Sexual history doesn't matter? Who would marry a porn star?

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Oh dear lord...

Aliantha mentions men going without shirts being sexualized by women, and women going without shirts being sexualized by men...

Then BM starts babbling about going to Australia with a SKIRT on (wrong half of the anatomy) and gets all pissy when laughed at.

LEARN TO READ! Skirts shirts, whatever, it was the "sex with men" I took offense at.

[Aliantha]

You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?

As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.

That's the point.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?

As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.

That's the point.

"You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?"

Respect? From you! LOL

You can't even quote your own writings accurately, least interpet mine, and can't understand what your reading.

Sorry to hear about your lazy arsed husband. Better luck next time. Reach out to Brianna, she's got a lot of experience flipping guys.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

"You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?"

Respect? From you! LOL

You can't even quote your own writings accurately, least interpet mine, and can't understand what your reading.

Sorry to hear about your lazy arsed husband. Better luck next time. Reach out to Brianna, she's got a lot of experience flipping guys.

You're the one that said you were going to go put a skirt on and get sexualised.

As to interpreting what you've posted, I have done so. I understand exactly what you're trying to suggest.

You don't know anything about my personal life, so sorry you're wrong on that point. There was nothing personal about the point I was making. It was an academic response to a social issue.

Refute the point and get back to me when you've developed a reasonable argument, otherwise just don't bother responding at all thanks.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You're the one that said you were going to go put a skirt on and get sexualised.

As to interpreting what you've posted, I have done so. I understand exactly what you're trying to suggest.

You don't know anything about my personal life, so sorry you're wrong on that point. There was nothing personal about the point I was making. It was an academic response to a social issue.

Refute the point and get back to me when you've developed a reasonable argument, otherwise just don't bother responding at all thanks.

Jesus-H-Christ, I have to spell it out for you. This is why people can't talk to me. They can't even remember what they said let alone reply with any substabstance.

Here..You said this:

Originally Posted by Aliantha
Well here's the double standard.

A man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman and it ends there.

A woman walks around without a shirt on (or with a skimpy top on) and is sexualised by a man and it ends there, except if the man is a COMPLETE FUCKING IDIOT who thinks that because she dresses that way she must be hot to trot.

DO YOU NOTICE WHERE YOU SAID>
"man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman "
A W O M A N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then I said:

Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized."

Then you replied:

You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?

Now do you and yesman play in the same sandbox because having to treat and talk to you both like a little child is not what I here for.

Grow up.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

substabstance

[xoxoxoBruce]

POST #117

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

Is that what happens in your country, cause I'm on my way, skirt on, to get "sexualized." ~snip

POST #125

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

Jesus-H-Christ, I have to spell it out for you. This is why people can't talk to me. They can't even remember what they said let alone reply with any substabstance.

Here..You said this:


DO YOU NOTICE WHERE YOU SAID>
"man walks around without a shirt on and is sexualised by a woman "
A W O M A N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then I said:

~snip

Twice you said you were going the Australia with a skirt on.
Now do you understand the response?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?

As to your second point: the issue is that the simple fact that there is a double standard in modern western society is what is wrong. When women are expected to go out and earn a living and support their lazy arsed husbands etc, I'd say there's a huge problem. Not the fact that a woman should do that - because it works both ways - but that a woman can still be expected to do so and also be the wilting little wallflower that you picture women as being.

That's the point.

To your other point, there is no double standard. I will not regurgitate every iota of details again. Reread my responses and statements and come back and refute them.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

regurgitate

[DucksNuts]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Funny Shawnee - thats exactly what I see when any of bm's posts are on my screen.

[Aliantha]

I assure you BMW, that you're the one having difficulties with comprehension, but that's ok. It doesn't make any difference really. I was clear in my communication; everyone else can understand my point; you're the only one who's confused.

Anyway, as I said, when you've got something to add to the point, get back to me, otherwise, don't bother responding.

Oh, and one more thing, I have not insulted you once other than to point out - in response to your own comment - that it seems you come from a family that doesn't value respectful communication.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I assure you BMW, that you're the one having difficulties with comprehension, but that's ok. It doesn't make any difference really. I was clear in my communication; everyone else can understand my point; you're the only one who's confused.

Anyway, as I said, when you've got something to add to the point, get back to me, otherwise, don't bother responding.

Oh, and one more thing, I have not insulted you once other than to point out - in response to your own comment - that it seems you come from a family that doesn't value respectful communication.

How am I having difficulties? You twisted my sentence to insult me and now want to stand by your insult. FU!

Show me where I confused your statement that I wanted to be sexualized by men! It was quite clear I was responding to your statement regarding men wearing skirts and being sexualized by WOMEN.

You purposely rework the response to insult me and I find it more insulting that you have the gall to sit there and continue to stand behind it. FU twice!

As for the rest of the cheap shot jack-offs on this board.

You want to insult me, fine, but don't cry foul when I throw an insult back at you. Thats what a double standard is.
I also want to thank all those copy editors who find it within themselves to correct my grammar and spelling.

Skirts shirts, my eye sight ain't what it used to be. Be that as it may I don't think it changes the point enough so that it can't be understood, typo's, and grammar snafus in all.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

Show me where I confused your statement that I wanted to be sexualized by men! It was quite clear I was responding to your statement regarding men wearing skirts and being sexualized by WOMEN.

Sex with men? Someone said something about sex with men? I thought sexualized was the word that was used. Sexualize = To make sexual in character or quality, not have intercourse with.

Skirts, Shirts..whatever? Aliantha never made any statement regarding men wearing skirts. YOU DID.

HUGE difference there bud. The point being that MEN that go without their shirts are macho and hot, which is OK, but WOMEN that go without their shirts (IE: TOPLESS you nincompoop) are sluts and asking for sex which is NOT OK.

Skirts or pants are completely irrelevant.

But you are unable to admit you made a mistake so you're sticking with your erroneous babble and adding insult to injury by flinging some verbal abuse about. How pathetic.

Stormie

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Sex with men? Someone said something about sex with men? I thought sexualized was the word that was used. Sexualize = To make sexual in character or quality, not have intercourse with.

Skirts, Shirts..whatever? Aliantha never made any statement regarding men wearing skirts. YOU DID.

HUGE difference there bud. The point being that MEN that go without their shirts are macho and hot, which is OK, but WOMEN that go without their shirts (IE: TOPLESS you nincompoop) are sluts and asking for sex which is NOT OK.

Skirts or pants are completely irrelevant.

But you are unable to admit you made a mistake so you're sticking with your erroneous babble and adding insult to injury by flinging some verbal abuse about. How pathetic.

Stormie

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You'd rather be sexualised by men than women?

This is the quote I am insulted by. It is what I have been expressing my anger at. It is a repugnant and grotesque statement. Its not the first time a women has used the gay angle to belittle men that don’t eat out of there hands but it’s an offensive comment. Its written as a question doesn't hide its intent.

If I mistook skirt for shirt than that’s that, but my reply was in jest and she turn it into a despicable insult. I can’t even match it with profanity in response, it’s that bad. Homosexuality is an abomination of mankind.

In all my writing no matter how raw or direct it has been I have never attached on anyone in anyway such an immorality.

Here what "sexualized" can mean...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexualized

Now heres the link to one of the definition...
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexual

[Cicero]

Putting the "stab" back in substance......Wait there was never a.........