home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!stephena
- From: stephena@netcom.com (Stephen Arrants)
- Subject: Re: Marky Mark and Calvin Klein (was Re: Scott Masden)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.221732.20177@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
- References: <1992Nov15.172253.29546@spdcc.com> <1992Nov16.160553.9327@netcom.com> <1992Nov16.200449.27480@spdcc.com>
- Distribution: na,uk
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:17:32 GMT
- Lines: 63
-
- In article <1992Nov16.200449.27480@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
- >stephena@netcom.com (Stephen Arrants) writes:
- >>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
- >
- >>> Someday, SOMEDAY we might grow up enough to choose
- >>>our idols with our heads instead of our balls. That will
- >>>make the choice doubly-sweet if said choice is also *HOT* by our
- >>>own "standards of objectifyable excellence".
- >>>
- >
- >>Oh c'mon, Bob. There's a difference between an idol and an object of lust.
- >
- > Is there? I think that depends on the person.
-
- No, it depends on what turns each of us on. If it is a hairless "ephebe" fine.
- If it is a burly hairy WWF member (Arne Anderson? Hacksaw Jim Duggan? ) fine.
- You've stated your views on them, yet their politics, "PC-ness", etc.
- wasn't mentioned.....
-
- >>Objects of lust are allowed a little more leeway. If Mr. Marky Mark was
- >>exactly the same person yet had lots of body hair, a beard, and fit the "bear"
- >>image, I'm sure you're comment would be much more muted. Methinks thou doth
- >>protest too much.
- >
- > I am *so* fucking sick of this argument. It makes the basic
- >assumption that deep down we're all as petty and shallow as the most
- >visible shallow person among us. What utter crap. While this might
- >be a reflection of how*you* think, Stephen, (for which I am utterly
- >surprised) it doesn't necessarily apply to me.
-
- Bobby, when it comes to lust I'd venture that ALL of us are petty and shallow.
- I freely admit that there are some guys that get me hot and bothered just
- beause of the way they look, and the hell with their views and opinions. But
- that's just lust and fantasy. In the real world of real life and real
- relationships therey;d be nothing there but the look.
- And please, don't give me this holier than thou crap, Bob. You've done it too.
- There's nothing really wrong with it; it just is.
-
- > Sorry, you're barking up the wrong bear. Better luck next time.
- >For your collective edification, when confronted with the scenario above
- >my reaction tends to be "nice bear - too bad he's such an asshole".
- >aI can think of a few people where I work that fit this description - on
- >a purely physical level they might be very hot, but knowing them, and
- >not liking it makes it impossible for me to even think aboutoutside of those
- >terms.
-
- Pfffft! Then you've changed a lot since the Seattle visit.
-
- > Now of course it could be that some of the people I lust after
- >are in reality complete jerks, and I just don't know it yet. That in
- >fact has happened before on campus. I guess the overriding motto is:
- >there are plenty of bears in the sea why waste time on the assholes?
-
- Because we do. Because it is fantasy. Because hormones have no mind, dear.
-
- > Methinks you assume too much. How sad.
- Methinks you need to learn how to read. There's nothing wrong with your
- inconsistencies. That;s just the way things are. Please don't hold everyone
- else to a higher standard than you want to be held to.
-
-
-
-
-