I seriously believe that you were rebutting Deccan, who wrote:
What Deccan wrote still stands. Saying “I’d love to fuck this girl” is creepy. It does not mean the same thing as “That girl is beautiful.”
Lum has already summarized BF’s evolution. Curiously enough, if you create a gaming forum which discourages the sort of dudebro behavior which alienates female posters, you wind up with a gaming forum that has more female posters. So mysterious!
Your id-crazed worldview pre-supposes that everyone else joins you in wanting to do nothing but eat cake, under even the mildest of cake stimuli. We do not. Don’t project your own blunted socialization development on the rest of us, OK?
A reminder:
Rest of thread: Zylon frantically splitting that unsplittable hair and back-pedaling from this ledge quickly and clumsily.
While it certainly looks like your refusal to answer my previous question indicates that you aren’t responding in good faith, fuck it, I’ll play along for awhile.
What I’m arguing is that the difference is one of degree. Granted, a rather large degree, but degree nonetheless. I’d assert that IN THIS CONTEXT (a male commenting on an attractive female) the word “beautiful” is synonymous with “sexually desirable”. Agree or disagree?
your refusal to answer
Your previous question was rhetorical. What I seriously believe about what you seriously believe is beside the point; we can only discuss what you actually wrote.
Agree or disagree?
I disagree.
In the hypothetical context of a man commenting on the beauty of an attractive female, it is a mistake to infer that he finds her sexually desirable.
(I am assuming “this context” is a hypothetical context, because the original poster did not mention beauty.)
Agree in regards to pubsecent boys. Disagree with regards to mature adult men.
I’d love to fuck this Mozart sonata
I’d love to fuck this summer day
I’d love to fuck that sentiment
I’d love to fuck that welding technique
I’d love to fuck that goal
I’d love to fuck soccer in general
I’d love to fuck that code
I’d love to fuck that suit of armor
Etc
There’s a big, big difference between “she’s beautiful” and “I’d tap that”. Yes, even on the internet.
I’d love to fuck this post. Where’s that like button?
My nieces were all beautiful when they were born and matured into lovely young women. And of course they weren’t sexually desirable to me.
Is it so hard to imagine a separation between beauty and sexual desirability? I have coworkers I find beautiful but don’t desire sexually. There are male actors I think are handsome but don’t desire sexually (Steve Buscemi excepted. He can have my man babies.).
Cf. Oedipus, as everyone posting right now is getting dunked on by some dead dumb Greeks. If you didn’t know she was your whatever, you’d fuck 'er, and then once you learned who she was the cognitive dissonance would drive you nuts. Happily in this thread we have both poles trying to negate the other.
Joking aside, I want to say that I do understand where Zylon is coming from: assuming there’s a biological basis for our sense of aesthetics, particularly when evaluating an individual of the opposite sex, it’s not entirely unreasonable to postulate that it comes from sexual attraction.
The problem is twofold. One, even historo-biologically, that isn’t the only reasonable source of human attraction. For instance, people tend to have an ideal amount of open spaces they prefer. (i.e. wide open spaces more than inside a cave), which is where the appreciation of the beauty of a sunset vista comes from. There’s a perfectly logical biological basis for that preference, and it isn’t related to sex drive at all. It’s impossible to disambiguate which biological aesthetic influence preference for a specific object/ person comes from, because human brains are really complicated. It’s easier to think of biological aesthetic aversions (the dark, pointy things, red / yellow foods, snakes), but most of those have inverses as well that could (the sun, soft things, food that does not appear poisonous, uh, things that aren’t snakes), which are deemed attractive to varying degrees.
The other part of the problem is that particularly in the context of language and communication, saying “that girl is beautiful” is very different from saying “I’d hit that”. One isn’t simply a substitute for the other, otherwise they’d be equally useful in all social situations. Even if you stipulate that thinking them is the same, due to the fact that we don’t simply blurt out every damn thing we think, they aren’t socially equivalent when translated into speech.
No, it wasn’t rhetorical. If I post something, and you respond to it based on an interpretation of the post that differs from what I intended, then what you thought I meant becomes just as relevant as what I actually meant.
It is nearly impossible to make a post on any non-trivial topic that’s free of ambiguity and possible misinterpretation. The horrible alternative is legalistic, dissertation-length posts that crush in exacting detail every trace of ambiguity. Nobody wants to write posts like that, and nobody wants to read them. So good faith is critical in having actual discussions on these sort of topics. The last page of this thread has aptly demonstrated the sort of trainwreck that ensues when respondents decide to be deliberately contrarian instead.
I disagree. In the hypothetical context of a man commenting on the beauty of an attractive female, it is a mistake to infer that he finds her sexually desirable.
Well at least now we’re getting somewhere. So in your hypothetical, the man considers the woman beautiful, but not attractive? (“attractive” is shorthand for “sexually attractive”, aka “desirable”, after all) What might he find non-sexually, non-metaphorically beautiful about her?
Hmm… this might be the wrong tack to take. Seems destined for miring in semantics.
Thank you, yes, that pretty much was my point from the start.
No, it’s not.
We get that you don’t get it, dude. There’s no reason to keep beating that poor horse.
This sounds like one end of a Madonna/whore dichotomy, and those are notorious for producing positive outcomes for women!
Clarifying here that “We” is “Zylon and the voices in his head that believe that thinking a meal smells good means you want to eat it or fuck it or something.”
You can assert it all you want, but it’s still crazy talk. It’s not true. It may be true for you, but that is your problem, not everyone else’s.
What he said.
They are very different, as the Westmark Effect proves.
You can think your sister or mother is beautiful without finding her attractive.
Well you’ve certainly convinced me with your compelling counter-argument.
It’s been interesting how some posters have made an honest attempt to discuss this, while others just lose their shit and start running around flipping furniture.
Well I think if this thread has taught us anything, it’s that QT3 needs a “fuck” button and not a “like” button.
It’s been interesting to see how you interpret people telling you that your point of view is either flawed in conception or indicative of oddly-formed psychosocial beliefs as “spittle fueled holy rampage” and “flipping furniture.”
No one’s losing it. We’re just pointing out that you believe some fucked-up stuff.
EDIT: by the way, as an editor I feel duty bound to point out that “spittle-fueled” makes no sense in the context with which you used it, Zylon. The mastication process of consuming food in humans is spittle fueled. What I think you meant to say was “spittle-flecked”, which implies rage resulting in saliva involuntarily flying from the mouth of the raging entity.