Posts by Sarah Bee

Re: *chuckle*

You haven't seen all the ones I've rejected.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Re: she attempted to beat off the crazed caribou

God. You lot read everything into everything. I believe in this instance it just meant "repel with violent blows". Why would it be naughty in this context? Sheesh. Y'all are gross.

Re: Scientists?

That's not precisely how they made the comparison. It was a bit more, um, scientific than that.

Re: Refers to the film

Or possibly the bloke.

Re: @liar Jesper Frimann

Can you take this outside now, please? Thanks.

Re: Frog != Toad

You can tell from that? I'm impressed.

I saved a toad from getting squashed in the road recently. It was definitely a toad rather than a frog, but I could only tell because it wasn't dessicated and stuck to a bit of a PC. I picked it up with my bare hands because I am well 'ard.

Re: Enter Shikari

Hah.

Re: Re: Offended

Oh, they already have. Buahah!

Re: Do what?

It is for charity, you know.

Re: Offended

I figured most Reg readers wouldn't, and would be vocal about it. I bet someone will before this thread is out. But well done you for having heard of them.

Re: Why is it

Not especially. You're all so predictable. And no one's being particularly offensive. It's just another day at the office...

Re: Whatever...

I think it's self-evident that most men would probably do most types of women. There's no suggestion that men *only* go for blue-eyed busty blondes. It's just saying that there may be evolutionary advantages to being blue-eyed and blonde and busty.

I think most people have preferred types but there are some attributes that work on the reptile brain stem of pretty much everyone. Busty women are everyone's type, ultimately, on a very base and primitive level.

Re: Marilyn Monroe wasn't blonde

I think the idea is that you don't have to be *naturally* blonde - it's just the colour that suggests youthfulness.

But yeah, of course you can pick all this stuff apart, we're not such simple creatures. Well, mostly.

Boobs is a good word. Others are either coy, clinical or bordering on offensive in many contexts.

I think we should popularise 'Ingrids' as a term now, in honour of recently deceased horror actress Ingrid Pitt.

Re: Mind and Body

Er, whose words?

Re: In other news...

If you're referring to me, dear, I wrote the thing. So I'm braced for whatever you may have to say.

Re: Glass houses?

*whoooooosh*

Re: @Sarah

Well, you can't please all the people all the time. And why would you want to when it's so much fun to slightly upset many of the people much of the time?

Re: HEADLINES

They're kind of our comment on TABLOID SHOCK HEADLINES, see. It's alright once you get used to it.

Re: Re: A fine example of the American education system

NB I don't think this particular gaffe is the result of not knowing - it looks more like the kind of verbal carelessness you can't really excuse. You've got to be more aware of what is coming out of your mouth if you're in politics. She's incredibly heedless about her presentation for a politician - it's almost as if all the energy for that goes into what she looks like (thanks for reinforcing that one for women, Palin - pretty and dumb is always the way forward). Unless! it's all DELIBERATE and CALCULATED. etc. (It's not. At least not entirely. I don't know. I weary of her.)

Re: A fine example of the American education system

"Just because I don't *care* doesn't mean I don't *understand*."

I think she's got some of the same problems as Bush - she can't be as stupid as she appears, it's more a combination of arrogance and indolence, as Bush exhibited. Too lazy to learn, too confident to care if she looks like an idiot.

Not to rule out some dosage of actual stupidity. I doubt she's even as clever as Bush. But there's a large streak of proud anti-intellectualism in the US, which is why she'll always have support.

Re: Disgusting

What is it with people here suddenly deciding that being a 'sex object' is a good thing? There's a whole world of healthy sexuality outside of that narrow and disparaging bracket. That definition implies that there is *nothing else about a person* than their sexuality - is that what you want? Is that what anyone's wife wants? It's the 'among other things' bit that is crucial. No person is an 'object'. Stop clinging to the word. You can get rid of it and not give anything up.

Grey areas, for chrissakes. The world does not reduce down to 'Nuts cover or niqab', however strenuously you boil it. You can't give people some sort of ultimatum - "well, either you're seen as a sex object, or we take that option away and you're left as some kind of procreating indeterminate blob".

If this is how you think women see themselves - as one of only three possible things - then I'm baffled, frankly. Personally I see myself as quite a lot of things, only a few of which pertain to my gender.

Re: Touche.

If it's what you really think then I'm not sure it's active 'trolling'.

But you've gone now, yes? Righto then.

Re: By the way, what is actually wrong

I think the point is that objectification reduces people to *things* with only one purpose or use. A sexual being is not the same thing as a sex object. So there is an issue there.

Doesn't mean porn is necessarily this terrible fearful thing to be stamped out. You just don't want society to consider women as compliant spunk-receptacles, which you can achieve by raising well-adjusted human beings who can tell the difference between porn and reality. A difficult job, undoubtedly, but running screaming in fear of sexy stuff is never constructive to that end.

Re: Homophobic MP?

Anal sex isn't any more prevalent among gay couples than straight ones. Not a lot of people know that.

It's not homophobic so much as it's just a bit retarded, I'd say. If you're that freaked out about the corrupting power of anything sexual then anal sex is probably up there with the most depraved and perverted acts you can think of.