Attractive People Make Me Genocidal
Guess what? I've discovered a demographic more detrimental to my everyday well-being than high schoolers. For those of you who have read the title of this post may guess, I am referring to attractive people.
There are WAY too many attractive people in the world. They serve no purpose to me. Seriously, what do I have to gain by having tanned, well-dressed, confident people running around in front of me and in my peripheral vision all day? WHAT DO I HAVE TO GAIN? I seriously can't work it out.
Why do people pursue gatherings of attractive demographics of people in order to attain some 'eye candy?' Why is this considered a fun thing to do? This 'eye candy' has never done anything positive for me or my life. Unless of course you consider becoming an embittered, reclusive, vomiting wreck positive. I don't see anything fun or intoxicating about watching crowds of attractive, dumb, slutty, overrated, undeservedly happy whores whilst muttering to myself 'Can't have that. Can't have that. Can't have that. Can't have that' over and over until I develop a repetitive stress disorder. What's wrong with all of you screw-heads? How can you sleep at night?
Why can't everyone just be a GPA 4.5 in the attractiveness scale of 0-7. Then nobody would be that ugly that they would be forcibly and unfairly ostracised from society due to a physical defect beyond their control. And, even better, there wouldn't be anyone that attractive that they would warrant receiving undeserved attention and affection due to physical gifts beyond their control. In fact, fuck calling it a 'physical gift' - I'm going to call it a 'physical defect'. The definition of a defect is subjective in this context and attractive people disgust me. It's a defect. Get fucked.
Superficiality is destroying society. It ruins every single day that I venture outside my house. Everywhere I go I see perfectly decent but unattractive people looking bored and depressed and even more frequently I see witless, trendy, good-looking dicks and cunts with tans and 500 dollar sunglasses sitting in cafes talking about the time one of their friends hooked up with someone and giggling like a dolphin getting a hand job.
Is anyone even paying fucking attention to this fascist social hierarchy that we have going on here? Why isn't this the number one issue on the agenda every time the Australian parliament's House of Reps meet? All I ever hear is dogshit about petty changes in taxes and implications of a minister 'misleading the public'. It's boring and nobody cares. If the government want my respect they should spend question time identifying attractive people 'hot-spots' and strategically launching ballistic missiles at them. Then they can spend half their budget on a comically overblown advertising campaign which states that 'Genocide is Fun'.
Vomit.
posted by Biggles @ 9:39 pm
16 Comments:
Dear Koskov,
I disagree with the arguments you make. I think they are both hypocritical and wrong.
My sources have you as an effeminiate 6 G.P.A.
My sources tell me you received 2 votes for your engaging and witty performance at a party last night.
You are beautiful and interesting.
if you reread it you will realise that at no stage in this article do I actually reference where I fit in on this whole attractiveness issue/scale. It's purely an objective analysis of a problem which affects society as a whole.
Every man I know, with one exception, is a 5.0.
I am hesitant to support a policy of systematically destroying attractive women.
To be less round-a-bout - is the problem the fact that they are attractive, or that people think they're attractive? If you kill them off, everyone will just target the best of the rest.
Social engineering and brainwashing may well be the answer, but genocide isn't in my book.
koskov, i would be interested to know where you fit in on the attractiveness scale: what would you rate yourself?
The whole hot slut image, along with the supposedly good looking 'dicks and cunts' can only be due to the extremely overated ownership of ridiculous outfits, such as miniskirts and boob tubes which females can still seem to wear in sub-freezing temperatures.
The whole attractiveness issue is based on corrupt marketing. What would happen if you took away the tanning lotions/solariums, the expensive 'brand' name sunnies, all forms of makeup and perfume, the classic labels such as billabong, nike, mambo etc not to mention all the cheap imiatations. In fact get rid of clothing all together.. WHAT WOULD YOU BE LEFT WITH?!?! A very ugly population dressed in POTATO SACKS!
My point is that EVERYONE should be dressed in shitty rotting potato sacks that give no body definition and would also give off a pungent smell of rotting potatoes. If anyone is caught trying to make their sack look better then they shall be forced to wear multiple sacks!...
Here lies the solution to your problem Koskov. Nothing but Filthy Rotten POTATO SACKS!
Dear Koskov,
I disagree with your whiny, fake defence of your article.
it is purely a subjective analysis.
And by making constructing a series of binary oppositions between good looks/intellligence and personality, you obviously are not placing yourself in the attractive group. For example, you state on a number of accasions that you hate attractive people.
Also anyone who has met yet you will attest that you are a low 4.
Regards,
I really don't find this a particularly attractive argument 'if you don't want me looking at your tits don't wear... a shirt that says "my face isn't down here"'.
In the end it basically comes down to "I have no self control, I need you to censor yourself because I have no restraint". Why not just hit the bottom of the barrel and accuse women of asking for it?
If it its withing what is considered basically decent (and I can't see how a shirt with a slogan on it is anything less) then women, and everyone else, have the right to walk around the CBD without being made to feel uncomfortable.
Its something less than the same thing, but that sort of argument sounds a lot like the disgraceful line of reasoning we saw in a criminal trial earlier this year. There a defence lawyer argued in a rape case that the fact that a woman wore short skirts when she went out proved she was easy and therefore wasn't raped.
Grow up and get a grip on the real world.
jack.
To support Mr Sinclair,
petty justifications for humiliating and demeaning women by staring at their bodies, such as their clothing and attitude, and using absurd sources, such as old sayings and American comedies, to defend your sad, chauvinistic, bigoted lifestyle, reveal what a complete fool you are.
If you ever begin to consider women at a holistic level, rather than as sexual objects designed for your gratification, you may be able to salvage the sadness and destruction in your life.
I stand together with Mr Sinclair.
Why can’t a tight top be comfortable? Why can’t that be exactly what I might tell you?
It’s a trite example but it makes the point – the vast majority of our athletes wear tight clothing. You can’t seriously argue it’s because they want to be sex objects. Nor that they have some desire to hinder their performance by making themselves uncomfortable. What makes you think that wearing tight tops wouldn’t be comfortable? Have you even discussed this with any women?
People, all people, wear what they wear for many reasons. It may be for physical comfort, it may be for fashion, it may because they like the way it makes them look to them or a host of other reasons.
Even if you could show that some women where tight clothing because of a desire to parade around as sex kittens, I can’t see anyway you can say that’s the desire of all women who might where a tight top or slogan across their chest. And as I’ve said before – for that reason the onus is on you to show some self control, not for them to censor themselves.
You ask a valid question “If women don't want me to see them as sex objects then why do they dress like sex objects?.” One view is that they do it for your pleasure. Another, I say more reasonable view, is that they don’t see themselves as sex objects, and neither do they regard themselves as dressing like sex objects. They are simply dressing as they please, like so many of their peers do – if you find that too risqué then to a large extent that’s your problem, and certainly nothing to crow about.
But I’m willing to go one step further here. Even if everything you claim so far is correct –lets say they are trying to provide eye candy and seek some attention, the fact remains that you are making them uncomfortable. That’s why they complain. I don’t know why it is – but for the sake of argument lets say that perhaps they only seek to be glanced at, not stared at. The reason doesn’t really matter, the fact remains that you are going out knowing you make another person uncomfortable and you’re trying to justify it. Putting aside all the semantics, knowingly making someone else feel bad, feel uncomfortable is objectionable.
But even aside from the fact that you’re arguments are unjustified, and your conduct unreasonable the underlying logic of ‘blame the victim’ is straight forwardly reprehensible. Simply because women make it easier for you to ogle them doesn’t mean you have the right to. To follow that logic is to say that because someone is walking through a red light district you have the right to assault them. It is indefensible to say that just because the opportunity exists, that you have the right to abuse it.
The athletes example was trite - it was conceded, but your response hardly discredits it. If nothing else it proves the crux of my argument - people wear what they wear for a range of reasons, and its simply unjustified to presume that its for your benefit.
I'm fankly unimpressed by the fact you are prepared to assert "you can't tell me a tight top is for comfort" and then follow up by conceding that you've never actually asked anyone. As far as I can tell from this your argument basically comes down to "I wouldn't wear a tight top - so why would anyone else?"
My logic doesn't mandate walking around topless. I said quite clearly that women should be able to walk around freely only, to quote myself "If it its [with in] what is considered basically decent". And even if that weren't the case, I also emphasised the issue was that you were making them feel uncomfortable. Sneaking a peek is one thing - you were arguing, from the very start, for your right to stare at them. Thats what makes them uncomfortable, and thats what I say is a problem.
I agree that it is innate to women to, from time to time, seek to look attractive to men. Thats not controversial. But in the case of most women, they do it on specific occasions, and often for specific audiences. The issue here isn't "do women ever dress sexy", its "does maucless have an unqualified right to stare at women, even if it makes them uncomfortable?". As I said, its not enough for you to say that because you have the opportunity to stare at them, that you also have the right.
I look forward to your return, and promised proof of your argument.
and by "fankly" I meant "frankly". Apologies
Your proof, at best, shows that some women tolerate your behaviour. It certainly doesn't show that ALL women WANT it. Did you attempt to differentiate between which ones you pinched on the basis of dress?
Your brickmanship argument doesn't really hold up. Whilst necklines rise and fall with the seasons, as do skirt lengths there is no real evidence of a systematic race to the bottom. Women's clothing has gotten more revealing in recent times, but this comes more from the fact that society will now permit it that a competitiveness.
Your g-string argument isn't helpful. I'll quote myself again - I am defending the right to dress only "If it its [with in] what is considered basically decent". You in a g-string would not be decent in the CBD. On the beach possibly, but I'm not familiar enough with your physique to comment on whether it would be a positive or negative attention.
In the end your argument has ground to the fact that some women tolerate your conduct, therefore no woman has the right to complain. I still don't see how this can be seriously argued.
I've enjoyed this discussion, but I'm not sure if there is more to be said.
Regards.
for those who like to argue there is an interesting post at sceneonline.com.au under the soapbox forum titled labour labour labour - those of you with political minds might want to head over there and have your two bob's worth...
With all respect anonymous I would suggest those with political minds don't. I just wasted 4 minutes of my life reading the first two pages of bickering.
Each to their own I guess though.
j.sinclair's dislike of bickering is interesting given he spent far more than 4 minutes of his life doing just that on this post
Anonymous - even if I accept that this post is bickering then I can't see how my dislike of bickering elsewhere is all that interesting.
I don't think there are many people who don't find their own bickering worthwhile, even if it is called that by another. I've never asserted that what I write is interesting to anyone else.
Is that hypocritical? Well yes, sort of, but in a context that is so common place that I struggle to spot why it is remarkable.
But that aside how do you assert this is bickering? Where do you draw the line between bickering and simply a discussion?
The short answer is that it is wildly subjective, which again raises the question as to what you find "interesting".
Subjectivity conceded, lets contrast this set of posts, with what I earlier labelled bickering. Lets return to the 2nd page of that post, which I read then gave up.
There are 15 posts on that page (http://discussion.sceneonline.com.au/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=132&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15), of which 10 are consecutively by the same person endlessly taunting anyone to disagree with him, and then saying that because of his unique life experience, anyone elses opinion on the matter is flawed.
In my personal, subjective, opinion that's not discussion. Its not debate, its not even particularly interesting.
Again, in my personal, subjective opinion that can quite easily be contrasted with mine (and maucless's posts here) in which two differing opinions are put forward, and opposing views encouraged.
The format of this post has been of structured back and forth arguments. I can't see how that lends itself to being bickering rather than discussion.
So maybe its the subject matter that anonymous thinks renders this discussion bickering? Yes, the topic isn't perhaps world changing, but it is important in a societal context. Yes, the focus has been on actions at a specific individual level, but that doesn't really undermine the worth of conversation.
I'm aware that this will come across as excessively belligerent, and for that I apologise. That said - how, anonymous, do you (in your personal, subjective capacity) say this is bickering?
And even with that being the case, what is interesting about my dislike of other peoples bickering?
Kind regards.
Post a Comment
<< Home