Messages

166

General Chat / Re: Winter 2012 ADVANCED Poster Awards!

« on: May 13, 2013, 08:57:03 PM »

The winners haven't been formally announced yet...

167

Forum Games / Re: The Add-One-Word Story Returns

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:52:54 PM »

cyanide.

168

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 13, 2013, 11:53:32 AM »

I'm not sure that characterization does justice to our argument, although I appreciate your attempt to defuse the situation.

169

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 12, 2013, 05:00:42 PM »

I'm not criticizing her for not having sex with him, I'm criticizing her for not having sex with him because of her assumptions

...which is why she didn't have sex with him.



Or are you seriously just criticizing the assumption in itself? Because that has nothing to do with sex or her being a "whore" or her making fun of him for being a virgin or anything you've complained about in this thread.

170

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:30:44 PM »

She had every right to make the choice she did, but we have every right to criticize her for it.

That just leads to the same problem of pressuring someone into having sex when they don't really want to. So no, you don't ****ing have the right to criticize her.

171

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:08:23 PM »

but because it just sounds kind of inconvenient to limit one's sexual partners based on their prior experience

And that's your business. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, none of those killers have anything on the sexy man beast that was Ted Bundy.

172

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 12, 2013, 08:58:20 AM »

Alright, I'll try to rephrase that more fairly: I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who would back out of sex with someone just because they were a virgin, and I hope the same thing never happens to me with someone I'm legitimately attracted.

More fairly? It still sounds like you think she's beneath you because her standards are different from yours ("I'm not the kind of person" is a tacit admittance that your standards somehow make you better than her), which implies you still think she's obligated to have sex with someone after a certain point to be considered a good person.

173

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 11, 2013, 04:42:45 PM »

I'm curious as to how you got that from the article. Honest question. Is it because I said no one is obligated to have sex with anyone? Because that doesn't mean you should look for someone with low standards, just someone who, you know, actually wants to have sex (two completely different things provided you're not peering through the lens of misogyny).

Anything else is forced and that's kind of sort of really bad.

174

Forum Games / Re: The Add-One-Word Story Returns

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:54:23 PM »

the

175

Forum Games / Re: The Add-One-Word Story Returns

« on: May 10, 2013, 09:23:24 PM »

"Why?"

176

General Chat / Re: The HOPEFUL thread: Be happy here!

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:23:49 PM »

Thinking about applying to Villanova for my graduate studies. Not sure when that'll happen (have to take the GRE first), but I relish the opportunity.

177

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:04:42 PM »

Oh no, how dare she want to have lots of sex in the meantime. And I don't recall her ever saying she was looking for a relationship or trying to "work her way up" from anything. She just wanted to date.

Also, qft:

Reading the Fungi Forums makes me sick to my stomach daily since it became a nonstop barrage of ******bag misogynistic assclowns

178

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:51:07 PM »

Wait, I could've sworn one of the tenants of this whole sexual acceptance thing was that having or not having sex shouldn't be treated like a big deal.

It is, but so is respecting a person's decision not to have sex with someone for whatever reason. No one is obligated to have sex with anyone. Period. If she doesn't want to have sex with him because he's a virgin, that's her business.

179

Forum Games / Re: The Add-One-Word Story Returns

« on: May 10, 2013, 01:17:57 PM »

somehow

180

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: You Rage (or Lose Faith in Humanity), You Lose

« on: May 09, 2013, 05:27:38 PM »

Just from the tone of the whole article, it's obvious that she sees men like him as deserving of pity or shame. At least the top-rated comment has the right idea:

I read it again just because I thought she sounded like a jerk the first time (not because she refused to have sex with him mind you, but it did seem as though she was berating him from being a virgin), but you know she could've just been trying not to make him feel bad by reacting awkwardly. There's nothing "obvious" about it, you just interpret it that way because you're a misogynist.