TOTALLY GEEKED!

Tinydancer wrote:

---

You watch porn and see nothing wrong with it but a cute guy in tight shorts makes others hypocrites? Wow. Just wow.

---

 I know, right?  LOL.  Unbelievable. 

 

 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The most amusing thing about all of this, is Flan had absolutely nothing to say until WYSIWYG said something. 

Now, she just agrees with him and quotes him.

Who cares what Flan thinks?

Or rather what Flan quotes and agrees with? 

 

---

 So, you took the time to type out a post because...

I said pretty much the same thing on the porn thread. If an ADULT is doing an R-rated scene in a movie or TV show OR posing for provocative pictures, it's fine to look at those things? (except for 04, who has already denounced those things as well)

 

flan

Ohfour wrote:

---

Oh, puh-leeze...

My DD is drop dead gorgeous. She was in a bridal magazine BECAUSE she is gorgeous. That's not remotely the same as porn.

---

 And in a BRIDAL dress, she's NOT half naked.

flan

Yes, I am miserable ALL THE TIME...even when I'm asleep.

And I have no friends, so your comment doesn't apply.

flan

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

I just think it's QUITE funny when someone thinks it's ok to insult people's looks, but not to celebrate them. Says a lot.

---

 I have no problem celebrating, but it's DEFINITELY on the verge of Playgirl material.

flan

I'm proving a point.

That "slippery slope" y'all like to talk about?

flan

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Men walking around perfectly legal and with their privates covered is certainly NOT anywhere near the same as having sex in front of cameras for the view of everyone.

As I said - ridiculous.

---

 No, it's NOT the same, but it is similar. And YOU chose the photo to post.

flan

I've never been to a beach in my life...

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

The most amusing thing about all of this, is Flan had absolutely nothing to say until WYSIWYG said something. 

Now, she just agrees with him and quotes him.

Who cares what Flan thinks?

Or rather what Flan quotes and agrees with? 

 

---

 So, you took the time to type out a post because...

I said pretty much the same thing on the porn thread. If an ADULT is doing an R-rated scene in a movie or TV show OR posing for provocative pictures, it's fine to look at those things? (except for 04, who has already denounced those things as well)

 

flan

---

 No.

Porn is not the same thing as a publicity photo.

You obviously don't know the difference. 

 

I can't stand his eyes in those pictures. He looks like the devil. lol! Not a fan.

My point is, the bike picture is no different than catalog pictures.

Not porn.

flan327 wrote:

---

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

My point is, the bike picture is no different than catalog pictures.

Not porn.

---

 I didn't say it WAS porn.

flan

---

 You seem to have the two confused.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I'm not for a second opposed to eye candy, but wasn't the idea of "What if this were your child? This is someone's child. If it's wrong to think of your child like this then it's wrong to think of someone else's child like this" brought up on another thread?

I think anyone that looks at people as eye candy but put forth the "would you if it were your child?" argument I mentioned are being hypocrites.


I'd also like to mention Cindy Crawford is mighty fine eye candy. And she's still hot at 50 and doesn't look like she'll be cooling off her hotness any time soon. I'm going to try an post an image here:
cdn01.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2016/01/cindy-crawford-retiring-age-50.jpg"/>

If it doesn't work, here the link: cdn01.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2016/01/cindy-crawford-retiring-age-50.jpg

---

 Actually, I think my child is a cutie and I don't mind anyone mentioning it either. 

 

:grin: Yup! They both are adorbs!

We REALLY need an eyeroll emoji.

We know welts is one of the few but then again flan's pretty much the only one who cares what she thinks...

I don't see anyone talking about these men in any way other than they are good looking.

There is no demeaning or belittling of them.
- lilyofcourse

_________________________________

That wasn't the point of what I said though.

The argument against porn is "You wouldn't look at your kids like that, so you shouldn't look at other people's kids like that". Well, That applies here too. If you think other people's kids are as special as your kids, if you wouldn't look at your own kids as eye candy, then you shouldn't look at other people's kids as eye candy.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of people with that stance that still look at eye candy if they wouldn't look at their kids as eye candy? The only difference is matter of degree.

Again though, I don't have a problem with eye candy because I can separate out what or how I'd like to see my relatives versus how that doesn't apply to non-relatives. I just thought it was interesting that people that moaned and wailed against others' kids being treated as pieces of meat for public consumption are basically doing the exact same thing here.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I don't see anyone talking about these men in any way other than they are good looking.

There is no demeaning or belittling of them.
- lilyofcourse

_________________________________

That wasn't the point of what I said though.

The argument against porn is "You wouldn't look at your kids like that, so you shouldn't look at other people's kids like that". Well, That applies here too. If you think other people's kids are as special as your kids, if you wouldn't look at your own kids as eye candy, then you shouldn't look at other people's kids as eye candy.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of people with that stance that still look at eye candy if they wouldn't look at their kids as eye candy? The only difference is matter of degree.

Again though, I don't have a problem with eye candy because I can separate out what or how I'd like to see my relatives versus how that doesn't apply to non-relatives. I just thought it was interesting that people that moaned and wailed against others' kids being treated as pieces of meat for public consumption are basically doing the exact same thing here.

---

 You're being ridiculous.

I look at my kids and see a beautiful young lady and two handsome young men.

When someone tells me I have pretty kids, it makes me happy.

Eye candy is pleasing to look at.

It isnt the same as looking at someone with lust.

You, like Flan, need to learn the difference. 

So when you (general you) look at a photo of a man wearing nothing but a tiny sling as a bathing suit, there is no lust.

Are you dead?

flan

Especially other peoples husbands...

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lust as in "I need to have sex right now!"? No. I can actually admire the beauty of people without needing to jump their bones. This includes movie stars, singers, people I meet, and other people's husbands.......

---

 He is CHOOSING to pose nearly naked. Why?

flan

p.s. You know the irony is that DH is NOT my "type" at all.

Sounds like you're speaking from personal experience, minuscule one.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Lust as in "I need to have sex right now!"? No. I can actually admire the beauty of people without needing to jump their bones. This includes movie stars, singers, people I meet, and other people's husbands.......

---

 He is CHOOSING to pose nearly naked. Why?

flan

p.s. You know the irony is that DH is NOT my "type" at all.

---

 I've seen that picture before. And if I am not mistaken, it's for another fitness magazine. 

He does a lot of those.

Well I guess if you never had self control you can't understand those who do. Trying to make good looking people on the same as porn seems like a desperate try to make your porno watching self feel better.