Author	Thread: Athletes Revised.....
Admin	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 11 Jan, 2011 07:40 PM Tulip posted this, the following topic question : "I know this is a fairly arbitrary question, and that what's on the inside matters more, but you know how you can tell if a guy is/was a football player, basketball player, baseball player, cross country runner, etc. just by his build? Which build do you find most attractive?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have enjoyed the question and the answers and see nothing wrong with the question or answers. However I can help but wonder ...... ......wonder what the outcry would be if the posted topic was : What kind of "build" do you find most attractive for a women. And the answers went into the description of body parts like it has in the previous post. Do you think there would be a different response between the two posts? ie : one describing the best body parts and the other called carnal. Hmmm... Lets all be refreshingly honest....shall we....or can we? Post Reply
View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 13 Jan, 2011 05:04 AM I haven't read any of the other thread you girls are talking about. Guess I'll check it out today. Of course the responses would be different. Men are Men and Women are Women. God made us different for a reason. If women responded the same way men do, they would have to get rid of the I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WOMEN excuse. siiylli is on the right track 'tho , it all boils down to who is doing the responding and what mood they're in. Deborah Post Reply
View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 13 Jan, 2011 09:41 PM BCP: The point I was trying to make is that if men were similarly "having a good time", women would probably not react very gracefully. If a man were to use similar type of language, like choosing to use a derogatory word for being overweight, he would be swarmed by angry ladies. Post Reply
bcpianogal View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 14 Jan, 2011 09:04 AM Eh, you probably have a point there...that's not the way it came across in your earlier post, though, or at least not how I interpreted your meaning. :rolleyes: I'm sorry I over reacted. :bow: Post Reply
View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 14 Jan, 2011 07:06 PM BCP: You're fine, it probably did come off accusatory about the other thread, and I know I can get pretty ardent. It's not like you were entirely out of hand. Anyway, we are always sort of walking on egg shells whenever we bring up a topic, like physical appearances, that aren't based on entirely important issues. Stating an opinion on them, even if acknowledged as arbitrary, gives the image of thinking of them as more than. I can say all day that in the grand scheme of things, I don't care if my man played football or hockey, but if I still outright say I would have liked if he had played baseball, it still acknowledges that topic, making it look valid, when it is in and of itself meaningless. Am I making sense or just vomiting words again? Post Reply
Tulip89 View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 14 Jan, 2011 10:49 PM So basically you're dumping Mark if he doesn't start playing baseball? Post Reply
DontHitThatMark View Profile History	Athletes Revised..... Posted : 16 Jan, 2011 07:52 AM I do play baseball!:dancingp: :peace::peace: Post Reply

First

<< Previous  10

Page : 1 2

Last