RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards

RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tj444 -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/12/2016 4:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Oh ffs... that mag is owned by the hearst corp (first published in 1886) and all the f'n Ceo's of hearst have been MEN.. so go blame yer own kind if you dont like what they put out.. Nope. It's never, ever the richest and most powerful people who are at fault. Perish the thought. One of just the most gobsmacking things I've done in the past is to leaf through Cosmo and find an article about anorexia and its relation to over-skinny models in adverts ... then, turn a couple of pages to find, yes, an advert involving an over-skinny model. I've seen that more than a few times. You read all the way through Cosmo, pump yourself full of all the exquisite aesthetic perfection of womanhood; finally, after you've been suitably destroyed inside, redemption is at hand in the final few pages in the form of hundreds of adverts for cosmetic surgery. Brilliant! Not only are those models in the adverts anorexic/skinny but then they are freakin' airbrushed to look even skinnier and their pimple faces from lack of eating healthy real food (& enough of it) have been brushed to look perfect so ya buy whatever makeup they are flogging.. How can any woman complete with a dude/ette with an over-active airbrush? even those (teenage) models can't or they wouldnt be airbrushed in the first place..

PeonForHer -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/12/2016 6:07:47 PM)
quote: How can any woman complete with a dude/ette with an over-active airbrush? even those (teenage) models can't or they wouldnt be airbrushed in the first place.. The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman".

thompsonx -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/12/2016 7:44:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". What do you think it was that made her think you were being more than a little disingenuous? Were you in the loo with your knickers down and cosmos open and folded flat all around?[;)]

tj444 -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/16/2016 7:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: How can any woman complete with a dude/ette with an over-active airbrush? even those (teenage) models can't or they wouldnt be airbrushed in the first place.. The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". (sigh).. its advertising a message that is just as much subliminal as it is visible, plus subjected to that type of photos multiple times a day, day after day, year after year.. sure, people know (I assume they know or should know) that the images are doctored/airbrushed but just as we believe what we read, see, hear, etc.. we can still be fooled into believing that what isnt real is real.. Juries will believe witness testimony but witness testimony is frequently very flawed and too often wrong.. there have been people convicted of crimes where the jury believed witness testimony that the accused committed the crime when there was proof the accused was not there at all, even in a different state at the time..

JeffBC -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/18/2016 9:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". LOL, I say to Carol, "You're hotter than any porn picture. After all, you are fully 3d and hi-res. It's hardly fair to the porn pictures. You've got an entire dimension on them."

JeffBC -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/18/2016 9:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen https://imgur.com/a/Ji236 Plenty of other people hold the same double standard. I agree about the hypocrisy of Cosmo and I agree that this is one of the double standards that is jacked up. But... uh... you just sort of abandoned the topic right there. Sheez! This is one of the few times you are actually right and you just plop it out there on the boards and leave?

Edwird -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/18/2016 11:27:32 PM)
RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen https://imgur.com/a/Ji236 Plenty of other people hold the same double standard. You actually read Cosmo? Dude ...

WickedsDesire -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/19/2016 1:13:17 PM)
this is the sum of you is it? Even I know women are the more shallower of the two species and there depth would rarely trouble a shallow puddle what's your point..Christ you really want to start frequenting better websites

PeonForHer -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/20/2016 8:17:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: How can any woman complete with a dude/ette with an over-active airbrush? even those (teenage) models can't or they wouldnt be airbrushed in the first place.. The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". (sigh).. its advertising a message that is just as much subliminal as it is visible, plus subjected to that type of photos multiple times a day, day after day, year after year.. sure, people know (I assume they know or should know) that the images are doctored/airbrushed but just as we believe what we read, see, hear, etc.. we can still be fooled into believing that what isnt real is real.. Juries will believe witness testimony but witness testimony is frequently very flawed and too often wrong.. there have been people convicted of crimes where the jury believed witness testimony that the accused committed the crime when there was proof the accused was not there at all, even in a different state at the time.. I know. Best I could I could come up with at the time, though.

PeonForHer -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/20/2016 11:49:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". What do you think it was that made her think you were being more than a little disingenuous? Were you in the loo with your knickers down and cosmos open and folded flat all around?[;)] I'd guess that very few blokes fap to pics in Cosmo. The models are too thin. That's not me just being right on and saying the PC thing. There's mounting evidence that women considered 'fap-worthy' by men are generally bigger than the average fashion model. Myself, I don't want to think of bonking with a woman who looks like one of her limbs might accidentally snap in the process. To me, there's a kind of equivalence between stick-thin fashion model women and super-pumped-up bodybuilder men: It's certain kinds of women who've adopted the stick-thin woman as the 'ideal', regardless of what men think - just as it's certain sorts of men who worship the bodybuilder male's look - again, regardless of what women think. It's as though, in each case, what the opposite sex thinks (which is usually negative, in both cases) doesn't matter any more. The target body-shape has become an end in itself.

thompsonx -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 4:17:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer ORIGINAL: thompsonx The only thing I can say to that - admittedly weak, overly-sweet, vomit-inducing, whatever - is what I used to say to my ex: "But how can they compete with you? They're just doctored, dead images in a mag - you're a living and breathing woman". What do you think it was that made her think you were being more than a little disingenuous? Were you in the loo with your knickers down and cosmos open and folded flat all around?[;)] I'd guess that very few blokes fap to pics in Cosmo. The models are too thin. That's not me just being right on and saying the PC thing. There's mounting evidence that women considered 'fap-worthy' by men are generally bigger than the average fashion model. Not all of them are stick thin. Myself, I don't want to think of bonking with a woman who looks like one of her limbs might accidentally snap in the process. That brings to mind a bin full of spare parts from which a "frankenstella" might be assembled. To me, there's a kind of equivalence between stick-thin fashion model women and super-pumped-up bodybuilder men: It's certain kinds of women who've adopted the stick-thin woman as the 'ideal', regardless of what men think - just as it's certain sorts of men who worship the bodybuilder male's look - again, regardless of what women think. It's as though, in each case, what the opposite sex thinks (which is usually negative, in both cases) doesn't matter any more. The target body-shape has become an end in itself. External vs. internal validation?

PeonForHer -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 5:19:00 PM)
quote: What do you think it was that made her think you were being more than a little disingenuous? Were you in the loo with your knickers down and cosmos open and folded flat all around? I didn't understand that the first time you asked it. Why do you think she thought I was being disingenuous? Well, apart from it sounding like a line that was made up on the spot to make her feel better, which indeed it was. Also, only women wear knickers. Generally. quote: External vs. internal validation? Yes ... I think so.

thompsonx -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 5:22:12 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Also, only women wear knickers. Generally. https://www.google.com/search?q=knickerbocker+pants&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtoYqp4NPOAhVX12MKHeCvDqoQsxgIEw

PeonForHer -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 5:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Also, only women wear knickers. Generally. https://www.google.com/search?q=knickerbocker+pants&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtoYqp4NPOAhVX12MKHeCvDqoQsxgIEw Hmmm. Knickerbockers can look good. Especially useful, too, if you've got the runs and have some elastic handy to tie off the bottoms. [:)]

thompsonx -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 7:33:33 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Especially useful, too, if you've got the runs and have some elastic handy to tie off the bottoms. [:)] I think that one may have pegged the squick factor meter.

Aylee -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 7:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen https://imgur.com/a/Ji236 Plenty of other people hold the same double standard. Seriously? Like Cosmo has standards?

Lucylastic -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/21/2016 7:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Also, only women wear knickers. Generally. https://www.google.com/search?q=knickerbocker+pants&hl=en&gbv=2&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtoYqp4NPOAhVX12MKHeCvDqoQsxgIEw Hmmm. Knickerbockers can look good. Especially useful, too, if you've got the runs and have some elastic handy to tie off the bottoms. [:)] Not really.... there was this one time at history camp[;)]

Edwird -> RE: Cosmopolitan's double standards (8/22/2016 4:41:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire this is the sum of you is it? Even I know women are the more shallower of the two species and there depth would rarely trouble a shallow puddle what's your point..Christ you really want to start frequenting better websites What do you know? I'm not one or the other, as disinterested in actual BDSM as I am, but if I WERE ... I'm more interesting than them, by a long shot. I actually wear worn out cargo shorts, no shirt, no shoes, etc. as I read odd books and listen to perfect music. I walk this way taking a bag to the trash bin even while not at the youngest in age and still get smiles from the ladies. Even if I don't have your boobs or Peon's abs, I'm not that far behind. But if I were a Dom, it would likely as not be in women's clothing. I would only read women's magazines with deep archives in that instance. Probably a '50s household thing. Gotta keep them awake, you know. Hard for me to imagine any sane intelligent woman reading the BDSM handbook and staying awake beyond two pages in the absence of external distraction, of whatever variety. If I were a sub, it might be in something like a military uniform of some sort, for same reason as above. And if I had a hammer ...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125