If sexuality is a choice, Strange Famous, then I too challenge you to have sex with a man.

Surely you can find one who can arouse you sexually if you truly chose to.

It could be fun.

How is Glory's Asshole doing these days?

I did have a friend in college who would often come out of the bathroom to the announcement of, "Jesus Christ! I think I put that toilet into therapy!"

I missed drinking with her, except for when she would hit me for being emo while drinking. She punched harder than I did.

The chance doesn't drop to 0% after undergoing tubal ligation, but a hysterectomy would undoubtedly manage it.

Tubal ligation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I am unsure of the details, what you've told me suggests that you were receiving attention based on your sex. Even so, at least they weren't immaturely smothering you with it. I've played WoW on several female characters and noticed a definite increase in the amount and duration of attention provided to me by others, particularly when crossing someone while leveling, or interacting in Stormwind. Of course, my server was Moon Guard, one of the heaviest roleplaying servers in the game, so that altered my experiences over a normal ruleset server.

"Generally."

I left myself with an escape route in case a hairy woman replied. :p

I thought the exceptions are what this thread is all about. The examples trotted our are a demonstration that there is so much more variability within the sexes than there are between the sexes.

Whether or not women on average or stereotypically have less facial hair than men, that doesn't help me decide whether a particular woman has more or less facial hair than a particular man.

Yes, and its a choice I choose not to make right now.

Maybe in the future I'll feel like it, but at the moment I dont feel like it.

If I wanted I could also opt out of being heterosexual, and become a celibate (on the whole priests make this choice) - this might be a better example of what you are trying to say.

_

Something else women cant do... is detach their head and their heart

Backpedaling bullshit. Game, set, match.

Priests do not simply "stop" being sexual beings. That's the point. Priestly celibacy is a sacrifice, a sign of devotion, precisely -because- they can't just "choose" to not be sexual creatures. The torment/discomfort is the sacrifice, part of the Seal of the Priest's Devotion (as well as a practical measure to ensure that sinecures, bishoprics, etc. don't become hereditary feifdoms). This is also why lots of folks think Priestly celibacy should be done away with: because it -can't- be switched off and plenty of Priests can't handle the strain. Have you now moved beyond firearms, bears, dogs, and women and onto Catholic Discipline in your quest to pontificate on matters you know nothing about?

I am proving sexuality is a choice.

A priest may have heterosexual feelings, but CHOOSE to be celibate. I think thats a pretty clear proof of what I have said about sexuality as a choice, and the difference between biological and emotional sexuality and consent.

The priest cannot change his physical / biological reaction. But he can use his choice to not act on it. A man cannot help but be sexually attracted to a sexy woman (even a practising homosexual, although their physical attraction may be smaller than a heterosexual) but he can choose not to act on it, or even to create a state of mind where his instictive breeding instinct is all but totally nullified.

_

If we are talking about women in this thread - the same thing goes.

Even if we talk of female rugby players (although I was a prop when I played it is quite amusing for Dundean to imagine I would be intimidated by a back, even a female one)

In this example, the priest isn't choosing his sexual orientation, he's choosing his sexual practice.

Yes - but sexuality is a combination of inclination and activity. There are a lot more latent homosexuals than practising homosexuals.

A lot more people have feelings of extreme violence than act them out.

(and no, I am not comparing any particular sexuality to violence - it is just an example of the same mechanism.)

A latent homosexual is still a homosexual.

So far, all you've proven is that it's a choice you're unable (therefore not actually a choice) or unwilling (therefore unprovable) to make. You keep insisting you've proven things when all you've done is make unfounded assertions.

Correct.

Bullshit.

Oxymoronic, and just plain moronic, bullshit. Check the links I provided earlier. Homosexual males are wired, framed, and trimmed, to be attracted to men. Their brains are chemically, and morphologically, closer to a heterosexual female than a heterosexual male. They do not display the chemical, neurological, electrical, -or- physiological markers of "attraction" to women. Read the friggin' links, Strange. You. Are. Incorrect. Flatly, totally, and 103% completely incorrect.

Given your attitudes towards women, I think it's safe to say that you feel intimidated by pretty much -all- women. It's the only logical motivator I can see for this endless, patronizing, disgusting, makes-me-ashamed-to-be-a-male habit you have of denigrating their capabilities, putting them on pedestals (while posting an "erotic image" in another thread which strongly suggests rape), and all the while insisting that while you'd never fight one (because that would be wrong and unmanly and John L. Sullivan would hate you for it) you could easily kick the ass of any woman you liked. This is what we call "overcompensation," Strange, and it doesn't help your cases; ANY of them.

To not punch myself in the balls right now is a choice. I am not going to do that either just to prove to someone I can choose to if I want.

Strange, please post just one credible source that backs up just one of the outrageous claims you've made.

Edit -

The RA the Rugged Man pic I posted does not "suggest rape" to me. It is simply an erotic view of power exchange. Rape is nothing to do with sex. It is a violent and hateful act. I think it is not something that I at least find a suitable subject for jokes. I find it quite bizzare that other users post photographs which are artistic portrayals of murder, and yet you choose to make a comment about a photo with a man carrying a woman on his shoulder.

My views of women are not patronizing in my opinion. I dont deny that I treat men and women differently, and I dont deny that I find women better company than men often. The fact that I cannot see any situation I would fight a woman is hardly unusual, most men would answer the same.

Men and women are different. One if not better than the other, but they have different qualities and characteristics. Some men are feminine and some women are masculine, but on the whole and on average - there are real differences that people who live in the real world can see.

Men are more violent, more competitive, less caring, more hungry for power

Women are more co-operative, more compassionate, more creative, more prone to kindness.

This doesn't mean that no woman can ever be evil, or that no man can ever be gentle.

But the real world is full of men who are violent towards women. This is something I choose not to be, I struggle to see why you find that laughable.

You might wanna think about that.

"I'm not a racist, but who in their right mind would hire a nigger to run a cash-register? Everyone knows niggers can't do math!"

Of course they're not patronizing in your opinion: they're -your- opinions! Circular logic. Try asking some of our female members what -they- think. I don't think it'll have changed much since last time.

That's not what's so funny. What's so funny is your insistence that you
1: Would never fight any woman, ever, for any reason. (Self-defense is a powerful motivator)
2: Could kick the ass of any woman, anywhere, whenever. Because they're women, see. This despite the fact that you admit to being in, shall we say, sub-par physical condition.

This dichotomy, coupled with the fact that your pedestal-pushing suggests a rather nasty case of the Whore/Madonna Complex, is why I find your picture disturbing. Coming from any other member, I'd not be bothered.

I have never said I could beat any woman in a fight under any circumstance. But men on average are stronger than women... no one would deny that.

There are photo's in the same thread you speak of portraying a woman with a plastic bag over her head, a noose around her neck, and blood running down her body... and I repeat, you choose to make comments about the innocuous picture I posted?? I think you need to take a look at yourself.

I also do not use the kind of racial slurs you are throwing about. I charge you to find evidence of your accusation that I use language like that? As usual I expect you will duck the question because as usual you are doing nothing more than slinging mud and hoping some of it sticks.

As for Rahl - almost every statement I make is supported and backed up by the commonly accepted view of society, by widely accepted facts, and by the common good. Time and time I back up what I say... simply because I do not have the time to spend finding some article on google that says the same thing as me doesnt change the facts or reality.

No, I do not have the same objections. Because those pics were not posted by a person whose postings suggest that they objectify women, catagorise women, and denigrate women, as yours consistently do.

I never said you did. I was making the point that your thought process is similar, if not identical, to that of the person who insists that they are not a racist yet constantly says racist things. You insist that you are not a sexist, yet constantly say/post incredibly sexist things, things which I (even as a man) find personally offensive and counter to my experience of women (and reality).

You mean like "gay men get hard for sexy women?" I've yet to see/hear of -any- society in which this is a commonly-held view.

You mean like "gay men get hard for sexy women?" Again, I've yet to see or hear of -anyplace- where this is a "widely accepted fact."

Oh this I have -GOT- to hear. How is any of this, any of your positions, "the common good?"

Bullshit. You've yet to do so in this thread or any other: your singular exception being that you once found a pair of magazine/newspaper articles to support your contention that it is physically possible for a human being to beat a Pittbull to death. In no other case that I'm aware of have you backed up -any- of your insane positions. Not only that, but you refuse to consider the backup that other people provide for -their- contentions (citations, experts, demonstrations, statistics, etc), even thought -their- backup comes with sources and annotation and your "backup" consists of insisting and insisting and insisting that you're right and everyone knows it.

But since you are suggesting things which fly in the face of what EVERYONE ELSE experiences as "facts" and "reality," to say nothing of what science has to say about it, and you do so with a proclivity and profundity that is simply horrid to contemplate, other people would very much like to know where you're getting your information/ideas. Under such circumstances, if you wish for your positions to be taken at all seriously, you should provide those sources.

Well, if it's so widely accepted then a quick search by you shouldn't take but maybe 30 seconds to post some evidence.

Since I've already proven you are 100% wrong concerning the male erection, I understand your reluctance to post any of your so called "widely accepted facts"

You have reached a state of hysteria where you simply are stating black is white and getting angrier and angrier that the world will not conform.

How could you state that I, a committed feminist, denigrate women? For everyone reading this, they will simply be amazed and ashamed of the things that you state.

A harmless image from a rap album you claim is some kind of rape fantasy. Only a diseased mind could really think this. So we must asume you say it only because you think it will provoke me.

On my comments on homosexuality... perhaps you will show us he evidence of a man who his entire life was 100% sure he was homosexual, who never had any doubt or questioned it. Since you cannot the majority of people will accept what I said as fact.

On the supposed "objectification" of women you talk about: I have stated simply that women cannot commit rape - which I have proved quite blatantly, that violence is alien to the female nature (which is mere common sense).

_

I have lived 32 years of my life, and I have never been threatened with violence with by a woman or hit by a woman, I have never known a woman (above the age of about 12 when children are all the same) who has acted in a seriously violent way. I have not had any mates who have been hit by women or threatened with violence by a woman as far as I am aware.

When I talk about "real life" this is what I mean, and this is what 99% of the people on TFP also experience.

For those who are obsessed with find some right wing anti woman website on google that talks a loaf of nonesense and demand it is rebutted... I say to you that my experience, and the experience of all the people I have known in 32 years is my rebuttal.

I place the experience of real life above what someone sitting at home on their own can find on google.

Wanna know what women can do?
Leave this thread.

Buh bye.

Except you were proven to be completely wrong. Women can/have/do rape men.

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

and this is what you refuse to get. Your experiences don't mean jack. Evidence, reality, and biological facts contradict your experiences.

Strange, I don't even know where to start with this one. Almost every single person that has bothered to respond to you on TFP, ever, on the subject of your attitudes toward women has taken issue with them and told you that your views are decidedly not feminist. When the women of TFP are also telling you that they don't appreciate your views, you lose all ability to claim that your views are feminist, let alone the astonishing claim that "everyone reading" posts critical of you "will simply be amazed and ashamed of the things" they state. You may not want to accept it, but I think I have a pretty good pulse of the community on this one: everyone reading actually kind of agrees with those criticisms. If you don't realize that after years of having the same debate over and over... and over again, then that's simply willful ignorance. Many people don't even bother responding anymore because they're so tired of the circular arguments.

Some of you posters just can't get enough of your tar baby.
Not my idea of any quality debate or discussion.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...i23tarbaby.jpg

It's too bad. Genuinegirly: I feel sad, that your thread has been ruined.

Of course Strange Famous is a feminist. Who else dedicates so much time and effort to protect those poor fragile women who, after all, are scarcely able to defend themselves?

...

No woman can understand the level of embarrassment I'm feeling on behalf of my gender, on reading this thread.

me either. I am embarrassed as I walk down the street.

After years of this sort of thing, I am no longer surprised. I am just a little sad.

Ring I *LOVE* that tar baby picture, I didn't think that story went as far back as to be drawn like that. That's cool.

I guess that means this stereotype isn't busted.

I agree, it is too bad. However, the whole point of this thread was for people to say stupid sexist things, to set up stereotypes of women which could then be busted. Strange Famous has proven to be provided with a bottomless bucket of sexist stupidity, and has obligingly set up any number of stereotypes to be busted. In this way, if no other, he has served the thread's purpose.

This, again, is -your- experience. Yours. Not anyone elses, and not extrapolable to anyone else's situation. Everyone's experiences are different. Edited to add: Similarity is useful, yes, and culture shapes experience in certain similar ways, but each person's experience is unique and of itself. However, the fact that -your- experience seems to fly in the face of everyone else's in this thread should be a clue regarding the following...

Yet ANOTHER concrete claim (99% of TFP) without ANYTHING to back it up. Why am I not surprised. Additionally, you make a claim that the vaaaast majority of TFP agree with you, despite the fact that so far nobody in this thread has. Despite the further fact that nobody, on -any- thread you've contributed to in regards to women, has -ever- agreed with your sexist, offensive crap. You cannot claim that the majority of a population support you when the visible -totality- of that population oppose you. To do so is to divorce reality.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over? Are you serious? I linked to the BBC, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post. Respected newspapers in two countries. Did you even read the links?

Bullshit. Utter, rank, stinking, putrid bullshit swimming in dead ticks.

If this was -actually- the case, you wouldn't have spent an entire thread telling a US Army Dog Handler that you knew more about dangerous dogs than he did: this despite the fact that he handled large dogs professionally for years and you admitted to having almost no experience even wrestling with one.
If this was -actually- the case, you wouldn't have spent an entire thread telling people who make their living with firearms (and therefore shoot them a LOT) that you knew more than they did despite admitting never having even held a firearm in your life. You wouldn't have spent another thread telling combat veterans that their small-caliber rifles, which they complain of being incapable of reliably -stopping- a 175lb human, were perfect for self-defense against 2,000lb GRIZZLEY BEARS.

If experiences of real life were -actually- what you gave weight to, you'd have started listening to the people -WITH THE EXPERIENCES- a long time ago. You know, the people who actually -use- and -do- the things you so love to bloviate about. OTOH, you've admitted to not being arsed to even -use- Google. So: you won't listen to people with the experiences you claim to value, and you won't use the research tools at your disposal. Since you refuse to utilize the two most common sources of information, people must therefore assume that you are utilizing the third.

Edited To Add: And finally, Strange, if experiences are what you value, why don't we ask the ladies, the women of this thread, what -they- think of your opinions? We're men, us, after all: shouldn't we be seeking -their- input on this question? And specifically, do -they- think women are incapable of the things you've mentioned?

Ladies, if there are any of you left...?

Edited To FURTHER Add: I now discover that, upon reflecting back, the ladies gave their opinions some time ago. I, among others, appear to have missed this. My apologies. If they wish to add anything to this line of discussion, I obviously have no objection. I, however, will say nothing further.

On the OP:

I've yet to meet a woman who could write her name in the snow. I did know one, however, who managed her initials.

Goddamn mo'fuckas! This is why I love TFP, no one takes the bullshit that people try to throw around. Some people more than others (cough cough). Strange Famous and Dunedan arguing is better than any TV or book I've read today. Top notch entertainment. Seriously, I got a semi from reading this. I cringed with every post, I laughed in amazement! A+, guys, A+.

Strange, please just accept you do not represent the majority. You are in the minority. I believe this forum represents society as a whole, to an extent at least, and you are the only one here who agrees with what you've said. I wanted to root for you, I really did. "Go underdog Strange!" You are not what you claim to be, bro. All's you had to do was provide some sort of reliable information to back up your so-called "common sense", and everything would be peaches and cream. At this point, don't even admit you're wrong, just say "I agree to disagree". We all know you're wrong. I've never met anyone online who is as much of a bigot as you are. You exemplify exactly what a bigot is. Please, please, Strange Famous, cut your losses.

Wikipedia
Now, back to the OP. Women cannot write in ugly handwriting. All wimminz I know have elegant handwriting.

I have horrible handwriting. I can't even read some of the notes I take. :lol:

I'm going to need to start wearing adult diapers whenever I read threads like this. I'm close to pissing my pants laughing.

Write posts in this thread that a lot of the guys pay any attention to - apparently.

Back in the day, they couldn't drink at the bar in the Berghoff. That changed in about 1985 when they were forced to add a women's bathroom.

Same, but my handwriting is out of practice since I largely use a netbook for taking notes these days. Part of this is because I seem to have a cyst on my pinkie attached to my ulnar nerve in my left hand; I'm left-handed. It sucks because when I still was taking notes by hand, my hand would get really tired, really quickly and then my whole arm would start to hurt.

Ok, I'm breaking my promise just for this:

Yeah, true. Very true. I usually play a male in online games.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha
 

------------------------

:hearts: to Walt

Women can't go through life without attempting to improve the world around them.

Women can't fully understand Fight Club.

I would introduce you to my ex if I weren't afraid of her.

*ahem* First rule of Fight Club?