About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

That depends entirely on who is wearing them! I think, as good Objectivists, we should just go to the root of the problem and make having an Olympian swimmer's body compulsory. Do I hear any complaints?


Post 41

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But even then, Cameron, I'd rather see a body like that in those tight little swim shorts.  They are far sexier. 

Speedos are just revolting.  I believe Orion hit the nail on the head with the term "banana hammock."  <shudder>


Post 42

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But, Ms. Iannolo,
                              decorative penile sheaths have an ancient and honorable history.  The ancient Egyptians, for instance, made theirs out of crocodile leather and adorned them with feathers.

What we need is more modern men capable of standing dignified wearing them.  I know some in San Francisco, but unfortunately they're either gay or fairly expensive.

Besides, I fear I might violate the standards for NIMFOS... perish that thought!  (actually, I prefer 'baroque' to both 'stylish' and 'skimpy'.)

warm regards,

Jeanie Ring  {))(*)((}

P.S.  As a member of the Libertarian Party, I must officially say I defend the absolute rights of sovereign individuals to hang themselves.


Post 43

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

I don't have anything against bananas, do you?

:-P


Post 44

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course not, darling.  I just don't want to see them in a Speedo.  ;)

Post 45

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 1:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In all seriousness, what about the kind of bathing suits that guys wore in the 1940's and 50's, before the bermuda shorts came into fashion?  They were basically like boxer briefs... You know, the kind Charles Atlas wore in his "98-pound weakling" ads.

I see guys who are in shape, wearing them in places like LA and Miami now...

I don't see where those shorts are bad, as long as you aren't a great, pasty slob with an Ethiopian-style beer belly.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/17, 1:37am)


Post 46

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cameron: Rest assured that I did not go an a search through your SOLO history at all. Re the Firehammer thing, I was commenting fully from memory.

I must disagree emphatically with your position on language. By your logic, all "offensive" humor (which is nearly all humor) would be forbidden, since it would indirectly cause bigotry. I believe that a truly enlightened society would be able to make humor out of EVERY opportunity available.

As for PRS, I could never send Lindsay a photo-filled article about my organization. I just wouldn't do that to him. If he saw pics of me in a Speedo, he would never be satisfied with any of his Zealish ninnies again.

Jennifer: My main support of Speedos is actually based on liberty, not aesthetics. In this case, liberty in the pool.

Jeanine: I am elated to finally see a funny comment made by you. (re the right to hang themselves) And I'm glad to know that you support my organization.

Alec


Post 47

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion, those are the shorts I'm talking about.  Downright yummy.

Post 48

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tight swim trunks, Speedos, I like them all. As long as said trunks are not tight because the man is stuffed into them like a sausage with extra meat hanging out all over.

Post 49

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

With the direction this thread has taken, it now seems inappropriate for me to be too serious -- but I wanted to say something to Jeanine before, and if I don't say it now, it won't get said. Besides, I didn't know what Speedos were until I figured it out from your various posts.

Jeanine, you wrote: "I find it strange that Objectivists, who idealize binding love more than I, and would not shrink from registering patents or incorporating business because of any resulting legal privileges and entanglements, should not be very understanding of the position of those not allowed legal recognition not of business, but of romantic love."

I profoundly agree with you. I don't think that the definition of a word -- in this case, "marriage" -- should stop us from righting a wrong. Besides, many gay couples are now bringing up children, children they adopted or that one of them parented; surely they should have the rights of other parents.

I don't agree with Orion that marriage is necessarily a disaster. I am very familiar with some extremely happy marriages, including marriages that have lasted more than forty years. And I can understand the feelings of those homosexuals who want a public commitment to each other. If civil unions are seen as the answer to this -- and perhaps they will be -- the legal and political meaning of such unions should be defined in ways that give the partners the rights of married people.

Barbara

Post 50

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


But I do agree, Orion, that there are few things sexier than an overweight man with a back bristling with hair.

Barbara

Post 51

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes!  The anti-back hair platform wins again!


Post 52

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I was *always* in favor of no back hair.  :)

Post 53

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 9:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jennifer wrote: "I was *always* in favor of no back hair.:)"

It's my opinion that you are just belatedly trying to get on the bandwagon.

Barbara

Post 54

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I agree.  I think that Iannolo is flip-flopping on the back hair issue.

Flip-flopper!  Flip-flopper!  *L*


Post 55

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's what I'm going to do...  I'm going to be the most disgusting, dirty hippie ever. 

I'm going to grow out my back hair so long, that I can actually braid it.  And then I'll weave sea shells and "love" beads into it.

Yeahhh man... and then I'll have to figure out what sort of horrible body odor I'll develop, and species of decomposing tree lichen I'll begin growing on my feet.


Post 56

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's what I'm going to do...  I'm going to be the most disgusting, dirty hippie ever. 

I'm going to grow out my back hair so long, that I can actually braid it.  And then I'll weave sea shells and "love" beads into it.

Yeahhh man... and then I'll have to figure out what sort of horrible body odor I'll develop, and species of decomposing tree lichen I'll begin growing on my feet.

'Cause chicks dig "all natural" guys... Yup.  I'm sure of it.


Post 57

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 1:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I love the Shelley/Beethoven flourish of an adolescent shock of hair... the good dialectics of civilized barbarism.
 
'natural' shagginess... 'prim and proper' suits and crew-cuts... another false dichotomy transcended.
 
Dedicated to Saint Sciabarra the Slut
 
Jeanie Ring {))(*)((}

(Edited by Jeanine Ring on 10/19, 1:46am)


Post 58

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 5:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion, you are officially beginning to make me nauseous.  And I am *not* flip-flopping.  I am against Speedos with any form of man in them, but particularly those with pot bellies and back hair.  <wretch>

Post 59

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 11:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of the many arguments used in trying to justify denying the rights of marriage to gay couples, one that will inevitably come up after the anti-marriage proponent realizes they cannot actually articulate how two women marrying threatens any other marriage is that “The best way to raise children is with a mommy and a daddy”. Now, there are several objections to be made in these cases, not the least of which is that we allow marriage to people who intend to be childless and permit divorce and single parenthood, but the argument does bring up an interesting issue.
----------------------
Dhananjay


http://givemepink.com


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.