ROFL. "Math is hard." --Barbie.

blankfist, your 45 minute ban wasn't because of favoritism. dag drew a line in the sand, which you immediately crossed. dag obviously doesn't like drawing lines in sand or disciplining people who call his bluff, which is why he is trying push that responsibility onto us. I too would rather see the admins take care of these kinds of issues rather than implementing some kind of complicated scheme, but dag doesn't want to be bothered with it, and it's his site, and I completely understand where he is coming from - he's got better things to do, like grilling shrimps on barbies, petting kangaroos and going on walkabouts in the outback.

If anything, favoritism works in your favor, since you are such an old and prominent member of the community. If a probie had dished out those ad homs, he'd probably be gone for good. Choggie is another example of favoritism. No one has abused the system more then he, and he's been banned dozens of times, yet he's allowed to stay because he is a colorful character who has become a fixture to this site.

If a system need be put in place, Genji's seems pretty smart. If it is abused, the admins can remove the offending sifters privileges.

Can't say I disagree with anything you say!

I was talking shorthand. Nuance gets lost in shorthand.



>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.
To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.
When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.
As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.
As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.

To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.

When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.

As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.

As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

It's dependent on age. Most people my age prefer heavily trimmed genitalia.

I'm sure the "men you admire" like when a woman shaves her legs and her pits right? Assuming the answer is yes, then that right there is modification from how bodies "evolved to be". If they like hairy pits and legs, then they're an exception to the rule, not the rule.>> ^bareboards2:

A bit cryptic here... are you saying that having sex is good, but you would turn it down if the vagina came to you au naturelle?
Well, that is your choice.
I have noticed that the men I admire most really love bodies as they evolved to be, not some plasticized and sanitized unnatural vision of Barbie and Ken dolls. That personal preference seems to be tied to a love of life and a way of being in the world that is very attractive.
At least, this is true of the men here on the Sift. I don't have this conversation out in the real world, I just have read the comments here and there.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
That's not a bad idea, rottenseed.
How's about it @blankfist? You into cougars?
>> ^rottenseed:
get a room


yes!
>> ^bareboards2:
Looks like someone could use a good waxing.
I hear waxing is really really painful.
http://videosift.com/video/Don-t-Wax-That-Vay-Jay-Jay


nevermind...

A bit cryptic here... are you saying that having sex is good, but you would turn it down if the vagina came to you au naturelle?

Well, that is your choice.

I have noticed that the men I admire most really love bodies as they evolved to be, not some plasticized and sanitized unnatural vision of Barbie and Ken dolls. That personal preference seems to be tied to a love of life and a way of being in the world that is very attractive.

At least, this is true of the men here on the Sift. I don't have this conversation out in the real world, I just have read the comments here and there.



>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^bareboards2:
That's not a bad idea, rottenseed.
How's about it @blankfist? You into cougars?
>> ^rottenseed:
get a room


yes!
>> ^bareboards2:
Looks like someone could use a good waxing.
I hear waxing is really really painful.
http://videosift.com/video/Don-t-Wax-That-Vay-Jay-Jay


nevermind...

Zut alors, un Francais - sacre bleu! J'espere que tu as mange ton croissant deja aujourd-hui!

Phew! While I lived in Rennes for six months over ten years ago, writing French was never my strong point. I am well versed in French stereotypes, however. So be warned...

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
While I am LMAO on the outside, I'm tryin' to find a barbie to hide under on the inside.

...oh, and I'm from France.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Thanks, Chicc - now tell me your nationality, so I can regale you with painful 80s stereotypes from your home country!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
It's a fair dinkum corker...Congratulations on your Ruby.

While I am LMAO on the outside, I'm tryin' to find a barbie to hide under on the inside.

...oh, and I'm from France.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
Thanks, Chicc - now tell me your nationality, so I can regale you with painful 80s stereotypes from your home country!

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
It's a fair dinkum corker...Congratulations on your Ruby.

>> ^smooman:

grammar is hard!>> ^ant:
>> ^smooman:
two of my most favorite things: star wars and legos!
youre my hero!

Thanks, but you forgot an apostrophe and proper capitalizations.



"Math is hard." --Barbie

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I was playing to the Americans. Like Paul Hogan - putting another shrimp on the barbie.

>> ^kymbos:

"Cantaloupe"? You do realise that in Queensland, if someone catches you saying that word they can legally bash you with a rockmelon? Oh, and happy birthday, you mincing pimp.

cat does this to me and its going on the Barbi

I was expecting a searing Shrimp on the Barby sort of Grilling... Not this Georoge forman grilling.

The leidenfrost effect sure helped her though, she bounced around with her side steps.

i don't feel like there has to be a difference in the rhetoric and the reality. and find that statement kind of cynical.

my kids are allowed all kinds of crazy freedoms with their hair and dress and expression and creativity and language and their interests are almost always highly encouraged by me and my tribe.

princesses weren't a non existant part of playtime when my daughter was younger, at that point i thought it was an archetype and all little girls go through that phase. and i still kind of think that. but i think it can be overly nurtured in ways that are obnoxious. anyway, princess phase was short lived and generally took a back seat to her desire to be a fairy or a piano playing shark. i could think of million reasons to hate barbies, but i decided not to, she has barbies ... she just isnt real interested in them. bratz dolls are actually just amazingly whorey and negative and are just way overboard, so.. fuck no. she's too old for them now anyway.

my biggest issue is over commercialization, so we simply have no television. they watch movies and what not. and actually i feel like limiting the television and commercialization has helped them development loads of creativity. which is actively encouraged around here. it's totally possible to imbue your kids with your values without forcing your political agenda down their throats.

i'm extremely interested in how much of my kids personalities and social skills are due to their lack of exposure to what's "trendy" and how much of it is just inherent. . my niece is the same age as my daughter, she's been hooked on the disney channel since birth. "fitting in" and keeping up with trends and being "like" her peers is extremely important to her. my kid couldn't care less. but that was also the difference between her mom (my sister) and i when we were kids.

i used to worry more about my son being able to fit in with more mainstreamed peers. seeing as we have no television, he knows 0 about spiderman or transformers or sports, he has 0 male role model to emulate and has been raised entirely by a bunch of women. but he's having no trouble "fitting in" with other boys. my daughter on the other hand is having loads of issues with socialization. she has no interest in what other 8 year old girls seem to be interested in. honestly, at this point, if hannah montana would help her make friends, i'd consider getting cable. but she just thinks it's stupid.

i'm interested to know if that's her just being a mature, heavily artistic, tomboy, with a dose of shyness or if the persona's of little girls are just so entirely shaped by television and trends that she's finding it impossible to relate them without it. i suspect its probably a bit of both. and i find the latter extremely sad.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://kids.videosift.com/member/spoco2" title="member since August 21st, 2006" class="profilelink">spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.
I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

@spoco2, good point. But I'd have to wonder why I'd want to stop him or her from following what they want even if it's trendy. Is it because of how I feel about it? If so, that's not a very good reason at all.

I dislike commercialization like the next guy, but is it fair for me to push my own personal politics onto my child? I say no. Sure, wearing high heels at five may be a bit extreme, but most parents use those extreme examples as justification to stifle their children's self-expression at less extremes. In other words, the rhetoric is "my five year old daughter is not wearing heels" but then in reality it's "my ten year old son is not getting a faux-hawk/mohawk" or "my daughter is not getting a Barbie doll".

Put A roo on the barbi