Jules NYC wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't know where that came from.

Perhaps it comes from being stereotyped as a male who couldn't possible understand...?

Jules NYC wrote:
Problems with being an attractive younger female:

Have to work harder to earn respect in given field
Have to work harder to be appreciated for intelligence (if you are in fact, 'attractive' and IF you ARE intelligent)
Assumptive reasoning: "She only got *insert great thing here* because of how she looks (except modeling because this is our business)
Not taken seriously
Jealousy/put downs from other women who feel threatened. Yay!  Now it's a competition you don't want to be in with a bitch!
Men young and old want to fuck you. Include women too.  Not so much a 'bad' thing but sometimes you'd like to interact in this world as a person and friend, not so much a conquest.
People don't appreciate you for your personality, intelligence and talent as much as your physical appearance.
Horseshit!

I could go on.

And my point is that everybody has their own list:
...  The poor have no idea what a burden having money is.
...  The rich have no idea what a burden being poor is.
...  The non-Christians have no idea what a burden being Christian is.
...  The Christians have no idea what a burden being a non-Christian is.
...  The beautiful have no idea what a burden being homely / ugly is.
...  "Normals" have no idea what a burden being beautiful is.
...  Young people have no idea what a burden being old is.
...  (Okay -- old people do remember what a burden being young is, but the young assume that old people
     just don't get it).

I could go on.

My point is that of all the possible "burdens" out there, being young & beautiful is far from the worst.

And just because I feel that way (that being young & beautiful is far from the worst), that doesn't mean that I don't or can't understand.  I've been around plenty of beautiful people in my life -- I know many well.  I just can't be sympathetic all that much.  Nearly all of us have burdens to overcome -- the best of us manage to overcome these challenges without accusing others that they don't understand.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Perhaps it comes from being stereotyped as a male who couldn't possible understand...?


And my point is that everybody has their own list:
...  The poor have no idea what a burden having money is.
...  The rich have no idea what a burden being poor is.
...  The non-Christians have no idea what a burden being Christian is.
...  The Christians have no idea what a burden being a non-Christian is.
...  The beautiful have no idea what a burden being homely / ugly is.
...  "Normals" have no idea what a burden being beautiful is.
...  Young people have no idea what a burden being old is.
...  (Okay -- old people do remember what a burden being young is, but the young assume that old people
     just don't get it).

I could go on.

My point is that of all the possible "burdens" out there, being young & beautiful is far from the worst.

And just because I feel that way (that being young & beautiful is far from the worst), that doesn't mean that I don't or can't understand.  I've been around plenty of beautiful people in my life -- I know many well.  I just can't be sympathetic all that much.  Nearly all of us have burdens to overcome -- the best of us manage to overcome these challenges without accusing others that they don't understand.

I completely understand.
Thank you for being so honest here.

It's hard 'truly' understanding something if one doesn't 'live it'.

Jules NYC wrote:
I completely understand.
Thank you for being so honest here.

It's hard 'truly' understanding something if one doesn't 'live it'.

Look at it this way (paraphrasing a quote I heard elsewhere):  We are all the heroes in our own stories.  And in any good hero story, the central theme is that the hero has to overcome adversity. 

Okay -- I'll break out some more honesty:

...  I remember Renee Richards, a transgender competitive tennis player from (I think) the late 1970s.
...  There currently is a transgender MMA fighter, competing as a woman.

In these cases, I wonder.  Despite being transgender, I believe that a DNA test would indicate that these individuals would be identified as male, and I also believe that males are physically different than females, especially in terms of being able to create muscle mass & strength.  So, in competitive sports situations, do transgendered women have a physical advantage over natural women?  I don't know, but I'm inclined to believe that they do.

So, sure, a transgendered woman can have breasts and a semi-functioning women parts down there, but they also have to maintain hormone therapy which can have significant side effects in both the short & long term.  While I accept that people can do whatever they want to their own body, it makes me sad that they will never really achieve their desires, at least with the medical technology of today.

With regards to plastic surgery, especially plastic surgery to the face:  In many (but not all) cases, face lifts & cheek implants & such are obvious, and they often provide the patient a grotesque look.  And that's sad to me, too.  Again, it makes me sad because they will never really achieve their desires, and in many cases, they make things worse.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I feel about your position about the same as I feel about the "war on Christmas".  Boo hoo.

Everybody has their own burden to bear.  Sorry, but being attractive is not as big a burden as many others.  Instead, let's all hate on the Muslims instead.

What in the hell are you even talking about? None of that makes any sense at all and in fact might be the most ridiculous analogies I've ever read, and that's saying a lot on this site.

Being a women is NOT about being attractive. BECAUSE I am a woman I am constantly objectified. If I walked into a grocery store with sweats on someone will notice and say; "why doesn't she dress up?" I still even get cat calls when I look horrid. You have no idea what it is like to get cat called on the street. None. You walk into a store in sweats? No one notices or cares.

Clearly you didn't even understand your own example of what Jon Stewart said. "Treating Caitlyn like a woman." You do not understand BECAUSE you are not a woman.

Model Sarah wrote:
.... You walk into a store in sweats? No one notices or cares.

no one noticing you or caring can suck too.




“I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves or figments of their imagination, indeed, everything and anything except me.”
"It is sometimes advantageous to be unseen, although it is most often rather wearing on the nerves. Then too, you're constantly being bumped against by those of poor vision. Or again, you often doubt if you really exist.You wonder whether you aren't simply a phantom in other people's minds.Say, a figure in a nightmare which the sleeper tries with all his strength to destroy. It's when you feel like this that, out of resentment, you begin to bump people back. And, let me confess, you feel that way most of the time.You ache with the need to convince yourself that you do exist in the rea lworld, that you're a part of all the sound and anguish, and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to make them recognize you. And, alas, it's seldom successful."
― Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man

Model Sarah wrote:
What in the hell are you even talking about? None of that makes any sense at all and in fact might be the most ridiculous analogies I've ever read, and that's saying a lot on this site.

Being a women is NOT about being attractive. BECAUSE I am a woman I am constantly objectified. If I walked into a grocery store with sweats on someone will notice and say; "why doesn't she dress up?" I still even get cat calls when I look horrid. You have no idea what it is like to get cat called on the street. None. You walk into a store in sweats? No one notices or cares.

Clearly you didn't even understand your own example of what Jon Stewart said. "Treating Caitlyn like a woman." You do not understand BECAUSE you are not a woman.

Well, of course you don't understand -- you are a woman.






See -- how's it feel to be stereotyped by gender?  Your earlier post...

Model Sarah wrote:
Oh men. You'll never understand what it is like to be objectified 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Never.

... was & is offensive to me, on a lot of levels.

1)  It presumes that no man can have empathy.
2)  It ignores the advantages women (especially attractive, young women) enjoy.
3)  Given a choice, I don't know anyone who would choose "old & repulsive" over "young & attractive".

I repeat -- my point is that everybody overcomes challenges, and in the collection of challenges, being "young & attractive" is hardly the most difficult.

To explain further:  Christians tend to own the late December holiday season, but they complain when they can't own more.  Boo hoo, guys -- be satisfied with the over commercialisation of the season.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Model Sarah wrote:
What in the hell are you even talking about? None of that makes any sense at all and in fact might be the most ridiculous analogies I've ever read, and that's saying a lot on this site.

Being a women is NOT about being attractive. BECAUSE I am a woman I am constantly objectified. If I walked into a grocery store with sweats on someone will notice and say; "why doesn't she dress up?" I still even get cat calls when I look horrid. You have no idea what it is like to get cat called on the street. None. You walk into a store in sweats? No one notices or cares.

Clearly you didn't even understand your own example of what Jon Stewart said. "Treating Caitlyn like a woman." You do not understand BECAUSE you are not a woman.

Well, of course you don't understand -- you are a woman.






See -- how's it feel to be stereotyped by gender?  Your earlier post...

... was & is offensive to me, on a lot of levels.

1)  It presumes that no man can have empathy.
2)  It ignores the advantages women (especially attractive, young women) enjoy.
3)  You can't blame this "objectifying" on men -- seems to me that women do a lot of objectifying (to both
     genders).
4)  Given a choice, I don't know anyone who would choose "old & repulsive" over "young & attractive".

I repeat -- my point is that everybody overcomes challenges, and in the collection of challenges, being "young & attractive" is hardly the most difficult.

To explain further:  Christians tend to own the late December holiday season, but they complain when they can't own more.  Boo hoo, guys -- be satisfied with the over commercialisation of the season.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Jon Stewart had a bit of a Daily Show rant about how Caitlyn is now / immediately subject to how we judge nearly all women, but their looks.

Perhaps it didn't occur to Mr. Stewart that the discussion surrounding Jenner's "transformation" might have been a little more on the intellectual side had he/she done the debut by writing a thoughtful piece for Modern Medicine magazine rather than doing a sexy photo spread wearing woman's clothing.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Jon Stewart had a bit of a Daily Show rant about how Caitlyn is now / immediately subject to how we judge nearly all women, but their looks.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Perhaps it didn't occur to Mr. Stewart that the discussion surrounding Jenner's "transformation" might have been a little more on the intellectual side had he/she done the debut by writing a thoughtful piece for Modern Medicine magazine rather than doing a sexy photo spread wearing woman's clothing.

It probably didn't occur to him because that idea is, frankly, preposterous. Why would a transgender reality TV star all of a sudden want to pander to so-called "intellectual" discussions about her transition, in a culture that clearly doesn't prioritize "intellectual" anything? Remember, we're still talking about someone whose most prominent achievement during the last three decades was playing the befuddled dad in his family's overblown ridiculous cartoonish drama. In that context, Vanity Fair is the perfect vehicle for this person to premiere her transition as Caitlin for this culture (following the Diane Sawyer interview on 20/20 in which she first officially disclosed she is a trans woman, and the KUWTK two-parter in which the transition is addressed).

kickfight wrote:
Remember, we're still talking about someone whose most prominent achievement during the last three decades was playing the befuddled dad in his family's overblown ridiculous cartoonish drama.

I somehow missed all that stuff... I guess because I never got into any of those "reality" shows... I generally have enough reality of my own to deal with.

Had Jenner come out with an Op Ed in the NYT or something about this business, I would have said "Oh, ok... interesting... I remember that guy... best wishes for a happy future". Instead, the push seems to be "as of today, Jenner is now a real woman in every way, and if you think that's silly then you're hateful and mean".  I kind of resent that because I have always had great admiration of and fondness for women... and I think real women are far, far more than just pretty faces and boobs.

It's almost as if the media (or whomever pushes the narrative on these sorts of things) has become afraid or ashamed of the term "transgender" and is now insisting that there is really no such thing... instead, someone is just either a man or a woman depending on how they "feel". Political correctness and biology/science really diverge at this point.

kickfight wrote:
Remember, we're still talking about someone whose most prominent achievement during the last three decades was playing the befuddled dad in his family's overblown ridiculous cartoonish drama.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
I somehow missed all that stuff... I guess because I never got into any of those "reality" shows... I generally have enough reality of my own to deal with.

I know about this because when we had cable we watched The Soup, which specializes in ridiculing all the reality TV stars. They loved focusing on Jenner's perpetual shocked-face look.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Had Jenner come out with an Op Ed in the NYT or something about this business, I would have said "Oh, ok... interesting... I remember that guy... best wishes for a happy future". Instead, the push seems to be "as of today, Jenner is now a real woman in every way, and if you think that's silly then you're hateful and mean".  I kind of resent that because I have always had great admiration of and fondness for women... and I think real women are far, far more than just pretty faces and boobs.

Well, the difference is pretty trivial, so I don't see how the Op Ed in the NYT and the Vanity Fair cover make such a huge difference in terms of how one responds to it. If anyone thinks that this is being "forced" on them by virtue of being a flashy sexy cover (when they would not otherwise regard any other flashy sexy Vanity Fair cover as something that's being "forced" on them), that's kind of odd... especially since it still makes no sense whatsoever that a reality TV star would choose to celebrate her transition via a stodgy dry pseudo-intellectual Op Ed in the NYT (a total non-starter proposition considering the alternatives).

Seems like the visual component (the sight of a trans woman looking sexy on the cover of a magazine) is really the major problem for some, and that is definitely somewhat telling. It's kinda a "be heard but not seen" thing...

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
It's almost as if the media (or whomever pushes the narrative on these sorts of things) has become afraid or ashamed of the term "transgender" and is now insisting that there is really no such thing... instead, someone is just either a man or a woman depending on how they "feel". Political correctness and biology/science really diverge at this point.

Well, Caitlin is a trans woman. She is not trying to convince us that she is biologically female, nor do I see anyone else, either in the media or elsewhere, attempting to do anything of the sort. When she refers to herself as a female, and we refer to her as a female, it's not like there's really any major confusion about who she is. She is a trans woman.

This all really comes down to matter of the content of people's reactions regardless of what medium is used to convey the information. If reactions are somehow always being rationalized and seem cagey and have a "if only this had happened rather than that..." component, then, yeah... it's inevitable that people will notice that those reactions are conflicted, and one would have to wonder why those reactions are so obviously conflicted. What's to be so conflicted about?

kickfight wrote:
Well, Caitlin is a trans woman. She is not trying to convince us that she is biologically female, nor do I see anyone else, either in the media or elsewhere, attempting to do anything of the sort. When she refers to herself as a female, and we refer to her as a female, it's not like there's really any major confusion about who she is. She is a trans woman.

The use of "he" instead of the biologically/genetically incorrect "she" is a big part of why people are sniping at each other over this.  These pronouns are pretty basic concepts in the English language, as are the adjectives "male" and "female". They have meaning, and the abrupt cancellation of their historic meaning is part of why people are balking at the idea.

Most of us understand, at least hypothetically, why there are transgenders. I understand that this has been going on for much longer than this country has even existed, and it has occurred in many different cultures. Most of us aren't opposed to people trying to "correct" their situations through surgery or other means, and we don't harbor any ill wishes toward them.

But, I choose to use the correct English... Jenner is a "transgender female" and not a "female". That makes him either a he or a she, depending on whether you choose to use the biologically correct term or the politically correct term.  Perhaps someone should come up with some new/additional pronouns and adjectives rather than trying to change the meanings of existing ones.

The second cause for all the "transphobe" and "hateful" accusations being tossed around seem to be toward anyone who opines that Jenner's public transformation is a publicity stunt.  No one knows the answer to that one except for Jenner, the board members of Jenner Enterprises and the people associated with the production of the media roll out. So, until it becomes public knowledge, it's anyone's guess as to how much of a role publicity is playing in all this.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Well, of course you don't understand -- you are a woman.






See -- how's it feel to be stereotyped by gender?  Your earlier post...

... was & is offensive to me, on a lot of levels.

1)  It presumes that no man can have empathy.
2)  It ignores the advantages women (especially attractive, young women) enjoy.
3)  Given a choice, I don't know anyone who would choose "old & repulsive" over "young & attractive".

I repeat -- my point is that everybody overcomes challenges, and in the collection of challenges, being "young & attractive" is hardly the most difficult.

To explain further:  Christians tend to own the late December holiday season, but they complain when they can't own more.  Boo hoo, guys -- be satisfied with the over commercialisation of the season.

Sigh you didn't understand anything I said. Hence my initial post...

Women love street harassment! Let me guess you're going to say; "at least you're getting attention!" Yeah, you don't get it and never will.

kickfight wrote:
Well, Caitlin is a trans woman. She is not trying to convince us that she is biologically female, nor do I see anyone else, either in the media or elsewhere, attempting to do anything of the sort. When she refers to herself as a female, and we refer to her as a female, it's not like there's really any major confusion about who she is. She is a trans woman.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
The use of "he" instead of the biologically/genetically incorrect "she" is a big part of why people are sniping at each other over this.  These pronouns are pretty basic concepts in the English language, as are the adjectives "male" and "female". They have meaning, and the abrupt cancellation of their historic meaning is part of why people are balking at the idea.

Well, some people are having problems with it. Other people understand that it's not a "cancellation" of meaning, it's an extension of meaning. For the latter, it's just not a problem. It's like other terms that some are trying to freeze in place, clinging to some antiquated legacy interpretation which they erroneously think they command exclusively... an effort which keeps losing more and more ground day after day, partially because words and their meaning evolve as societies evolve.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
But, I choose to use the correct English... Jenner is a "transgender female" and not a "female". That makes him either a he or a she, depending on whether you choose to use the biologically correct term or the politically correct term.  Perhaps someone should come up with some new/additional pronouns and adjectives rather than trying to change the meanings of existing ones.

Sure, that's always an option (new/additional pronouns), but it's not absolutely necessary either. I mean, language is fluid. It has accommodated a lot before, accommodates a lot today, and will accommodate this for the vast majority who admittedly don't have a problem with transgender people. Times change, words acquire more complex meaning, ideas become somewhat less simplistic and somewhat more sophisticated.

It'll take time for everyone to adjust to it. Heck, even Caitlin herself admits she still slips up when it comes to her identity:

Bissinger apologizes to Jenner for repeated pronoun confusion and asks whether she is sensitive about it. “I don’t really get hung up,” she tells him. “A guy came in the other day and I was fully dressed—it’s just habit, I said, ‘Hi, Bruce here,’ and I went, Oh fuck, it ain’t Bruce, I was screwing up doing it.”

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
The second cause for all the "transphobe" and "hateful" accusations being tossed around seem to be toward anyone who opines that Jenner's public transformation is a publicity stunt.  No one knows the answer to that one except for Jenner, the board members of Jenner Enterprises and the people associated with the production of the media roll out. So, until it becomes public knowledge, it's anyone's guess as to how much of a role publicity is playing in all this.

Well, that's interesting, in that one wonders why it would be meaningful for someone to openly and persistently refer to it as such. Maybe it is a publicity stunt, and maybe it isn't. But one does have to question what would motivate someone to keep calling it a publicity stunt when, admittedly, we don't know if it is or not.

I personally think that the media circus was pretty much inevitable, if for no other reason than Jenner's existing prominence as reality TV accessory. So pointing out the publicity aspect of this whole thing seems like questioning a dolphin for being born in water. Jenner's milieu *is* the tabloid/gossip/pseudo-celebrity publicity-driven world. One would reasonably infer that everything she does, including her transition, would take place accordingly.

What would be completely unusual would be for her to transition quietly, disappear from public view completely, and resurface many years later having lived in some small town working as a waitress in a diner (as if that could realistically even happen at this stage).

"...This shoot was about my life and who I am as a person. It’s not about the fanfare, it’s not about people cheering in the stadium, it’s not about going down the street and everybody giving you ‘that a boy, Bruce,’ pat on the back, O.K. This is about your life.” (from the same Vanity Fair article linked above)

Model Sarah wrote:
Sigh you didn't understand anything I said. Hence my initial post...

Women love street harassment! Let me guess you're going to say; "at least you're getting attention!" Yeah, you don't get it and never will.

And what makes you think that I'd say "at least you're getting attention!"?  That's not my nature.  What makes you think that you aren't the one who is not understanding?

I will also point you that this so-called "street harassment" is provided by women, perhaps more than men. 

All I'm saying that it's difficult for me to feel sympathetic when The Privileged complain about how rough they have it.  And yes, I'm talking about "young & attractive" while you are trying to talk about something else.

DwLPhoto wrote:

This is true. That is why you see all those fat, poor, short, sloppy men with top models and the most popular actresses.

It is totally idiotic for someone to claim that men are not judged based on looks.

Men are judged on looks as much as women are.

I guess some people think men spend so much time in the gym lifting weights, running, getting expensive shoes, suits, and hairstyles/tattoos because NO ONE CARES OR IS LOOKING.

DEP E510 wrote:
It is totally idiotic for someone to claim that men are not judged based on looks.

Men are judged on looks as much as women are.

I guess some people think men spend so much time in the gym lifting weights, running, getting expensive shoes, suits, and hairstyles/tattoos because NO ONE CARES OR IS LOOKING.

Have you ever seen a guy who is not in perfect shape (or far from it) criticize a woman who is or close to it?
THAT is fucked up.

On that note, how many photographers brag to their friends about the young, hot model they shot or shamelessly rag on women that are not 'perfect'?

Jules NYC wrote:

Have you ever seen a guy who is not in perfect shape (or far from it) criticize a woman who is or close to it?
THAT is fucked up.

On that note, how many photographers brag to their friends about the young, hot model they shot or shamelessly rag on women that are not 'perfect'?

Body shaming goes both ways.

When I was in middle school/ high school I was constantly accused of being the ugliest "thing" some girls had ever seen. And they used the word "thing."

I am not the one to believe that men are not insulted and harassed based on looks.

I know better. And have lived it.

DEP E510 wrote:
It is totally idiotic for someone to claim that men are not judged based on looks.

Men are judged on looks as much as women are.

Be a plain looking (or worse) male asking a woman out on a date and getting that look (you know the one -- similar to the look you get when you discover that you just stepped into a steaming pile of dog poop).  It happens.

Jules NYC wrote:
Have you ever seen a guy who is not in perfect shape (or far from it) criticize a woman who is or close to it?
THAT is fucked up.

Yes, it is.  I am (or try to be) slow to judge, and I usually don't offer advice, opinions, or criticisms unless asked (and even then often not).  Who am I to judge?

My point:  not all men are like that.
Also, much of the shape-shaming is done by women, too.

Actually, I think that one of the best lessons that I learned from being a photographer is to look deeper than skin deep when photographing people.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Be a plain looking (or worse) male asking a woman out on a date and getting that look (you know the one -- similar to the look you get when you discover that you just stepped into a steaming pile of dog poop).  It happens.

Men and women seek their equal in looks, background, values, etc.
I think that 'look' is a woman being offended that you'd even ask.  That doesn't mean it's nice, fair or 'right'.  It is what it is.

There are plenty of < average men to the > babe variety that are treating their women like dogpoop.
Plus, there are plenty of men that don't see what's coming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdyLiTvEFPo

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
I think its a total turn on when beautiful women are mean to me. I have weird quirks. I sometimes get crappy part time night jobs I totally dont even need if there is a beautiful female boss who is in charge simply to contrive a situation where she has to call me into her office and decide if she is going to fire me or not. God I love a woman who has power and possibly might use it to send me into the unemployment line. possibly I'm the only one.

I find it a major turn-OFF if ANYONE is mean to me.
That control/evasive personality vibe is not my thing.

I think that is the crux why women go for 'bad boys'.
Why would anyone want to be treated badly?
Why would you want someone that LIKED being treated badly?

It kind of amusing when that stereotype of 'bad boy' is not what you expect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB1Pij54gTw

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
oh yeah like anyones mean to you.
I bet only other women are mean to you.  in a looks driven dating culture...a guy being mean to you say at work doesnt count. seriously, has some guy ever treated you like you were not date worthy? didnt think so!
oh btw...I LOVE me some george costanza!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh yeah like anyones mean to you. - oh they have, believe me.
I bet only other women are mean to you. Not at all.
In a looks driven dating culture...a guy being mean to you say at work doesn't count. I do my job; I do it well.  Honestly I could care less if someone was an assmunch to me at work.  As long as I'm getting paid, I block it out.  I could care less if someone's a fucktard at work.
Seriously, has some guy ever treated you like you were not date worthy? didnt think so!
I've never been treated not date worthy.  I was *lucky* enough to have had bad relationships with people not cut from the same cloth.  Once a guy dishonors you, treats you badly, etc., it makes it relationship & friendship unworthy.

I love George too.  He's hilarious:)

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Be a plain looking (or worse) male asking a woman out on a date and getting that look (you know the one -- similar to the look you get when you discover that you just stepped into a steaming pile of dog poop).  It happens.

Jules NYC wrote:
Men and women seek their equal in looks, background, values, etc.

I don't think I agree.  Every romantic comedy (book, TV show, movie, etc.) indoctrinates us to believe that only the attractive are worthy of love.  It is exceedingly rare to see central characters that are average looking.  No one asks the ugly duckling out for a serious date (unless the intent is to play a very mean trick on them because they deserve it because they ugly).  We are encouraged to "reach for the stars".  We are not encouraged to "settle".

Sorry, but I believe that one's romantic options increase with one's attractiveness and versa vice.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
I don't think I agree.  Every romantic comedy (book, TV show, movie, etc.) indoctrinates us to believe that only the attractive are worthy of love.  It is exceedingly rare to see central characters that are average looking.  No one asks the ugly duckling out for a serious date (unless the intent is to play a very mean trick on them).  We are encouraged to "reach for the stars".  We are not encouraged to "settle".

Sorry, but I believe that one's romantic options increase with one's attractiveness and versa vice.

There is more to being attractive than age and physical appearance.
If reaching for the stars means finding the best looking person to be with, that's pretty one dimensional.

I can't speak for anyone but myself but I know I can't force attraction, force myself to be physically attracted to a man if I don't feel it.  Same goes with whatever is inside.  It's called chemistry.

Are there many couples in life that are different from each other?  Yes.

I would have to find it but I worked for A&E and watched a lot of specials on this type of thing.  Could have been the Discovery channel or the BBC, but yes, people usually seek what is similar.

Everyone is deserving of love.
The person right for you or for anyone in general will see their partner as beautiful.
That doesn't mean men that are not handsome men should demand physically attractive women to go out with them. If it happens, awesome.
If it doesn't, who's the one putting too much importance on physical beauty here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHHKV-xkFw

http://madamenoire.com/226569/how-impor … ual-equal/

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I don't buy it.
Women enjoy the company of nice men.
I don't know who you are targeting either and I don't know you.

I have NEVER met ONE woman that enjoyed being treated like shit.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Trying to figure out what an old woman getting surgery/injections/using makeup to look younger like tons and tons of other women has to do with Caitlyn Jenner. Who is she, not he/she Bruce/Caitlyn). It's not that hard

I don't think it's all about looking younger. Bruce Jenner had a nose job in the early 80's. Took female hormones for years back then as well.

Jules NYC wrote:
There is more to being attractive than age and physical appearance.
If reaching for the stars means finding the best looking person to be with, that's pretty one dimensional.

I can't speak for anyone but myself but I know I can't force attraction, force myself to be physically attracted to a man if I don't feel it.  Same goes with whatever is inside.  It's called chemistry.

Are there many couples in life that are different from each other?  Yes.

I would have to find it but I worked for A&E and watched a lot of specials on this type of thing.  Could have been the Discovery channel or the BBC, but yes, people usually seek what is similar.

Everyone is deserving of love.
The person right for you or for anyone in general will see their partner as beautiful.
That doesn't mean men that are not handsome men should demand physically attractive women to go out with them. If it happens, awesome.
If it doesn't, who's the one putting too much importance on physical beauty here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHHKV-xkFw

http://madamenoire.com/226569/how-impor … ual-equal/

I would agree there is more to being attractive than age and physical appearance, although I've often found that appearance has seemed important to the men who have expressed physical interest in me. Like you, I can't force attraction - and the chemistry is either there or it isn't - but I have learned what I'm most drawn to and comfortable with in an intimate partner and that is an intellectual equal who can provide an equal level of respect and understanding. Also, in my case, a youthful age is simply not needed in a potential partner. Age is much less important than maturity, overall compatibility, and respect in my book.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
For anyone to go from an white male to a female is not  a transition one would take lightly.  Someone who has already been in the public eye, like Jenner, would find it harder to keep secret.  Wishing that Bruce Jenner had kept this transition quiet, and gone off the a desert island is ridiculous.  We have freedom of choice, and if Jenner wants to continue living in the United States, she has that right.  If you don't like the reality show, well just don't watch it!  We have the creative freedom to produce TV shows if the money is there.   It's television, and we can choose to turn the channel or turn it off.  As for myself, I've never watched the Kardashian show.  In fact, I hardly watch television.  I wouldn't even know about it if not for people posting on the web about it.  I have no plans to watch Jenner's transition show either, but I am all for civil and equal rights of all people.  Nothing more needs to be said.

I enjoyed reading all of the post this quote came from, but especially liked and agreed with this entire paragraph. I'm transgender and am not personally interested in Caitlyn Jenner's story; realistically, I don't think I have much in common with Jenner either. But I respect that we all have freedom of choice and and I know I can just avoid watching the transition show with Jenner if I'm not interested.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - I've liked what you've had to say in the threads about Jenner.

MrChaos wrote:

I would agree there is more to being attractive than age and physical appearance, although I've often found that appearance has seemed important to the men who have expressed physical interest in me. Like you, I can't force attraction - and the chemistry is either there or it isn't - but I have learned what I'm most drawn to and comfortable with in an intimate partner and that is an intellectual equal who can provide an equal level of respect and understanding. Also, in my case, a youthful age is simply not needed in a potential partner. Age is much less important than maturity, overall compatibility, and respect in my book.

That is why people have friends.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

And what makes you think that I'd say "at least you're getting attention!"?  That's not my nature.  What makes you think that you aren't the one who is not understanding?

I will also point you that this so-called "street harassment" is provided by women, perhaps more than men. 

All I'm saying that it's difficult for me to feel sympathetic when The Privileged complain about how rough they have it.  And yes, I'm talking about "young & attractive" while you are trying to talk about something else.

Because it is on par with all of the other ridiculous shit you say. Especially here.

I can't wait for your next thread on complaining about something which you do a lot. I'll just say; "you have a lot of money. You have no right to complain about anything." How about that?

Model Sarah wrote:
Because it is on par with all of the other ridiculous shit you say. Especially here.

I can't wait for your next thread on complaining about something which you do a lot. I'll just say; "you have a lot of money. You have no right to complain about anything." How about that?

1)  This sounds like a personal attack.  If it continues, it will get reported.  Please desist.

2)  You (and everyone else) is free to (attempt to) point out hypocrisy on these forums.  The challenge is to do so in a direct, specific, and non-threatening manner.

3)  To me, this further demonstrates that you don't understand my point.

4)  Just because I disagree with you, that doesn't mean that I don't understand.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
And what makes you think that I'd say "at least you're getting attention!"?  That's not my nature.  What makes you think that you aren't the one who is not understanding?

I will also point you that this so-called "street harassment" is provided by women, perhaps more than men. 

All I'm saying that it's difficult for me to feel sympathetic when The Privileged complain about how rough they have it.  And yes, I'm talking about "young & attractive" while you are trying to talk about something else.

What a steaming load of horse shit

In what universe is street harassment provided more by women than men?

Model Sarah wrote:

Because it is on par with all of the other ridiculous shit you say. Especially here.

I can't wait for your next thread on complaining about something which you do a lot. I'll just say; "you have a lot of money. You have no right to complain about anything." How about that?

Looknsee Photography wrote:

1)  This sounds like a personal attack.  If it continues, it will get reported.  Please desist.

2)  You (and everyone else) is free to (attempt to) point out hypocrisy on these forums.  The challenge is to do so in a direct, specific, and non-threatening manner.

3)  To me, this further demonstrates that you don't understand my point.

4)  Just because I disagree with you, that doesn't mean that I don't understand.

DwLPhoto wrote:

Lol