harvey19 Â Â 541 #517 Posted June 8, 2011 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Alien   10 #518 Posted June 8, 2011 A sexual person NOT object  So unattractive people are not sexual? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
foxforcefive   10 #519 Posted June 8, 2011 A feminist is anyone who wants equal rights for women - in which case i'd hope that most people are  Yes, we want a club with gorgeous hunks of men pole dancing, walking around in next to nothing and performing lap dances. Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Alien   10 #520 Posted June 8, 2011 Keh? What are you on about?  I can see you're struggling. I'll leave you to ponder a little longer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
BettyBooHoo! Â Â 10 #521 Posted June 8, 2011 I can see you're struggling. I'll leave you to ponder a little longer. Â It reads like you're saying that if you are slim and attractive, you can only possibly be seen as a sexual object. Surely that's not what your saying??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sccsux   10 #522 Posted June 8, 2011 Yes, we want a club with gorgeous hunks of men pole dancing, walking around in next to nothing and performing lap dances.  Then apply for a licence, get some men, and open one. Women have the same rights as the men you know (equality for all, and all that;)). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Alien   10 #523 Posted June 8, 2011 It reads like you're saying that if you are slim and attractive, you can only possibly be seen as a sexual object. Surely that's not what your saying???  In the case put forward by your inference (job description) yes. Otherwise why not inc any woman? By splitting the criteria (ugly/pretty) you objectify. If you didn't objectify the criteria would be woman or man only. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Celeb   10 #524 Posted June 8, 2011 Who would pay an ugly hairy woman to dance for them?  I wouldnt, and would definatley have a wobbly at the management for employing her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
foxforcefive   10 #525 Posted June 8, 2011 Then apply for a licence, get some men, and open one. Women have the same rights as the men you know (equality for all, and all that;)).  Nah, can't be doing with the hairy ugly women protesters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
BettyBooHoo! Â Â 10 #526 Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) In the case put forward by your inference (job description) yes. Otherwise why not inc any woman? By splitting the criteria (ugly/pretty) you objectify. If you didn't objectify the criteria would be woman or man only. Â No, what I was saying is that if you don't fit the job description, then it's highly unlikely you will get the job isn't it. I don't fit the job description for heart surgeon but i'd love to crack at it. Is it unfair that I wouldn't get the job or is it just common sense? Edited June 8, 2011 by BettyBooHoo! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sccsux   10 #527 Posted June 8, 2011 Nah, can't be doing with the hairy ugly women protesters  Surely it would be the mens turn to protest, not the womens? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
foxforcefive   10 #528 Posted June 8, 2011 Surely it would be the mens turn to protest, not the womens?  Can't see it somehow, can you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...