From: stephena@netcom.com (Stephen Arrants)
Subject: Re: Marky Mark and Calvin Klein (was Re: Scott Masden)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na,uk
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.200449.27480@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>stephena@netcom.com (Stephen Arrants) writes:
>>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>
>>>	Someday, SOMEDAY we might grow up enough to choose
>>>our idols with our heads instead of our balls.  That will
>>>make the choice doubly-sweet if said choice is also *HOT* by our
>>>own "standards of objectifyable excellence".
>>>
>
>>Oh c'mon, Bob.  There's a difference between an idol and an object of lust. 
>
>	Is there?   I think that depends on the person.

No, it depends on what turns each of us on. If it is a hairless "ephebe" fine.
If it is a burly hairy WWF member (Arne Anderson?  Hacksaw Jim Duggan? ) fine.
You've stated your views on them, yet their politics, "PC-ness", etc. 
wasn't mentioned.....

>>Objects of lust are allowed a little more leeway. If Mr. Marky Mark was 
>>exactly the same person yet had lots of body hair, a beard, and fit the "bear"
>>image, I'm sure you're comment would be much more muted.  Methinks thou doth
>>protest too much.
>
>	I am *so* fucking sick of this argument.  It makes the basic
>assumption that deep down we're all as petty and shallow as the most
>visible shallow person among us.  What utter crap.  While this might
>be a reflection of how*you* think, Stephen, (for which I am utterly
>surprised) it doesn't necessarily apply to me.  

Bobby, when it comes to lust I'd venture that ALL of us are petty and shallow.
I freely admit that there are some guys that get me hot and bothered just
beause of the way they look, and the hell with their views and opinions. But
that's just lust and fantasy.  In the real world of real life and real 
relationships therey;d be nothing there but the look. 
And please, don't give me this holier than thou crap, Bob. You've done it too.
There's nothing really wrong with it; it just is. 

>	Sorry, you're barking up the wrong bear.  Better luck next time.
>For your collective edification, when confronted with the scenario above
>my reaction tends to be "nice bear - too bad he's such an asshole".
>aI can think of a few people where I work that fit this description - on
>a purely physical level they might be very hot, but knowing them, and
>not liking it makes it impossible for me to even think aboutoutside of those 
>terms.

Pfffft!  Then you've changed a lot since the Seattle visit.

>	Now of course it could be that some of the people I lust after
>are in reality complete jerks, and I just don't know it yet.  That in 
>fact has happened before on campus.  I guess the overriding motto is:
>there are plenty of bears in the sea why waste time on the assholes?

Because we do. Because it is fantasy. Because hormones have no mind, dear.

>	Methinks you assume too much.  How sad.
Methinks you need to learn how to read. There's nothing wrong with your 
inconsistencies.  That;s just the way things are. Please don't hold everyone
else to a higher standard than you want to be held to.




Newsgroups: soc.motss