tricycleracer: Theaetetus: tricycleracer: Theaetetus: tricycleracer: Theaetetus: Maybe men shouldn't be lying to get laid.

"Hello, attractive woman.  I race cars."

"I conditionally consent to intercourse with you, racer-guy."

"Huh. That's an odd answer that should give me reason to pause and reflect... You 'conditionally consent', so not fully and without reservation? Y'know, I'mma go talk to that woman instead."

All consent is conditional.  She might come home with you and see all your Star Wars toys and leave.

Yeah, and if you stop her from leaving and rape her anyway, you can't claim "but she came home with me" as your defense.

Well, duh.

What I don't agree with is having a rape charge filed against me because she checks IMDB in the morning and finds out I wasn't Matt Damon's stunt double in the Bourne movies.

Some people in this thread are pretending that Matt Damon's stunt double wouldn't get more attention from attractive women than average-Joe car washer guy.

DeltaPunch: Does anyone remember that video of two guys singing about how much they love fat chicks with gunts? It was hysterical, done in a rap video format.... I'm totally coming up dry on google here.

A cookie to whoever can deliver!

Look up FUPA ... Fat Upper Pussy Area

FarkinHostile: "That is not her natural hair color or length.
Those are not her real fingernails.
She doesn't look like that after a shower and she washes off her makeup.
Shes lied to you three times before you even spoke."

But that IS her gut that was hidden under that elastic fabric, so make it 4 lies.


The person who invented spanx should be shot in the head. Twice now I have been unpleasantly surprised by the lie.

A) The "lie" might in fact be originating in the photoshopped magazines, web sites or porn you are looking at which is giving you a false notion of what typical women's bodies look like.  If some women are learning that men's tastes have veered toward an unnatural silhouette, is it so unthinkable that women would use garments (instead of, say, surgery) to obtain those artificial silhouettes?  Why is the artificial construction in visual culture blameless while the spanxification a "lie"?

B) That said, I don't know if it is possible for anyone to present themselves without making some kind of artificial intervention in how they look.  Guys wear certain clothes to cover certain body features all the time.  They wear hats to cover bald spots.  They use hair junk to make their hair look thicker.  They wear that awful Axe stuff because they apparently want to smell like a whorehouse for huffers on Ash Wednesday.  Meanwhile people buy alcohol for those they are seducing so that they will seem more attractive.  They flock to darkened clubs with flashing lights for the same reason.  The whole thing (not just the cake) is a lie.

/spanxification

farkingnotworking: Why is the artificial construction in visual culture blameless

It's not

waterrockets: fozziewazzi: Go to any club and try to overhear the conversations as guys try to hook up.  You won't find any retail check-out clerks, insurance claims agents or unemployed men.  But there will be plenty of guys with either well-paying, well regarded or 'interesting' jobs...whether they have them or not.  Why?  Because when you're trying to pick up women, it works.

I had no issues whatsoever with the honest retail answer. Most guys are just pussies, so it's going to take a lot of deception to prevent the woman from discovering her upcoming team change.

You're not really saying that if retail guy and Game-of-Thrones-accent-coach guy both walked through the door of party, all other things being equal it's not going to make a difference when each of them tries to pick up attractive women?  I think you need to separate how you feel about deception from whether it actually works in getting men laid.

DeltaPunch: p the boiler: DeltaPunch: Does anyone remember that video of two guys singing about how much they love fat chicks with gunts? It was hysterical, done in a rap video format.... I'm totally coming up dry on google here.

A cookie to whoever can deliver!

Look up FUPA ... Fat Upper Pussy Area

YES! I was searching for "gunt".... I knew it was a different word but couldn't remember. Thanks...

In case anybody hasn't seen it

I used to think there was no such thing as 'bad' knowledge.  I'm older and wiser now.  I won't click that link.

farkingnotworking: FarkinHostile: "That is not her natural hair color or length.
Those are not her real fingernails.
She doesn't look like that after a shower and she washes off her makeup.
Shes lied to you three times before you even spoke."

But that IS her gut that was hidden under that elastic fabric, so make it 4 lies.


The person who invented spanx should be shot in the head. Twice now I have been unpleasantly surprised by the lie.

A) The "lie" might in fact be originating in the photoshopped magazines, web sites or porn you are looking at which is giving you a false notion of what typical women's bodies look like.  If some women are learning that men's tastes have veered toward an unnatural silhouette, is it so unthinkable that women would use garments (instead of, say, surgery) to obtain those artificial silhouettes?  Why is the artificial construction in visual culture blameless while the spanxification a "lie"?

B) That said, I don't know if it is possible for anyone to present themselves without making some kind of artificial intervention in how they look.  Guys wear certain clothes to cover certain body features all the time.  They wear hats to cover bald spots.  They use hair junk to make their hair look thicker.  They wear that awful Axe stuff because they apparently want to smell like a whorehouse for huffers on Ash Wednesday.  Meanwhile people buy alcohol for those they are seducing so that they will seem more attractive.  They flock to darkened clubs with flashing lights for the same reason.  The whole thing (not just the cake) is a lie.

/spanxification

Yes, I don't see why Spanx come in for so much vitriol instead of the expectation that women should be able to look like mannequins or airbrushed models no matter what. I'm not that big, but I have had three children, and without celebrity-level workouts and diets I'm just not going to look like I did when I was twenty. Spanx are a much more painless way of looking good on a big occasion than surgery and starving myself to impossible degrees.

/I don't know about the lawsuit's merits, but Spanx is a much better name than Yummy Tummy. You want your customers to forget what their stomachs look like, not put it right there in the name.

RenownedCurator: Yes, I don't see why Spanx come in for so much vitriol instead of the expectation that women should be able to look like mannequins or airbrushed models no matter what. I'm not that big, but I have had three children, and without celebrity-level workouts and diets I'm just not going to look like I did when I was twenty. Spanx are a much more painless way of looking good on a big occasion than sur ...

You could always forgo the Spanx instead of validating the idea that women should look like the TV ads?

theorellior: rikkitikkitavi: FYI, the new driver's ed rule is "8 and 4".

Yup, 2 and 10 makes you smack yourself in the face when the airbag goes off.

meh.  Right hand 1:30, Left hand holding a cigarette with elbow resting on the windowsill.  That's how I was taught.

fozziewazzi: waterrockets: fozziewazzi: Go to any club and try to overhear the conversations as guys try to hook up.  You won't find any retail check-out clerks, insurance claims agents or unemployed men.  But there will be plenty of guys with either well-paying, well regarded or 'interesting' jobs...whether they have them or not.  Why?  Because when you're trying to pick up women, it works.

I had no issues whatsoever with the honest retail answer. Most guys are just pussies, so it's going to take a lot of deception to prevent the woman from discovering her upcoming team change.

You're not really saying that if retail guy and Game-of-Thrones-accent-coach guy both walked through the door of party, all other things being equal it's not going to make a difference when each of them tries to pick up attractive women?  I think you need to separate how you feel about deception from whether it actually works in getting men laid.

Helps? Sure. Necessary? Hardly.

farkingnotworking:

A) The "lie" might in fact be originating in the photoshopped magazines, web sites or porn you are looking at which is giving you a false notion of what typical women's bodies look like.


Look, I'm a pretty experienced 42 year old man. No one is giving me any "false notions" of what typical women's bodies look like. I know exactly what a typical woman's body looks, feels, and tastes like. I know what I like, and when I see A and later find out it's really Z, that is deceitful, AKA lying.


  If some women are learning that men's tastes have veered toward an unnatural silhouette, is it so unthinkable that women would use garments (instead of, say, surgery) to obtain those artificial silhouettes?  Why is the artificial construction in visual culture blameless while the spanxification a "lie"?

Of course it's not unthinkable, but don't be surprised when I don't call you again when I find out you don't look like that when you are naked.

Popular visual culture is another topic. It's not blameless. Stay on target, Red leader.


B) That said, I don't know if it is possible for anyone to present themselves without making some kind of artificial intervention in how they look.

If by "artificial intervention" you mean grooming and hygiene, fine. If you mean we all hide/cover up flaws, dishonestly enhance looks, and misrepresent how we really are, no.

SOME, A FEW Guys wear certain clothes to cover certain body features all the time.  They wear hats to cover bald spots.  They use hair junk to make their hair look thicker.  They wear that awful Axe stuff because they apparently want to smell like a whorehouse for huffers on Ash Wednesday.

Fixed that for you.

Hats are not lies, Toupees are. Hats are fashion and  weather protection.
Hair junk is not a lie, it's grooming and fashion. That spray on bald spot cover is a lie.
Body spray/deodorant is not a lie, it's hygiene.

How often do you see toupees and spray on bald cover now a days? Never, right? Talk about losers. Hair transplants have taken their place, and it's real growing hair. Regardless, I'm balding and wouldn't consider any of the above.


Meanwhile people buy alcohol for those they are seducing so that they will seem more attractive.


It's called a mating ritual. Doesn't have to be alcohol, it could be coffee or food. Still, its a apt point.


They flock to darkened clubs with flashing lights for the same reason.

This is true. I don't, but many do.


The whole thing (not just the cake) is a lie.

The whole thing is a mating ritual. Yes, men are sometimes deceitful during the ritual, but women? Women OWN deceit in the ritual. Look no further than the cosmetic industry. Or hair extension companies. Or glamor shot photography. Men have just about zero to do with any of that shiat. Well, typical men, at least.

I'm in love with a woman who doesn't wear make up. She wears jeans, is a little soft, and you can tell by looking at her. And she is beautiful.

Theaetetus: sjmcc13: No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

If they were functionally necessary and/or forced choices, then by definition, Samsung couldn't have made non-infringing smart phones and tablets, such the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which doesn't infringe, or this sucker:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 450x362]

How about the rubberbanding patent that was recently invalidated? You know, the one that you argued vociforously was totally reasonable?

Kinek: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

If they were functionally necessary and/or forced choices, then by definition, Samsung couldn't have made non-infringing smart phones and tablets, such the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which doesn't infringe, or this sucker:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 450x362]

How about the rubberbanding patent that was recently invalidated? You know, the one that you argued vociforously was totally reasonable?

And incidentally, everyone in the thread was calling bullshiat on?

Theaetetus: ManRay: I am just stunned that Spanx has a value of over $1 billion. Props to the founder for her marketing and hard work, but it's such an obvious idea.

You'd think that, if you think it's just "underwear" or "spandex support garment", but the real innovation comes in how its formed in a seamless manner with specific direction fabric in certain portions. They really were a big jump over your grandmother's support garments.

a spandex corset is still a corset, shouldn't get a patent for it.

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Brian Ryanberger: If Spanx are outlawed, how will obese divorcees get their free dinners?

Sucking cock in the alley way after last call, like nature intended itself.

Why do you think Taco Bell has fourth meal?

Wouldn't that make it 5th meal?

DeltaPunch:

In case anybody hasn't seen it

For after work

What a glorious time to be free

Jesus Christ, what a bunch of farktards.

Wearing Spanx doesn't make fat disappear, idiots. It smoothes over your pantylines and maybe keeps a little bit of pooch from ruining the lines of your skirt. It's not a magical "make a woman look 40 lbs lighter" garment.

If you're so nearsighted that you can't tell whether a woman is "fat" or not, get contact lenses. You probably don't have to hurry, though, because she's not looking at you at all.
Never mind the fact that every one of you shallow assholes who is complaining about Spanx will also run to Fark to mock a woman who dares to venture out of the house 5 lbs overweight. "Cover that shiat up!" "OMG, Jabba the Hutt!"

And all that whining about "Waaah, it's false advertising when women wear makeup!" ... Guys always claim they want women who look "natural." They claim to want women who don't wear makeup. Well, guess what, honeypie? That's woman you pointed out, the one who's "not wearing makeup"? She's wearing makeup. She's not wearing prostitute makeup, but she's wearing makeup. So shut the fark up about women who are "lying" about their appearances.

I'm wearing mascara and age-appropriate clothing. Oh my god, maybe you'll select me for your fantasy list of "women I claim to have rejected for a one-night stand at some point during my shallow, meaningless, sports-bar-dwelling life, because after I got her drunk enough to think I'm attractive, I found out she was wearing a bra, and that's SO farkING FAKE, dude! I kicked her out of my 87 Tercel right then!"

I sound fat.

MadAzza:

And all that whining about "Waaah, it's false advertising when women wear makeup!" ... Guys always claim they want women who look "natural." They claim to want women who don't wear makeup. Well, guess what, honeypie? That's woman you pointed out, the one who's "not wearing makeup"? She's wearing makeup.

Nope, she's not. Not a bit. Sucks, doesn't it?
  I sound fat.

And you flatter yourself, too.

/Shallow
//Honest

Spanks? Women's underwear?

!!!

FarkinHostile: MadAzza:

And all that whining about "Waaah, it's false advertising when women wear makeup!" ... Guys always claim they want women who look "natural." They claim to want women who don't wear makeup. Well, guess what, honeypie? That's woman you pointed out, the one who's "not wearing makeup"? She's wearing makeup.

Nope, she's not. Not a bit. Sucks, doesn't it?
  I sound fat.

And you flatter yourself, too.

/Shallow
//Honest

Yes, nine out of 10 times, she is. Got you fooled. And no, it doesn't suck if she isn't wearing makeup.
It's fine. And it's fine if she is.

Not sure what you think I'm flattering myself with, but knee-jerk comments like that are typical of shallow people, so I guess that fits with how you see yourself.

FarkinHostile: Theaetetus: FarkinHostile: Theaetetus: fozziewazzi: But there will be plenty of guys with either well-paying, well regarded or 'interesting' jobs...whether they have them or not.  Why?  Because when you're trying to pick up women, it works we haven't yet implemented laws that say that fraudulently obtained consent to sex does not count.

FTFY.

Please tell me you're not advocating making lying to get laid as Rape.

I can see cases where it's reasonable. If you intentionally deceive someone, knowing that they would not consent to sex with you had they known the truth, that seems pretty despicable. Also, Tennessee and California both have rape by fraud statutes.


Well, I'll say one thing: You're consistent.

Ridiculous, but consistant.

And that "Rape by fraud/deception" isn't as broad as they think. There's a lot of arguement going on about it. It's a very archaic law, but if you say you're a pilot, when you're a barista to get laid, that's just plain ol' lying. Saying you're a woman's husband or boyfriend to get laid, especially if they're asleep is what at least the CA law was intended to cover.

If you pull that on a guy in court because of consensual sex, and later you find out he's really unemployed, is pretty much going to scare off any guy in the future. Because really, if that angle is pulled, what if the guy tries it? There are women that falsely say their pregnant, only to have a "miscarriage" later just to keep a guy. Shouldn't there be some recourse there too?

when everi hear the word Spanx, I think of the drug dealer in GTA III you have to take maria to " want to buy some spank"

Kinek: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

If they were functionally necessary and/or forced choices, then by definition, Samsung couldn't have made non-infringing smart phones and tablets, such the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which doesn't infringe, or this sucker:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 450x362]

How about the rubberbanding patent that was recently invalidated? You know, the one that you argued vociforously was totally reasonable?

Do you have a link? A citation? Quote? Paraphrase? Anything? No, of course not, because it never happened. I'll be the first to admit that I've never done a prior art search for the rubberbanding patent, and so cannot say that it's valid.
What the argument was over was whether  any software implementation of something done in hardware could be patentable. And yes, it can, if there are additional problems to be solved or features to be added that are themselves patentable. And that's absolutely true, regardless of whether one specific patent was obvious or not over a prior art reference.
But, y'know, without even a single quote to support your fairy tale, I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously.

... not to mention the fact that Apple's rubber band patent was considered invalid... because Apple had  another prior rubber band patent.

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: sjmcc13: No, I read more. I just understand the stuff well enough to notice that a lot of apples patents should never have been issued. Many of the things apple was listing off in the design patents suits were things that came from merging a cell phone and a PDA (which is all an iPhone is, and that is NOT something apple cameup with). or were functionally necessary and/or forced choices.

If they were functionally necessary and/or forced choices, then by definition, Samsung couldn't have made non-infringing smart phones and tablets, such the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, which doesn't infringe, or this sucker:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 450x362]

How about the rubberbanding patent that was recently invalidated? You know, the one that you argued vociforously was totally reasonable?

Do you have a link? A citation? Quote? Paraphrase? Anything? No, of course not, because it never happened. I'll be the first to admit that I've never done a prior art search for the rubberbanding patent, and so cannot say that it's valid.
What the argument was over was whether  any software implementation of something done in hardware could be patentable. And yes, it can, if there are additional problems to be solved or features to be added that are themselves patentable. And that's absolutely true, regardless of whether one specific patent was obvious or not over a prior art reference.
But, y'know, without even a single quote to support your fairy tale, I'm not sure how anyone can take it seriously.

... not to mention the fact that Apple's rubber band patent was considered invalid... because Apple had  another prior rubber band patent.

Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do. But you defended it because it was non-obvious, and how dare we question it's non-obviousness, it only looks clear in hindsight. Blahblahblah patent lawyer bullshiat.

And it doesn't help the case for the patent system that a patent that gets sued over gets invalidated immediately afterwards, regardless of who invalidated it. In fact, it makes it even more ridiculous that a company is getting so many patents in such tiny incremental steps that they end up invalidating themselves.

Your average gym will have several examples of gym shorts, yoga pants, and tights for women. Earlier today I saw the most perfect set of examples: the yoga pants caused no less than 5 near-deaths every time she went to the water fountain for a drink. She knew the effect she was having, and she just kept at it. The trio in tights also caused near-death for the fellows whenever they decided to do lunges, squats and pushups. Attention whores, the lot of them. The women who came to the gym to workout had gym shorts on, didn't screw around, and weren't there to show off. Most of the guys like the latter, because most of us are there to get fit or sustain.

this goes both ways, as well: the vast majority of guys are there to workout, but you have the oddballs of our gender as well. The guy who parades around in a bright blue singlet. He freaks out everyone. Then there are the skinny guys in the shirts that don't have sides. Short of one guy who could pass for Odin, the majority of those types are there to be seen. The only positive being that they don't last long; after a few weeks they tend to stop coming, not getting the attention they crave. .... Myself, the workout clothing I use its loose, because I am there to work, dammit, not look pretty

Kinek:
Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do.

so, you dreamed the entire thing. Got it. You do know that I'm not actually responsible for the things that happen in your fantasies, right?

SAUSAGE CASING.

That's all folks.

Theaetetus: Kinek:
Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do.

so, you dreamed the entire thing. Got it. You do know that I'm not actually responsible for the things that happen in your fantasies, right?

It was in the thread about the original judgement in the Samsung case, over 6 months ago. I don't know what the thread is called, so I can't look it up. However, I remember you arguing the utility of the patent.

But thanks for being a condescending douchebag. I'm sure that wins you a lot of arguments.

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek:
Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do.

so, you dreamed the entire thing. Got it. You do know that I'm not actually responsible for the things that happen in your fantasies, right?

It was in the thread about the original judgement in the Samsung case, over 6 months ago. I don't know what the thread is called, so I can't look it up. However, I remember you arguing the utility of the patent.

Are you saying the patent lacks utility? I'd be happy to argue that with you.
But no, I doubt you're saying that, because I doubt you understand what it means.

But thanks for being a condescending douchebag. I'm sure that wins you a lot of arguments.

And I'm sure you win a lot of arguments with "what you said 6 months ago that I can't quote, cite, or otherwise provide evidence of is entirely different than what you're saying now, so therefore you're inconsistent, so I win and Sarah Palin is automatically president!"

And if not letting you put words in my mouth is being a condescending douchebag, then you probably find that everyone around you is a condescending douchebag... which means, maybe the problem is  you.

sjmcc13: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek:
Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do.

so, you dreamed the entire thing. Got it. You do know that I'm not actually responsible for the things that happen in your fantasies, right?

It was in the thread about the original judgement in the Samsung case, over 6 months ago. I don't know what the thread is called, so I can't look it up. However, I remember you arguing the utility of the patent.

But thanks for being a condescending douchebag. I'm sure that wins you a lot of arguments.

whas it this one :
http://www.fark.com/comments/7397931/US-Patent-Office-invalidates-Ap pl es-scroll-bounce-patent-Status-of-rock-skate-patent-unknown

Heh. I can't wait for him to jump in and say "yeah, that one!" and then still be unable to pull up a quote of me "vociferously" arguing that it's valid.

Theaetetus: sjmcc13: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek:
Except you did. It was over 6 months ago, so I don't have the exact log because I have better shiat to do.

so, you dreamed the entire thing. Got it. You do know that I'm not actually responsible for the things that happen in your fantasies, right?

It was in the thread about the original judgement in the Samsung case, over 6 months ago. I don't know what the thread is called, so I can't look it up. However, I remember you arguing the utility of the patent.

But thanks for being a condescending douchebag. I'm sure that wins you a lot of arguments.

whas it this one :
http://www.fark.com/comments/7397931/US-Patent-Office-invalidates-Ap pl es-scroll-bounce-patent-Status-of-rock-skate-patent-unknown

Heh. I can't wait for him to jump in and say "yeah, that one!" and then still be unable to pull up a quote of me "vociferously" arguing that it's valid.


Ooh, this just got almost interesting.

*pops corn*

MadAzza: Ooh, this just got almost interesting.

Not really. Let's be honest - Kinek will probably never post in this thread again. But he'll try doing the same "you totally said something different months ago, my girlfriend heard it, she's from Canada and you don't know her" thing again in the next thread.

jfivealive: fozziewazzi: FarkinHostile: "That is not her natural hair color or length.
Those are not her real fingernails.
She doesn't look like that after a shower and she washes off her makeup.
Shes lied to you three times before you even spoke."

But that IS her gut that was hidden under that elastic fabric, so make it 4 lies.


The person who invented spanx should be shot in the head. Twice now I have been unpleasantly surprised by the lie.

But it's horrible when a guy lies about what he does for a living.

I'm a french model

He's the guy doing the "before" guy in diet ads

Theaetetus: MadAzza: Ooh, this just got almost interesting.

Not really. Let's be honest - Kinek will probably never post in this thread again. But he'll try doing the same "you totally said something different months ago, my girlfriend heard it, she's from Canada and you don't know her" thing again in the next thread.

Nailed it.