View Single Post
Old 12-02-2005, 04:34 PM   #166
innerSpaceman
Kink of Swank
 
innerSpaceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 13,075
innerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to innerSpaceman Send a message via MSN to innerSpaceman Send a message via Yahoo to innerSpaceman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tracilicious
The difference is that one of these is a biological fact and one of these is subjective opinion turned into a broad generalization. Two men cannot naturally make a baby. Neither can two women. Saying fat people are less attractive is not based on common sense fact.
I think it was Szcerbiakmaniac who pointed out quite nicely why, in modern-day Western culture, the generalization of fat=less attractive than thin is an acceptable generalization. It remains a mere generalization.

(And gay men have the same ability to contribute to a baby's conception as straight men, they simply have less opportunity ).

I happen to agree with Prudence that such a generalization must be combatted and should be changed. But I feel perfectly comfortable in assessing it to be a valid generalization for current Western society. Your mileage may vary.



Nevertheless, my position remains that no posts in this thread have crossed the line into insults of a particular person or derogation of a particular group. If someone ventured the opinion that short men were less attractive than tall men, I would not consider that a slur upon we short dudes.


Edited to add:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
Crap, running behind....too many posts to catch up with
Ditto.
innerSpaceman is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote