Printable View
Why would he be kidding? He's right. Maybe it's different in other countries, but here, when the news does a story and it's from a poor area, the people aren't particularly attractive. Even if the person has the potential to be good looking, it's usually squandered by bad teeth, dirty clothes, bad grammar, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
And, Emil, I'm curious, how old are you? I'm 25.
That depends on whom you're defining as poor. Are they crack heads or are they lower working class? Because most of the people I grew up around had good teeth and weren't particularly unattractive. Then again, dental care for people on welfare and children is free in Quebec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Well, that wasn't manufactured by the media but was in fact actual youth rebellion. It is only after a real social movement that those in marketing attempt to catch up and make money off something they don't understand, just like grunge in America. As always, the media, advertising, and others who don't get it are too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
I'm trying to understand what you meant regarding the economic crash of 2008. Surely you're not saying that was a good thing?
I wonder if you're not actually working class yourself but trying to come across as some upper crust scion who stands to inherit a small fortune when Mummy and Daddy are gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
There are only two or three people on this site who say things like this, and I wonder if they don't do it to get a rise out of people. It also strikes me that they are all probably quite young. Wish I could tell you exactly what I'd like to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I'm talking poor poor, like the ghettos, people on crack, etc. Heck, where I live, there're plenty of areas where people just choose to look like trailer park trash. So, I guess you're right, most people choose to look the way they do, though I think there's still a correlation. I'm not trying to demean anyone here, I'm just commenting on what I've observed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
So, horribly far gone drug addicts are ugly. It has nothing to do with being poor. In California, a poor person can live relatively similarly to a wealthy person. I grew up below the poverty line. I worked and studied my way out of it. I have always been clean, well mannered, sophisticated and healthy with a carefully cultivated physical appearance. Let's not rush to judge people who are born into a battle with class systems.
So many extremely attractive pop stars and actors were plucked out of ghettos. Tennessee is one of the poorest states in our nation, with Memphis being largely ignored in the state's budget plans, and it seems to consistently produce some of the most attractive people I have ever seen. Seth Green's wife Clare Grant is a terrific example.
In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.
This is obvious, right?
I work with a lot of kids who are considered low socio-economic, and they are generally quite beautiful. But I do know what you mean, Alexander. Their parent's hard lives are stamped on their faces.
I guess you're right. Ugly people are everywhere. Still, I've never encountered an attractive street bum. Ever.
Some people think Jewel is attractive, some people don't. She was homeless for years, playing folk music for coins downtown San Diego. She would sometimes sleep at a shelter my friend worked at. Eventually she slept in a van. Michael J. Fox was also homeless when he landed his role on Family Ties. At some point he started renting a shabby apartment. He had no phone. He had to wait next to a pay phone all day every day to find out important job related info.
I have good new for you, there is a huge reversal going on right now. For instance at university we have plenty of funny scenarios were in most lectures the lecturers and dressed in jeans and a polo shirt and sneakers and plenty of the student are in blazers and slacks and nice shoes. There is a rise in elegance, just as in the 60's there was a clothing rebellion against the standard order of conformity, now there is the same thing happening again, except the uniform of conformity is now t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
At uni plenty of guys I know buy blazers and sport coats and go to tailors to get them adjusted, and this is a new practice as I was talking to some of my cousins who went to university in the 90's both in Italy and in england and they all told me the standard was t-shirt and jeans, but now wandering the universities and the people of english and Italian universities there is a re-emergance of beautiful dress. Just look at Hollywood, has anyone else noticed that there has started to grow an obsession with the sartorially beautiful which was non-existant 20 years ago.
I didn't think I was going to spark up a debate, because it seemed obvious to me. Besides considering me and emil were talking not about facial features but about manners of dress and cleanliness and hair, it is obvious that I was talking about beauty in that sense. A man who can barley reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Surely one must have a very distorted perception of reality to assume that the poor are just as beautiful as the middle and higher classes. The latter have leisure time and money to devote themselves to pursuing beauty, and higher standards are expected of them socially, while for the poor there are no high social expectations, it is normal being obese and having Walmart clothes.
Im 19, 20 in a few months - and I believe Emil is double my age.
Free health care in normal in every civilized nation except the US and now Greece. Besides statistically poverty=obesity in the first world. Also I was not talking about beauty of facial features which one is born with. A bum can have amazing facial features.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
1) he meant the economic crash has a positive aspect of sobering us up, we in the west have been essentially living in a fantasy land for the last 60 years and the crash woke us up to reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
2) Sure why not, I could be working class, I have several working class friends.
3) nothing I said was radical, in fact the opposite believe of what I said seems very radical and detached from reality. You surly can't think we live in a world were money doesn't matter and we all live happy and equal holding hands and skipping along as the billionaire and the Mcdonald's empty lead the same lives.
I was never talking about facial features, that is determined by birth, I was talking about everything determined post-birth, and yes I think you are quite right, having parents under constant stress because they can't pay the bills or growing up in an environment of leisure and serenity have drastic differences for a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
That is true, the old proverb you can lead a donkey to water but you can't make it drink. Many people have the water but don't wish to drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
Yeah, I don't think rural Alberta even has poor people who aren't crack heads, or otherwise ****ed up. There's really only one class of people here, it's really very different from the cities. Aside from the punk crowd, there's very little variation here. In terms of fashion, all you see in GC is big expensive trucks, black hoodies when not wearing bright orange or blue overalls, and toques... toques everywhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
No, he really is a fancy partyboy Oxford student as he appears to be, I facebook stalked him once.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life. You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.Quote:
I didn't think I was going to spark up a debate, because it seemed obvious to me. Besides considering me and emil were talking not about facial features but about manners of dress and cleanliness and hair, it is obvious that I was talking about beauty in that sense. A man who can barley reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too.
I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.Quote:
Surely one must have a very distorted perception of reality to assume that the poor are just as beautiful as the middle and higher classes. The latter have leisure time and money to devote themselves to pursuing beauty, and higher standards are expected of them socially, while for the poor there are no high social expectations, it is normal being obese and having Walmart clothes.
Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?Quote:
Free health care in normal in every civilized nation except the US and now Greece. Besides statistically poverty=obesity in the first world. Also I was not talking about beauty of facial features which one is born with. A bum can have amazing facial features.
And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.
What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.Quote:
1) he meant the economic crash has a positive aspect of sobering us up, we in the west have been essentially living in a fantasy land for the last 60 years and the crash woke us up to reality.
If that's true, then you need to stop acting like a total ****. And I doubt if you have any working class friends.Quote:
2) Sure why not, I could be working class, I have several working class friends.
That was so good. I agree, many wealthy people do seem ugly. Trump and Rush Limbaugh are perfect examples. Not to mention the atrocious behavior of so many wealthy people. Rush getting caught trying to enter the Dominican Republic with a suitcase full of Viagra and condoms, for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I also liked what you said about Jewel and Michael J Fox. Many people don't realize what it's like to live in a place that has almost no social safety net. Almost anyone can go straight to the bottom if they don't have friends or family to help them out.
We saw the same thing in the US during the 1980's with the whole preppy look. It was lame then and it's lame now. It's certainly not rebellion, but rather the very definition of conformity. Dressing conservatively with neat short hair and showing your support of the status quo is the easiest thing to do. It sounds like the professors at your school are way cooler then the students and are probably ordinary, everyday people that others can relate to. I wonder how they view you and your rich friends?
There is no set permanent standard of "conservative dress". In all reality it is likely that the professors Alex speaks of are just as "conservative" as the students in that both are attempting to conform with the culture that they associate themselves with. Your assumption that the professors are everyday, ordinary people that one might easily relate to (as opposed to the students) is every bit as snobbish as Alex' assertion that the students have a greater sense of taste than their elders.
Working people sacrifice to dress their kids properly and do whatever they can to give their children every advantage and compete with those who have already had everything handed to them in life.
Is that a fact? You know this from experience with the working class... to say nothing of the "poor" who don't work? I have no doubt that many working class parents do indeed struggle to give their children every advantage... however, having spent some 15 years teaching children who live beneath the poverty-line I ca assure you that a good many of such parents are of the opposite mind. They use assistance money to pay for expensive hairstyles, manicures, pedicures, and cars while their children often wear clothes that haven't been washed in a week.
You know full well that you were referring to facial features and you knew that you would spark a debate and derail the thread like you have done in the past. It's your attitude and the way that you say things. It gets under peoples skin.
Alex has his moments, but I must say that again you are making some rather questionable assumptions about what he intended. Some time back Alex started a large (and often heated) thread touching upon the issue of fashion or dress and how it impacts our initial perceptions of another person. I must fully agree with him; the wealthy have the advantage of being able to purchase expensive clothing... and have these properly tailored to suit their body. They can afford the time and the expense of a gym, healthy food, top quality hair-stylists and cosmetics, etc... One need only think of the average Hollywood actor/actress or even the Playboy centerfold and imagine how much more "average" they would appear without all the advantages of proper cosmetics, clothing, etc... You must also consider the issue of education. How many of the working poor or those living in poverty are well-educated?
Beyond protection from the elements it should be obvious that one of the primary fictions of fashion is "illusion"... to create the "illusion" of wealth, or health, or taste, or the identification with a given social group. One need only think how one dresses when going out on a "big date" or a big job application as opposed to day to day dress.
I think it is you who has a very distorted perception of reality. Beauty is found among the poor just as often, if not more often, as the wealthy. You can dress an upper class sociopath up in the finest clothes, give him or her spa treatments and $100 haircuts, etc, but they are still a heartless, narcissistic individual who is very ugly on the inside. We see a lot of that in America.
I don't think Alex is in any way asserting a moral superiority of the wealthy. He is simply stating the fact that those with wealth have the advantage of the time and excess wealth needed to dress fine. That is reality. Honestly, your assumptions about the rich are just as snobbish as anything Alex has suggested.
Other nations are civilized besides First World nations. The so-called Third World countries often have a much older and developed civilization then the plastic, materialistic countries in the West. Why is everything you say so abrasive?
You have to be 19, right. It's only naive college kids reiterating everything that their Marxist professors have taught them that buy into this notion that the West is this great materialistic and spiritually bankrupt culture as opposed to who? China? India? Japan?
And like your comment about obesity and Wal-Mart clothes, the reason many impoverished people are obese has everything to do with the fact that they are impoverished and cannot afford anything else but high fat, unhealthy food. It is much more expensive to eat healthy compared to the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant. You really do have a lot to learn about the world.
I thought Alex had suggested as much when he stated: "A man who can barely reach the end of the month and have enough money left for food is not going to have beautiful clothes for him and his children, he is not going to take them to salons to get their hair cut, he is not going to give a **** about many affectations which people with more money and more leisure time devote themselves too."
What fantasy? Having to endure decades of conservative, right-wing economic policy forced on us by the kind of people you admire? That's what led to the crash and you seem to favor a return to the Gilded Age.
While I probably lean far further to the left than Alex... and certainly than Emil... I wouldn't lay this economic debacle solely upon Conservatives or Liberals... Republicans or Democrats. There's more than enough blame to go around to all parties concerned.
So the guy likes to have a good time on holiday.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
I have noticed girls from sink estates who would be beautiful but for a hardness in their face. It is like they are marked with poverty.
Idk, poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.
I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.\
Edit: I should maybe amend that to be the "children of rich people."
This is a purely subjective opinion and that's fine, for it is usually better to rely on one's own observations, rather than those of statisticians. However, if it is based on a relatively short timeline and formed on observation of a very small population relative to the size of the country concerned, its value in relation to the original post is bound to be limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
What does it matter if Pip would rather hang out with poor people than rich people? I agree with him. Rich people are often all around unpleasant company. The only reason they have company is because they have money, nine times out of ten.
What OrphanPip said is true. That's why it bothers you, and you know it. You can say that his opinion is purely subjective, but what about you and Alexander III? Are we to believe your views are based on objective data and not your own snobbish attitudes toward the poor? You act as though you have conducted sociological research when all you ever mention in the thread was being upset because people don't dress "appropriately" on the London Underground. And as far as its value in relation to the original post, the entire thread has already been completed derailed and no longer has anything to do with the original topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil Miller
Why, thankyou Juniper ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
This poor/wealthy thing - I've been dirt poor (try 200 bucks beneath the poverty line and living in a tent for six months, not by choice), and I still managed to eat well and shower, though clothing was a matter of luck (if an opshop had something nice for a bargain price).
It seems a lot of this discussion seems to forget the luck element in a person's life - who they do and don't know, what their family is able to teach them, and so forth.
There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him. It must take a lot of self-confidence to try to enter the preserve of the so-called beautiful people. But again, perhaps he was initially plucked off the street to purpose play a villain, and just happened to be a natural at acting (which face it, isn't that difficult with the right director), but equally he may have gone through juliard thingy. I wish I knew his name to put up a photo - I'll do it if I remember
But maybe that's what it is - people respect self-confidence, and success stories forget that half of their success they owe to blind luck.
...poor people can often pull off an appearance of authenticity that is, at least for me, far more appealing than the deliberately constructed pretensions of the upper classes.
So you are trying to suggest that the ghetto "hood" look cultivated among rappers (and my students) and based upon the "style" of urban gangs is more "authentic" and less about aspiring to associate oneself with a certain social caste? You really believe that?
http://vinnykumar.com/wp-content/upl...8fae61bbfd.jpg
And it's far more "appealing" as well. No doubt this is an equally "appealing" fashion statement:
http://localism.com/image_store/uplo...3348256134.jpg
Or this:
http://www.metalrulesmagazine.com/pi...foto01_400.jpg
Unless an individual gives no thought to how he or she dresses... I would say that it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich... fashion choices make a clear statement about the aspirations of the individual and which social groups he or she wishes to associate with.
I've mingled with the poor and rich from the worst public schools to one of the best private schools and Uni in the country, and I have to say there is very little to like about rich people, no matter how nice their clothes look, especially since the fashion is nothing more than a symbol of class inclusion.
C'mon Pip... fashion is a symbol of class inclusion regardless of class. Honestly, I have been around rich and poor and found an equal share of jerks in either class.
There are 'ugly' actors who are generally just normal people having a bit of fun and maybe a bit of earning. I remember one character actor who kept appearing as the bad guy in tv shows, his face badly acne scarred and the lighting always accentuated the bass-relief. I saw an interview with him once and his personality blew my misconceptions out of the water. He was side-splittingly hysterical as a person, and I doubt that it was a matter of compensation because there was nothing forced about it. He'd just dealt with the hand that was ah dealt to him.
C'mon.... Karl Malden was one of the greatest actors:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ss_trailer.jpg
Willem Dafoe?
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg
Vincent Schiavelli?
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg
Steve Buscemi? How's this for a high-school photo?
http://i2.listal.com/image/1532222/6...ve-buscemi.jpg
Ron Perlman?
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg
Danny Trejo?
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...0,214,314_.jpg
Bette Davis? Even the finest Hollywood makeup and camera-work could only go so far:
http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/d...20portrait.jpg
And what about Ernest Borgnine?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bE7Mw-gkKG.../J2KTD00Z.jpeg
Tilda Swinton?
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...winton-007.jpg
Kathy Kinney (ack!!!)
http://whatever.losito.net/images/mimi.jpg
My point has pretty much been made for me. Being rich doesn't make people beautiful. Being poor doesn't make them ugly. Poor choices and socio-cultural traditions? Sure.
Not really. It's more like a pendulum of reacting against one's parents. You can trace it through history, the 20th being a good example because it was most recent. Wild flappers, then prissy pinched-weist housewives, then dirty hippies, then upscale yuppies, then grunge, and now we're getting back to dressing fancy (polo shirts as far as the eye can see). Back and forth, from well-groomed and conservatively dressed to sloppy and scandalous. It doesn't have anything to do with "conformity," and it's all pretty predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
Alex has a brusque and honest way about him, not everyone can have the same personality (thankfully). If he gets under your skin that's your problem, you're going to get our thread closed if you start getting personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
Yes, those "working people" are sweethearts, aren't they? Why, I've never once met a labourer who was a sh*thead.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
Oh wait, there are good people and sh*theads from every walk of life and making automatic judgements about people's moral values and work ethic based on their social class is ridiculous.
I come from a "working class" town, and I think there are some people in this thread operating under strong misconceptions who have very limited exposure to actual "working class" life. "Working class" doesn't mean "struggling." My town has 3200 people, all of whom are dependant on the oil patch, the coal mine, or the lumber mill - and we have four spas, two gyms and three high-end clothing stores where you can't buy a wristband for under $100. Having a job pulling minerals out of the ground or operating a machine doesn't exclude you from having manicured nails and a $400 trip to the hair salon every two weeks, or having a $200,000 home (the average in GC), or having two or more vehicles and going on out-of-country vacations. This is a description of what I've come to see as normal life in my location, so could we please stop talking about the "working class" like they're a bunch of underpriveledged, simpleton ditch diggers with good ol' down home country values? This isn't the ****ing Grapes of Wrath. They have the wiggle-room and resources available to afford and persue their own interests and develop individual personalities, like human beings and not like stock characters in a Dickens novel. *mom-ish fingerwag* You're stereotyping.
Mmm nice rant Juniper. Can I just say the following is an outrageous generalisation formed from limited contact with those I am about to praise and traduce. Also please remember this thread is about attraction, which is not a moral concept. I was brought up as one of seven children on Family Allowance, free school dinners and clothing coupons. BUT the home was stable loving and rural.
Rich girls, or well brought up girls, are open and entitled, they are used to getting what they want, they are confident of success and are prepared to work hard for it. they know what possibilities are out there. They expect to have their share. They can retain a youthful niavety for longer, they seem vibrant and attractive.
Those who have a bad upbringing in a poor souless place, expect to be kicked back, they grow up being given no respect and so don't expect any. They develop a shell, a defence mechanism of not caring, they may put on a front of aggression, they always seem guarded. They are said to have "attitude" (the bad sort.) It all shows in their faces. They are defeated before they start. I find them less attractive. but don't like myself for finding them so.
What anyone says on the forum doesn't bother me unless it's unwarranted personalisation of a thread. As I have said, I don't believe his point of view to be correct because it's based on a questionable sample. Living in one of the most densely populated cities on earth my contact with people on a daily basis allows for a wider observation of people's appearance and it's one that has been carried out over a long period of time. On this basis it is not difficult to see that people's attitude to their personal appearance has been stood on its head. The conformism of a time when people took pride in their appearance actually upheld a standard that was a necessary part of social cohesion, and the result of its abandonment can be seen by anyone who is old enough to make the comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxical
Being a man of the 21st century, I am fond of expressing myself trough pictures just as much as with words.
http://i.imgur.com/9oA22.jpg
http://360jokes.com/wp-content/uploa...l-happened.jpg
http://www.aksworld.net/wp-content/u...lack-men-2.jpg
http://data.whicdn.com/images/17855449/3582f8_large.jpg
also read this article, all of you, I think it is excellently written and demonstrates the true value of appearance.
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/11/12...-marine-corps/
You know what I find attractive?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4Z2y7r4LcA...nbeckford1.jpg
or
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...UqWVRAZXHA&t=1
or
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/phot...91-700-507.jpg
or
http://www.ducati.ms/forums/attachme...llucci_323.jpg
There are so many... But I also really like butts. A nice butt can go a long way. Or abs. nice abs are always good. But generally I think curvier women are more attractive, and darker men... though I like the blonde and blue eyed types too. I don't discriminate.
Intelligence, wit, confidence and humor can make someone much more attractive... but let's face it, if Monica Bellucci walked into a bar, I'm sure your first thought wouldn't be, 'Gosh, I wonder what her favorite book is...' :D
Anyway, just puttin this thread back on track...
I have a nice suit - in mothballs. Give me bluejeans, hiking boots, and a tee for my rough and tumble lifestyle any day. The rare occasions that I dress formal never sit well with me and I avoid them as much as possible, even if it's my own exhibition opening, though I might wear the jacket if it's cold.
R e m i n d e r
Please note that as of today, only images post as thumbnails will be allowed in the discussion threads.
The pictures posted in the Photo Album or Pictures Taken By You threads can be posted in their original sizes as usual.
Posts containing such images will be removed without further notice.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...6&postcount=58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Well that sucks, especially for those who like reading stlukes artsy posts. Also, this thread suddenly contains nipples.
Oh sorry, I didn't know of this change... duly noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
A friend of mine once asked me "why is it that every girl you've ever liked has looked like the product of a six-generation eugenics experiment?" *shrug* That's just how it is. You shouldn't feel bad if you're particularly fond of dark guys, physical attraction can't be overridden by notions of political correctness.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoeticPassions
Sorry, but you're wrong. America has always been a conservative nation and you are expected to dress appropriately. This is determined by the business world and it's supposed to mean that you are an upstanding citizen. Someone a company can hire. An obedient person who will not question authority. All conservatives celebrate this sentiment to this day. Fashion comes and goes, of course, but it was never OK to be a "dirty hippy," even during the '60's. People had to fight to express themselves the way they wanted, and many paid a heavy price. Beatings, losing your job, being kicked out of your parent's house, etc, were all common. Eventually, the Establishment gave up to some degree but most people are conservative and there is still a deep seated hatred among the population against those who dress and believe differently. The '80's saw a great resurgence in conservatism, but along came punk rockers and then goths, then grunge, etc. It is still a bitter pill for many to swallow, and I'm not just talking about our leaders. I'm talking about ordinary citizens. In places like Mexico--which is a very conservative country--and throughout the Middle-East, many young people are being killed and in some cases tortured for dressing emo or goth. There is a counter culture in every country and a respected way of dress in every country. It has nothing to do with fashion but is instead a struggle of those who upheld the system and those who want change. Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I'm going to get the thread closed? Alexander III was the one who derailed things with his insensitive, hate-filled comments. And what do you mean "our" thread. It's my thread just as much as yours. I'm still a member in good standing and I contributed to the thread long before these recent comments. Why is it that he is allowed to say things like "all poor people are ugly?" You don't think that's going to offend someone? Others get away with saying that all poor people have a "mark on their face" and use their government benefits to buy themselves fancy cars and manicures, etc instead of using it for their children. Or StLukesGuild saying that I must be 19 years old and under the influence of Marxist professors. Now that's getting personal. But I didn't respond. I wasn't even going to return to this thread but others continue to make inflammatory statements and, after awhile, you feel like you have to stand up and say something.Quote:
Alex has a brusque and honest way about him, not everyone can have the same personality (thankfully). If he gets under your skin that's your problem, you're going to get our thread closed if you start getting personal.
I think you're stereotyping. I come from a working class area myself and I would bet that it's far more working class then where you come from in Canada. I also know that most of the working class people here do whatever they can to not appear working class. Tucked in polo shirts and pressed pants, etc. They are deathly afraid of being seen as poor, and many of them are very well-paid. I know all about the $200,000 homes of well-paid oil workers and their $40,000 bass boats. This area also depends on oil and gas as its main source of income and I've seen the terrible impact that has had on the environment. It's destroying our coast and poisoning our lakes and rivers. I know you said you were studying ecology in the the thread on environmentalism--the thread where you ridiculed me for saying that the Earth is in serious trouble due to human activity. I thought that was strange for an ecology major. Now I think I understand.Quote:
I come from a "working class" town, and I think there are some people in this thread operating under strong misconceptions who have very limited exposure to actual "working class" life. "Working class" doesn't mean "struggling." My town has 3200 people, all of whom are dependant on the oil patch, the coal mine, or the lumber mill - and we have four spas, two gyms and three high-end clothing stores where you can't buy a wristband for under $100. Having a job pulling minerals out of the ground or operating a machine doesn't exclude you from having manicured nails and a $400 trip to the hair salon every two weeks, or having a $200,000 home (the average in GC), or having two or more vehicles and going on out-of-country vacations. This is a description of what I've come to see as normal life in my location, so could we please stop talking about the "working class" like they're a bunch of underpriveledged, simpleton ditch diggers with good ol' down home country values? This isn't the ****ing Grapes of Wrath. They have the wiggle-room and resources available to afford and persue their own interests and develop individual personalities, like human beings and not like stock characters in a Dickens novel. *mom-ish fingerwag* You're stereotyping.
Yeah, of course, you can't really control who you are attracted to. Though I would say that one of the most attractive people to me is Brad Pitt, and he doesn't fit my general mold. That's why I say I don't discriminate in the sense that I don't really have a type, and find men and women of all races, ethnicities and such attractive... but preferences exist, of course. I've never found Chinese of Japanese people as attractive as, say, Europeans or mixed-race individuals...Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
I would like to ask that an exception be made for nipples.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I too hope exceptions can be made with the thumbnail rule for the art threads/posts.
Anyways, I was watching the news and saw a story involving a really nice, upper-class neighborhood. Everyone they talked to we're fat slobs, albeit wealthy fat slobs.
So, I've changed my mind: ugly people are everywhere, in every class, just as jerks are. I'm so glad I'm enlightened.
Male or female?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Yep-being poor doesn't mean one has bad teeth, is fat and unkempt, etc. Poor people have dignity-most of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
[/QUOTE]
In contrast, there are so many ugly wealthy people. All of the money in the world can't make them pretty. Donald Trump. Rush Limbaugh. Penny Marshall. Rosie O'Donnell.
This is obvious, right?[/QUOTE]
You are so right. It is very annoying when people judge others on how much wealth they have, like it matters at all. It doesn't- It also doesn't make people any more attractive either. Snobbishness and conceit about one's own wealth makes one look rather ugly, I think.
Gotta be fair to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade