight when you're with a date as you do on here with us? And if so, how do your dates feel about it?

Just wondering, because my wife finds it a huge turnoff when I do it, and I don't seem to recall other women caring for it when I foggily think back to my dating years.

Space
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on October 05, 2015, 01:33:12 pm
(https://slimgr.com/images/2015/10/05/bc83b75196779c83c014eab222f3fcd2.jpg)
BMI stage. I see what you did there, ACL.
Funny they played the BMI stage at the Landmark fest too
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 27, 2015, 01:21:52 pm
She definitely has a nicer ass than either of the Indigo Girls. So there's that.
Picking up conversation about in the proper venue. Definitely a solid 9 out of 10. Hotchimama!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on October 27, 2015, 02:17:04 pm
She definitely has a nicer ass than either of the Indigo Girls. So there's that.
Picking up conversation about in the proper venue. Definitely a solid 9 out of 10. Hotchimama!

Here I thought you were talking about Joanna Gruesome and I was a little surprised
(http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/489583468-kate-stonestreet-of-joanna-gruesome-performs-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=X7WJLa88Cweo9HktRLaNXmdNDf2n0WfPF5JACxYaK%2FNj8kZcmrcwrt624hF3LMEhTaIPR9TcjNTWP8HHN3DIJg%3D%3D)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on October 27, 2015, 02:20:11 pm
cute...but I'm thinking 7-8 on my scale
(http://imgick.oregonlive.com/home/olive-media/width620/img/tv/photo/2015/09/20/18799025-mmmain.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on October 27, 2015, 02:55:39 pm
You may not be capturing her [ahem] best side.

(http://img004.lazygirls.info/people/joanna_newsom/joanna_newsom_joanna_ass_GJAzVes.sized.jpg)

(http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/chocool/9366710/16636/16636_original.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/dZA171P.gif)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on October 27, 2015, 03:13:41 pm
relaxer, to the rescue.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Relaxer on October 27, 2015, 03:21:59 pm
I'm like Oskar Schindler in this thread
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on October 27, 2015, 03:27:22 pm
I'm like Oskar Schindler in this thread
You've certainly brought happiness and renewed vitality to my circumcized member!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 10:15:31 am
In retrospect, this was a great thread. I don't know why we let it die off. Let's shallowly objectify Anna Kendrick. At first blush, I'd probably give her a solid 8 or 9 but then I realize I'm totally taking her personality into account and not fully shallowly objectify her. She sort of has a rat face. Probably have to dock her a few points. Solid 7 though I still think. Thoughts?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 26, 2016, 10:30:41 am
In retrospect, this was a great thread. I don't know why we let it die off. Let's shallowly objectify Anna Kendrick. At first blush, I'd probably give her a solid 8 or 9 but then I realize I'm totally taking her personality into account and not fully shallowly objectify her. She sort of has a rat face. Probably have to dock her a few points. Solid 7 though I still think. Thoughts?

How's this?

When I was single and younger, there were two categories. Those good enough to hit, and those good enough to possibly spend the rest of my life with. I think she would be on the border of those two categories for me. The fact that she's only 5'2" is a minus.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 10:34:14 am
I think she would be on the border of those two categories for me. The fact that she's only 5'2" is a minus.
See, I kind of like that. Sub 5' gets weird but 5'1"-5'3" is probably my ideal.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 10:35:37 am
Let's get some pics up in here:

(http://images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/s--9TUzKzRX--/t_full/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_75/v1402512206/anna-kendrick-cleavage-photo.jpg)

(http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201545/rs_634x863-150505062947-634.Anna-Kendrick-Glamour-JR-50515.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 26, 2016, 10:36:17 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 10:37:07 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 26, 2016, 10:55:17 am
I feel like she's pretty average looking but I can't stop staring at her. I want to give her a 4-5, but I think she's more a high 6 if not a 7.

And I can't really explain why.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 26, 2016, 11:14:25 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 11:20:25 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.
You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 26, 2016, 11:28:57 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.
You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.
I always figured 5 was average.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 26, 2016, 11:40:58 am
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But.... I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings... but I find her annoying and almost unattractive.... I can't explain it.
I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.
You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.

68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 11:46:10 am
68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).
68.8% of the world's population aren't overweight though. I agree with your general idea that the simple fact she's not a porker has to put her ahead of 99% of the porkers but I don't have good figures on how many porkers there are total.

Also, my personal rankings isn't an even distribution of scores. Way more 1s and 2s than 9s and 10s.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 26, 2016, 11:55:27 am
68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).
68.8% of the world's population aren't overweight though. I agree with your general idea that the simple fact she's not a porker has to put her ahead of 99% of the porkers but I don't have good figures on how many porkers there are total.

Also, my personal rankings isn't an even distribution of scores. Way more 1s and 2s than 9s and 10s.

This is starting to remind me of the latest Jim Jeffries Netflix special.

I see it as a bell curve with comparable number of 1/2 vs. 9/10.

Also, take into account age. Anna may only be in the 50th percentile for her age (higher? lower? I dunno), but she's definitely more attractive than most of the AARP-eligible people in the world, no? I guess it doesn't matter if you're implying  that most people in the world are below a 5.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 26, 2016, 11:59:48 am
I personally feel we're getting too caught up in the minutia when we could be posting pictures of people and shallowly objectifying them by discussing their appearance.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 26, 2016, 12:05:59 pm
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34/other-other-topics/looks-scale-1-10-male-female-oh-yea-op-scumbag-scammer-1290316/
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 08:18:21 am
In retrospect, this was a great thread. I don't know why we let it die off. Let's shallowly objectify Anna Kendrick. At first blush, I'd probably give her a solid 8 or 9 but then I realize I'm totally taking her personality into account and not fully shallowly objectify her. She sort of has a rat face. Probably have to dock her a few points. Solid 7 though I still think. Thoughts?

I asked my wife about Anna Kendrick, and she said "7, she loses a bit because of her Irish horsey-face". I guess the two of you could argue about which mammal she most resembles, but it sounds like the two of you are on the same page.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 09:03:22 am
Actually, with all due respect to Celeste, I would argue vehemently that Anna is not a horse face. That's a completely different shape face. I don't even understand where she's getting that. Rather rat-like features though.

Anna Kendrick or Kate Mara -- and again, lets leave personality out of this objectification, people!! -- who would you choose? Everyone vote!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on July 27, 2016, 10:44:16 am
is mila kunis good looking?  I, can't decide.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on July 27, 2016, 10:49:25 am
well.. the truth is that unless you see her in person you can't really say... not only is beauty subjective in general but what you see on screen and in pictures is a representation... the real deal is in person..sometimes when you see somebody in person you realize "whoaa I had no idea the person was so small?" or they just look different to you than what you visualized on the screen etc

I happen to think Mila is incredibly attractive.. but if I saw her in person she might just look plain and common... I don't know...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on July 27, 2016, 10:53:42 am
what, a response. 
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 10:54:30 am
is mila kunis good looking?  I, can't decide.
She's not ugly by any means but I would choose many, many other celebrity women ahead of her.

Also, please feel free to shallowly objectify dudes in this thread. This is 2016, after all.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 10:55:28 am
well.. the truth is that unless you see her in person you can't really say... not only is beauty subjective in general but what you see on screen and in pictures is a representation... the real deal is in person..sometimes when you see somebody in person you realize "whoaa I had no idea the person was so small?" or they just look different to you than what you visualized on the screen etc

I happen to think Mila is incredibly attractive.. but if I saw her in person she might just look plain and common... I don't know...
The depth of this comment is in stark contrast to the stated shallow nature of this thread and the intended knee-jerk objectifying comments contained therein. Not cool, dude. Tell us if you'd hit that and rate her numerically or at least put her in competition with another woman solely based on physical attractivness OR GTFO.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 27, 2016, 11:03:20 am
I have always thought that Ryan Gosling has a sort of. . . Mentally dull(. . ?) look to him.
Can a guy get by more on the shape of his body alone than a woman can?
Is this because it's technically socially unacceptable to, for lack of a better word, "focus" on a woman's body?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 11:05:40 am
I have always thought that Ryan Gosling has a sort of. . . Mentally (dull. . ?) look to him.
Can a guy get by more on the shape of his body alone than a woman can?
Is this because it's technically socially unacceptable to, for lack of a better word, "focus" on a woman's body?

I agree and have always felt the same way about Paul Walker. I don't think that dude could figure out how to put a shirt on by himself.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on July 27, 2016, 11:13:40 am
sorry.. I don't know what I was thinking...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on July 27, 2016, 11:29:55 am
Is this because it's technically socially unacceptable to, for lack of a better word, "focus" on a woman's body?

what are you talking about?!?  our media and popular culture are, for a large part, built on "focusing" on women's bodies (maybe i'm not understanding what you mean by "focus"..."
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 27, 2016, 12:14:24 pm
I guess I more more trying to point out that for men, a "good body" can trump all else on the attractive scale. I don't think there's such a thing as a male "butterface," just uggos and not. 
I was also attempting to (unsuccessfully) point out the social unacceptability of real world ogling of female bodies which has to also have an effect on how we write, talk and in media objectify bodies as a whole. 
I can feel myself chasing my own tail down a rabbit hole of writing. . . Which is why I probably rarely comment here.   
 
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 27, 2016, 12:16:11 pm
"focus" meant ogling. . . That's it. . . nothing much more to add.
Also, debatable as to whether weight loss positively or negatively impacted Jonah Hill's look but I'm pulling negatively.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on July 27, 2016, 12:23:34 pm
Integers are too difficult for this type of discussion.

Smackie will stick to "Hot Enough" or "Not Hot Enough"

Anna, Mila and Kate are all "Hot Enough"
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on July 27, 2016, 12:25:53 pm
Integers are too difficult for this type of discussion.

if you need some help with integers, i've got a thread for you...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 12:32:29 pm
Integers are too difficult for this type of discussion.

if you need some help with integers, i've got a thread for you...
GOTTA CATCH 'EM ALL.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 12:47:17 pm
Actually, with all due respect to Celeste, I would argue vehemently that Anna is not a horse face. That's a completely different shape face. I don't even understand where she's getting that. Rather rat-like features though.

Anna Kendrick or Kate Mara -- and again, lets leave personality out of this objectification, people!! -- who would you choose? Everyone vote!

I'm going to agree with you and say rat face.

In fairness to my wife, she had to think long and hard to even remember who Anna Kendrick is. She doesn't really follow the celebrity pages, and we watch so, so many movies its' hard for her to remember all the actresses.

I'm going to give a half vote to Kate, a half to Anna. Sorry, they're pretty evenly matched. Both solid 7's...ok now that I'm married and 49, maybe they bump up to 8's. And in Smackie language, both "good enough".

Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 12:50:44 pm
I feel like Kate has the better face but Anna the better body and hair.

Which of course prompts me to bring up the obvious evolution of this thread: if we were to create the ideal sexual partner by culling body parts from celebrities (e. g. "Kate Upton's chest", "Emily Ratajkowski's waistline", "Britney Snow's hair" etc) what would make up everyone's personal Frankenstein's sexy (shallowly objectified) monster?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on July 27, 2016, 12:53:57 pm
When I was 11, it was Kelly LeBrock.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 12:56:00 pm
When I was 11, it was Kelly LeBrock.
Not aged well. Not aged well at all.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 01:05:03 pm
I feel like Kate has the better face but Anna the better body and hair.

Which of course prompts me to bring up the obvious evolution of this thread: if we were to create the ideal sexual partner by culling body parts from celebrities (e. g. "Kate Upton's chest", "Emily Ratajkowski's waistline", "Britney Snow's hair" etc) what would make up everyone's personal Frankenstein's sexy (shallowly objectified) monster?

It's no wonder few women post on this forum.

Which brings me to two questions:

Who has the biggest most fabulous 70's style bush, and who has the largest areolas?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on July 27, 2016, 01:11:02 pm
It's no wonder few women post on this forum.

we opened it up to objectification of men too - hooray for equality!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:12:16 pm
It's no wonder few women post on this forum.
I have been openly encouraging equal treatment of men -- myself included -- throughout this thread's tenure. I'm nothing if not fair.

Who has the biggest most fabulous 70's style bush, and who has the largest areolas?
Don't be crass. The Smackie thread is over there.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on July 27, 2016, 01:16:00 pm


Who has the biggest most fabulous 70's style bush, and who has the largest areolas?
Don't be crass. The Smackie thread is over there.
it is true, when I want to know details on the biggest beaver, I go straight to smakies thread
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 01:51:24 pm
Kate Mara looks like they taped Anna Hendricks face of Anna Kendricks face and tightened it or something.

When I looked up Anna Kendrick I thought it was Kate Mara. Wow. I've been getting them confused for awhile.... I think? Wasn't one of them just in that Dick and Dale Need Wedding Dates movie? Who is the blonde from Forgetting Sarah Marshall? They all look the same to me.

EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 27, 2016, 01:51:54 pm
I've seen a lot of "hot enoughs" (subjective) in this thread. . . What about some "not hot enoughs?"

Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:53:46 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:54:54 pm
I've seen a lot of "hot enoughs" (subjective) in this thread. . . What about some "not hot enoughs?"


Rooney Mara, Saoirse Ronin, and Amy Schumer are all on my do-not-bang list.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 01:55:33 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Yeah, she's a solid 8 for me. I think she has an accent too.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:55:57 pm
Kate Mara looks like they taped Anna Hendricks face of Anna Kendricks face and tightened it or something.
This is a weird sentence to begin with only made more complicated by your multiple errors.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 01:57:02 pm
Kate Mara looks like they taped Anna Hendricks face of Anna Kendricks face and tightened it or something.
This is a weird sentence to begin with only made more complicated by your multiple errors.
I could not have described this any other way. It is confusing af.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:57:18 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Yeah, she's a solid 8 for me. I think she has an accent too.
She's good. Let's put her head and hair on Anna Kendrick's frame with Alexandra Daddario's rack and Blake Lively's derriere and we'd really have something then.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 01:57:58 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Yeah, she's a solid 8 for me. I think she has an accent too.

Yeah, but she's been fucking Borat for years now, so she's probably stretched loose as fuck.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 01:59:02 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Yeah, she's a solid 8 for me. I think she has an accent too.

Yeah, but she's been fucking Borat for years now, so she's probably stretched loose as fuck.
Great point. Add Elle Fanning's or Chloe Grace Moritz's genitalia to that composite woman I was making earlier.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on July 27, 2016, 02:02:54 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.

Amy Adams and Isla Fisher set to co-star in a film about how they're basically twins (http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/movie-news/amy-adams-and-isla-fisher-set-to-costar-in-a-film-about-how-theyre-basically-twins-34913571.html)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on July 27, 2016, 02:48:36 pm
Sooooooo, Rachel C00k?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 03:20:28 pm
Remember the time Atomic tried to convince us Lena Dunham was hot?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 03:28:33 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.

Amy Adams and Isla Fisher set to co-star in a film about how they're basically twins
 (http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/movie-news/amy-adams-and-isla-fisher-set-to-costar-in-a-film-about-how-theyre-basically-twins-34913571.html)
Holy shit HAHAHA!!! Although I thought Isla Fischer was one of the other ones names. Gah!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 03:30:11 pm
EDIT: The hottest one of all these clones is the crazy girl from Wedding Crashers
Isla Fisher, I believe.
Yeah, she's a solid 8 for me. I think she has an accent too.

Yeah, but she's been fucking Borat for years now, so she's probably stretched loose as fuck.
So, in this scenario, you'd turn her down because she's been married to Sacha Baron Cohen for the past few years?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: DeathFromAbove1979 on July 27, 2016, 03:31:42 pm
Sooooooo, Rachel C00k?
She seems like your standard, empty eyed model. 7/10. Would throw the bone if need be.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 03:40:13 pm
Some of the photos on her instagram looks like Fiona Apple's head (circa 1996) has been photoshopped on an otherwise attractive woman. Docking a point or two for that.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on July 27, 2016, 03:42:36 pm
Annie Yu?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on July 27, 2016, 03:44:10 pm
Dakota Johnson?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 03:48:40 pm
Sue Palka?

Helen Mirren?

Charlotte Rampling?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: walk,on,by on July 27, 2016, 04:03:18 pm
Can everybody just post photos of themselves and their significant others? And then we'll let the judging begin.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on July 27, 2016, 04:07:27 pm
Can everybody just post photos of themselves and their significant others? And then we'll let the judging begin.

you first? ;D
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on July 27, 2016, 04:24:07 pm
ok I'll start

(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/416301/83737085.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on July 27, 2016, 04:27:31 pm
^always wearing turtlenecks...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 04:33:32 pm
*insert pussy joke here*
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on July 27, 2016, 04:36:17 pm
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/maridav/maridav1505/maridav150500257/40424491-Fitness-healthy-lifestyle-young-couple-training-for-marathon-outside-in-Central-Park-Manhattan-New-Y-Stock-Photo.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 04:38:30 pm
This is me, dudes:

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/portrait-cute-young-black-female-close-up-isolated-white-36117417.jpg)

Feel free to objectify me.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 04:39:14 pm
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/maridav/maridav1505/maridav150500257/40424491-Fitness-healthy-lifestyle-young-couple-training-for-marathon-outside-in-Central-Park-Manhattan-New-Y-Stock-Photo.jpg)
The chick is a solid 7.5. Would go as high as 8 if limited to integers.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 27, 2016, 04:44:56 pm
She has a sociopath's smile. That's someone's thing I guess.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 27, 2016, 04:47:21 pm
She has a sociopath's smile. That's someone's thing I guess.
I like that. I'd consider going all the way up to 9 if she didn't have words on her face which is kinda a turn off.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on July 27, 2016, 04:56:55 pm
Remember the time Atomic tried to convince us Lena Dunham was hot?

Not hot enough.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on July 27, 2016, 04:58:27 pm
Sue Palka?

Helen Mirren?

Charlotte Rampling?

Not hot enough.

I still might.

Definitely hot enough 20 years ago, probably not now.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: vansmack on July 27, 2016, 04:59:47 pm
Dakota Johnson?

Hot enough. but I wouldn't mate.  Wouldn't want to dilute the smackie gene pool.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2016, 07:11:06 pm
(http://previews.123rf.com/images/maridav/maridav1505/maridav150500257/40424491-Fitness-healthy-lifestyle-young-couple-training-for-marathon-outside-in-Central-Park-Manhattan-New-Y-Stock-Photo.jpg)

I don't rate 12 year olds.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: hutch on July 27, 2016, 07:16:43 pm
I don't know about this thread...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on July 28, 2016, 08:38:02 am
Remember the time Atomic tried to convince us Lena Dunham was hot?

Not hot enough.

Christ... finally getting around to watching this season of Girls and my god.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 28, 2016, 08:39:13 am
Remember the time Atomic tried to convince us Lena Dunham was hot?

Not hot enough.

Christ... finally getting around to watching this season of Girls and my god.
I thought it might have been the best season of the show but since this isn't the Prestige Television thread but rather the Shallowly Objectify thread I will just say Lena Dunham looks like a manatee.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 28, 2016, 09:33:27 am
. . . When Girls first came out I definitely thought twice about Lena. . . She seemed cool, wore cool clothes and I'm attracted to power and supposed intellect.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on July 28, 2016, 09:35:27 am
. . . When Girls first came out I definitely thought twice about Lena. . . She seemed cool, wore cool clothes and I'm attracted to power and supposed intellect.
Then you saw Marnie (Allison Williams) and the thoughts about Lena went away?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on July 28, 2016, 09:50:04 am
I will just say Lena Dunham looks like a manatee.

^ THAT is why i come to this thread.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: evilizac on July 28, 2016, 09:53:05 am
. . . When Girls first came out I definitely thought twice about Lena. . . She seemed cool, wore cool clothes and I'm attracted to power and supposed intellect.
Then you saw Marnie (Allison Williams) and the thoughts about Lena went away?
Well I like to consider myself relatively bright. . . and also not totally blind.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on August 03, 2016, 01:22:19 pm
so Science (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3689902/Amber-Heard-Kim-Kardashian-Kate-Moss-beautiful-face-world-according-science.html) says that Amber Heard is the most beautiful woman in the world

although I'm a little suspect as Helen Mirrien came in #6
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on July 06, 2020, 04:27:02 pm
Mmmmm.


(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/21/00/10072106-6727457-image-m-5_1550709717726.jpg)
Would NOT hit it.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on November 19, 2020, 02:55:27 pm
so are we above judging donny's recently flip to white hair? 

(https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-11/06c339a0-260d-11eb-bf4e-70ffa7c3a49a)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Julian, Forum COGNOSCENTI on November 19, 2020, 03:42:48 pm
so are we above judging donny's recently flip to white hair? 

(https://media-mbst-pub-ue1.s3.amazonaws.com/creatr-uploaded-images/2020-11/06c339a0-260d-11eb-bf4e-70ffa7c3a49a)
His hair dye conceded. Its the first step.
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: WALKonBack on November 19, 2020, 05:19:09 pm
There were some articles a few weeks ago I think, that said has anybody noticed that Donald Trump's hair has not changed colour like other Presidents have . . . implying the man hasn't done shit in four years to age him.

He must have just read those articles and realised, "Hey I better look like this so it appears I did something."
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on November 19, 2020, 06:48:52 pm
There were some articles a few weeks ago I think, that said has anybody noticed that Donald Trump's hair has not changed colour like other Presidents have . . . implying the man hasn't done shit in four years to age him.

He must have just read those articles and realised, "Hey I better look like this so it appears I did something."

"crap, jesus is coming - quick, everyone look busy!"
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on February 08, 2022, 02:28:46 pm
time to fire up this lil' pre-Me Too piece of history:

The DJ is really cute, too.

(https://www.kexp.org/media/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/8a/4e/8a4ebdd8-0ab0-41e6-848c-64c27f6ad8cf/albi025.jpg__800x800_q85_crop_subsampling-2_upscale.jpg)

yeah?  i'm glad she works for you, but not my type.  she's not what i would consider traditionally attractive...
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on March 30, 2022, 04:21:59 pm
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/gettyimages-1388116761.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: GAY,GUY on March 30, 2022, 04:36:47 pm
That dress, was everything!  And she was so high; I love her!
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: ye-ole-hatch ıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llıl on March 30, 2022, 05:00:11 pm
I kinda  like her in this outfit better, but women who like ye kinda set off a red flag for me
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/.rKTtLvWY6WafRLWzmXlfg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTY0MDtoPTg1Mw--/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/fzEf1CsFXqCIOyTirf.xbg--~B/aD0yMDAwO3c9MTUwMDthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en/instyle_846/1b399d4e339f67560cbffb430e145383)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on March 30, 2022, 05:20:17 pm
this woman certainly know how to get attention... i preferred her look when she turned a Hanes wife-beater into a hot little set.  a $5 outfit accessorised with over $5K in boots, gloves and handbag ;D

(https://pagesix.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/03/julia-fox-under-boob.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1280)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Yada on March 14, 2024, 10:14:03 am
 :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*


(https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/thumbor/Zb7A6uiJZD230Il86Rhl7wv4XJ4=/fit-in/792x1119/filters:format_auto():upscale()/2020/01/05/045/n/1922398/tmp_AvvDvj_e8e6a4c0679b5a83_GettyImages-1197390293.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Hutch on March 14, 2024, 10:18:56 am
She’s Portuguese?
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: Hutch on March 14, 2024, 10:31:33 am
(https://i.ibb.co/9s77xMb/IMG-1621.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r4VVBWx)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: grateful on March 14, 2024, 10:39:55 am
"María Rosario Pilar Martínez Molina Baeza"
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on March 14, 2024, 01:02:45 pm
Portuguese women beautiful? Now I have heard it all. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I have never heard this before. I find Portuguese people noticeably unattra. Women are the bottom of Western Europe and probably only above Albanian, Rumanian and Bulgarian women in all of Europe.The only exception might be Ronaldo who I don’t believe I have ever seen with a Portuguese woman. Current partner of course Argentine.

If Portuguese women are beautiful what are Spanish, French and Italian women?

It’s nice that you love Portugal, and convenient, given it’s the cheap country of Western Europe. Not that long ago as you probably know it used to be its backwater.

Sweetcell is gonna be big mad.

Why do you say that?

He's a big Balkans guy

nah, i'm a big ukraine guy and anti-ruzzia guy.  fyi, ukraine isn't part of the balkans.  UA touches the northern edge of the balkans if you include romania (there is no set definition of which countries are in "the balkans", but typically RO is included).
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on March 14, 2024, 01:06:01 pm
Portuguese women beautiful? Now I have heard it all. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I have never heard this before. I find Portuguese people noticeably unattractive. Women are the bottom of Western Europe and probably only above Albanian, Rumanian and Bulgarian women in all of Europe.

i have been to portugal 3 or 4 times, and having ogled plenty of locals i found portuguese women to be - fine.  there were some hotties, there were some uglies, not a noticeably "beautiful country" but certainly not a particularly ugly one either.  if they have a reputation for lacking attractiveness, i would say it's undeserved.   
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 14, 2024, 01:37:57 pm
speaking of shallow objectification

community note  ;D

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIe-ScbWMAAt8a7?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.
Post by: sweetcell on March 14, 2024, 01:41:24 pm
^ best community note ever?