Skip to main content

212 replies

The Masculine Nature

Romulus BurnettRomulus BurnettA1
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:


You get an A for effort for dredging through sista's spot, but D+ in comprehension...


You have created a post entitled "The Masculine Nature", and yet, throughout all this verbiage have failed to define exactly what you are trying to say about "The Masculine Nature." It's obvious that with bolded print and expansive posts you would like the reader to know something about the so-called masculine nature, but WHAT?


With enemies like this, who needs friends? 20

Don't worry. liediecryptor will get back to you in a few months with further details about what he thinks "The Masculine Nature" is as soon as he figures out the viable solutions to T.R.E.S.O.B.A. that he was supposed to come up with a few months earlier when he said he would get back to us then. lol

Why do I get the feeling if I spotted liediecryptor a few bucks he'd never pay me back? laugh
Romulus BurnettRomulus BurnettA1
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
quote:
Listen, guys.


I guess folk ain't listening to ya. lol

quote:
***Pacifier in mouth and diaper changed so back into the corner he goes***


AMEN! tfro & ^5


Sorry to bust your faux fur-lined bubble but the public has pretty much spoken in regards to your pimp, pusher, and baby daddy, liediecryptor as well as no other brother has bothered to waste their time piddle paddling over nonsense.

The ground work has already been done.

There is a minority number of females on AA.org that do not approve of the brothers posting pics of fine ass sisters, whether it be certain body parts or the whole enchilada wrapped up in a g-string. We got the point a long time ago. CASE CLOSED.

Their concerns were duly noted.

Will we stop posting pics of fine ass women? NO.
KhalliqaKhalliqaA1
LieDecrypter:

Would you say... that the portion of the brain called the limbic system..., in the male... becomes dominate when you view the feminine form and requires that you respond ?

quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrytper:

"Lay it all out there" in fellowship with his brothers and view pic's of women who VOLUNTARILY posed for said pic's.



wait.. Lay what all out there? Are you suggesting that men have a viewpoint on women that they normally wish to keep hidden..., which would reveal their true thoughts as it relates to black women?


quote:



***What was your original stance on the content of the Den PRIOR to this? and how did you choose to deal with it BEFORE this retaliatory approach of posting here out of spite against the men who posted in the Sista's spot?***[/b]


The DEN was created by the founder for a specific reason.. you can ask him if the DEN was created as a means to promote Porn.. I entered the DEN simply as a reminder to the brothers of their responsibilities on this forum... I felt justified in speaking because the brothers repeatedly made a point of voicing their frustrations with women in the Sistas Spot...

quote:
was it Djimon's 200 point I.Q. that had Khalliqa ready to "lose herself"?


No...

It was his wholistic presence and the promise of a man of balance ...

his form: "Djimon is a beautiful specimen of a man...."

as well as the mystique of his persona: "I wonder what is mind is like....

Do you ever wonder that? Like is witty?"

Much like the presence of Don Cheadle in Rwanda.. where his hero role displayed characteristics like: I was completely fixated on him.... (the hero role, romantic... courageous.... smooth.... witty...


The image of manhood displayed through the characters they play or the way they carry themselves in public was intriguing,

yes...


There is a difference between objectification and appreciation.. I stated this to you initially.. my statements all derive from appreciation of a whole brother... ( I like NS' post in this regard)


quote:
Anyway, having said that I would still be reluctant to to post my actual pic on this site where either you or Khalliqa could see it...because judging by how you two keep gushing over brother Djimon Honsu you guys have it bad for us chocolate brothers.... I want you to only evaluate me on my mind and not just my "BEEF" and I think that upon seeing my pic you two would no longer respect my mind but will begin to objectify me.


Chocolate is not sufficient to move me.. what I perceive to be of depth and presence (the physical combined with their dignified poise) are some of the things the men I've described seem to carry... at least enough of it to make me curious enough to want to know if it derives from any type of integrity or insight in reality.... and if found not to be so.. there are those here who know me well enough that if found to be a show only, my interests wanes.. chocolate is not enough...

Though I think your posts are interesting.. and your online persona is adequately nice most times.. Your overall persona doesn't make me curious enough to want to know what you look like..... try it out with someone else who may be interested enough...
Romulus BurnettRomulus BurnettA1
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I'd be a lot happier if LieDecryptor had posted a LINK to the "Eye Candy for Sandye" thread instead of just talking about it! Mad

Now I gotta go look for it myself! Razz Big Grin


I saw that thread a long time ago. Never even bothered to post a comment up in there. I can respect women's desire to lust after a brother's frame. What the problem is?
FabulousFabulousA1
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
quote:
Listen, guys.


I guess folk ain't listening to ya. lol

quote:
***Pacifier in mouth and diaper changed so back into the corner he goes***


AMEN! tfro & ^5


Sorry to bust your faux fur-lined bubble but the public has pretty much spoken in regards to your pimp, pusher, and baby daddy,

now ain't that sumpin'? just like a white man you resort to steretypes in an attempt to insult (kneegrow please)... get over yourself.

liediecryptor as well as no other brother has bothered to waste their time piddle paddling over nonsense.

YOU have, liar. You piddle paddle over nonsense everyday (that you're on this board)

The ground work has already been done.

There is a minority number of females on AA.org that do not approve of the brothers posting pics of fine ass sisters, whether it be certain body parts or the whole enchilada wrapped up in a g-string. We got the point a long time ago. CASE CLOSED.

Their concerns were duly noted.

Will we stop posting pics of fine ass women? NO.


Honeychild, I couldn't care less about any pics posted in the men's section, don't get it twisted . . . AND

don't get your people mixed up.

I never said anything one way or another, so don't post to me as if I did.

off It seems to me, no matter what the topic or discussion YOU are always going overboard

and then have the nerve to whine about others.

physician heal thy self.

Hypocrite!
FabulousFabulousA1
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I'd be a lot happier if LieDecryptor had posted a LINK to the "Eye Candy for Sandye" thread instead of just talking about it! Mad

Now I gotta go look for it myself! Razz Big Grin


I saw that thread a long time ago. Never even bothered to post a comment up in there. I can respect women's desire to lust after a brother's frame. What the problem is?


If you can respect ANYTHING involving black women,

that's a first (that I've seen). Eek
EbonyRoseEbonyRoseA1
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I'd be a lot happier if LieDecryptor had posted a LINK to the "Eye Candy for Sandye" thread instead of just talking about it! Mad

Now I gotta go look for it myself! Razz Big Grin


I saw that thread a long time ago. Never even bothered to post a comment up in there. I can respect women's desire to lust after a brother's frame. What the problem is?


Even though I feel that I have been privileged and honored to have been able to dialogue with truly exceptional intellectuals and dynamically insightful and wise people during my years here at AA.org ...........

That is the BEST thread that ANYBODY has EVER posted here ANYWHERE on this message board EVER!!!! tfro

And I mean that sincerely! Big Grin lol
Last edited {1}
shulamiteshulamiteA1
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
That is the BEST thread that ANYBODY has EVER posted here ANYWHERE on this message board EVER!!!!


laugh


EbonyRose, if that is the thread I'm thinking of, that guy is dangerously endowed. It gave me pause. That Alexis lady's comment about not letting folks hit the "root" of the vajayjay comes to mind. ek

(shulamite, thinking ouch and no way!...)
HonestBrotherHonestBrotherA1
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
That is the BEST thread that ANYBODY has EVER posted here ANYWHERE on this message board EVER!!!!


laugh


EbonyRose, if that is the thread I'm thinking of, that guy is dangerously endowed. It gave me pause. That Alexis lady's comment about not letting folks hit the "root" of the vajayjay comes to mind. ek

(shulamite, thinking ouch and no way!...)

ohsnap
EbonyRoseEbonyRoseA1
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
That is the BEST thread that ANYBODY has EVER posted here ANYWHERE on this message board EVER!!!!


laugh


EbonyRose, if that is the thread I'm thinking of, that guy is dangerously endowed. It gave me pause. That Alexis lady's comment about not letting folks hit the "root" of the vajayjay comes to mind. ek

(shulamite, thinking ouch and no way!...)


Gurrrrll .. that thread had a LOT of *dangerous* postings in it!! Eek Near 'bout give you a heart attack if you not careful about it!! Big Grin lol

Many of the older links are broken now. But there's enough to satisfy a sweet tooth if ya know what I mean! eyes Razz

I'll tell ya what ... just for you ... I'll go back over there and see if that pic you're talking about is still there so I can warn you not to go over there unprepared! lol
shulamiteshulamiteA1
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I'll tell ya what ... just for you ... I'll go back over there and see if that pic you're talking about is still there so I can warn you not to go over there unprepared!



I thank you for your public service "just for me". Your unstinted act of selflessness will not go unnoticed and, if the images are still there, I presume not unrewarded, either. lol

Actually, I'm not aroused by pictures of men, naked or otherwise. It's not in real life, I suppose. sck

But if a man touches me (irl)... oh LAWD! eyes


quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
ohsnap


Sex is quite enjoyable... unless it hurts. That guy (the one in the surf) was a bit "too much", imo.
shulamiteshulamiteA1
(shulamite, reviewing her personal inventory...)


Kweli4Real wrote: you're talking about stuff that involves...


a vat of crisco,

(check...)


scuba fins,

(Confused where would one put these?...)


a bucket of fried chicken

(definitely check and add some whipped... er, mashed potatoes, too...)

and a clothes pin,

(check...)


You naughty girl.


(LOL - I grew up traditional Baptist! What can I say? You know how we like to get down, traditionally that is!...)
SavvysPlaceSavvysPlaceA1
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
Sex is quite enjoyable... unless it hurts. That guy (the one in the surf) was a bit "too much", imo.


Who says????

Shula, you ain't tried any of that "rough stuff" yet??? No rug burn (or rope burn)???

There's a reason for the existence of the saying, "Hurts so good!"

hehehehehe....

"Wisdom Is A Woman CRACKIN Up!"
EbonyRoseEbonyRoseA1
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I'll tell ya what ... just for you ... I'll go back over there and see if that pic you're talking about is still there so I can warn you not to go over there unprepared!



I thank you for your public service "just for me". Your unstinted act of selflessness will not go unnoticed and, if the images are still there, I presume not unrewarded, either. lol

Actually, I'm not aroused by pictures of men, naked or otherwise. It's not in real life, I suppose. sck


Well, you know, you my girl and all!! beer So I feel duty-bound to help out in whatever way I can! Big Grin

And as for photos vs. reality ....

My appreciation for pictures of beautiful Black men are not (most of the time, anyway!) for sexual gratification purposes! I admire and enjoy looking at the magnificense of what for me is truly one of God's best creations ... the Black man ... and not just in a physical sense .. but all the way around!

The Black man is (and has always been) an endangered species. But still and yet, his strength of mind and body is really second to none ... if only for his ability to endure (and yes, I mean that BOTH ways! LOL) that which is put before him!

I am proud that he is a part of me. That I can lay claim to him ... and I do so without hesitation.

Mmmmm ... mmmmm .... mmmmm .... BUT ... there are some of them that just need special recognition for being so damn fine and lookin' so damn good ... and I really don't see why shedding a little drool to accompish that is such a bad thing! lol laugh

I love looking at Black men (in person AND in pictures) just for the appreciation value of it.

Now ... some of the fellas will say that that is their (only) motivation, too!! I don't know about that ... I'm thinking that this is where one of those differences between men and women come in ... LOL. But, who's to say for sure! Smile However, if that's their story and they wanna stick to it, that's fine by me!

I won't interrupt theirs, if they don't interrupt mine! And I think that should be a rule that we all can, and should, be able to live and abide by!
HonestBrotherHonestBrotherA1
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Mmmmm ... mmmmm .... mmmmm .... BUT ... there are some of them that just need special recognition for being so damn fine and lookin' so damn good ... and I really don't see why shedding a little drool to accompish that is such a bad thing! lol laugh


Why thank you ER. I'm touched. 1

quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
(shulamite, reviewing her personal inventory...)


Kweli4Real wrote: you're talking about stuff that involves...


a vat of crisco,

(check...)


scuba fins,

(Confused where would one put these?...)


a bucket of fried chicken

(definitely check and add some whipped... er, mashed potatoes, too...)

and a clothes pin,

(check...)


You naughty girl.


(LOL - I grew up traditional Baptist! What can I say? You know how we like to get down, traditionally that is!...)



DAYUM .... ek


quote:
Originally posted by ShayaButHer:
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
Sex is quite enjoyable... unless it hurts. That guy (the one in the surf) was a bit "too much", imo.


Who says????

Shula, you ain't tried any of that "rough stuff" yet??? No rug burn (or rope burn)???

There's a reason for the existence of the saying, "Hurts so good!"

hehehehehe....



Who woulda thunk it? She seems like such a nice girl ... ek
shulamiteshulamiteA1
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why thank you ER. I'm touched.



3 You're vain! (but accurate...)


quote:
quote:
Originally posted by shulamite:
(LOL - I grew up traditional Baptist! What can I say? You know how we like to get down, traditionally that is!...)



DAYUM .... ek


HonestBrother, didn't you know? The way to a man's heart is through his tummy. Hence the Crisco, chicken and mashed potatoes. The clothes pin? Hmmm... I haven't used it yet but I'm sure it will come in handy eventually. Razz

Any ideas, ladies, on how to use a clothes pin? 19
LieDecrypterLieDecrypterA2
The only downside about communicating on message boards is that unlike realtime a conversation it can drag out longer that it ordinarily would simply because it takes time for me to get back and respond to a point. If this conversation between NS and I were in real time like ddouble said it would be over... This is not just about NS in particular just my personal gripe about the format in general... When someone keeps making different points (whether valid or not) it still takes time for me to get back to them and separate the point that is valid from the one that's not. Which what I am about to say below should do... so I will now end my rant and do just that as follows...


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:

Bottomline you women are the same types who will criticize men for doing the EXACT same thing you do for no other reason than your own insecurity.



You will note that in my response to you i expounded upon a DEFINITION which had been incorrectly associated with exploitation and victimization. I refrained from making any personal judgements about you and certainly did not venture to categorize you as a "type" or hazard any off base assumptions about an alleged "insecurity".


Actually, as it relates to the personal "insecurity" part of my statement that was weighted more towards Khalliqa (whom I was primarily responding to prior to your question) as I believe that to be her prime motivation for her consistent outcry against men posting pic's of women in general (not just "body parts" as you claim)...not simply because of what she deems to be "objectification". Your reason for addressing what you deem to be "objectification" may not be rooted in personal insecurity issues like Khalliqa...Yours however are probably rooted in the insecurity you have regarding the status of women as a WHOLE and therefore you are concerned about men only looking at women as a HOLE....I get it. You have to realize though that despite your seemingly genuine solidarity with Khalliqa on this issue your respective motives for doing so are quite different. Case and point I do acknowledge your more conciliatory view of men posting pics of women in general...you just seem to have a problem with body part pic's...that's a whole OTHER ISSUE and like you said when you first asked me that question... "Perhaps it deserves a new thread of its own". Now contrast that with Khalliqa who ran into the "Carnival" thread and started accusing men of "objectifying" women... when from the few pic's I saw showed the WHOLE woman (not just body parts) some of whom were smiling and showing off their artistic flare and political acumen. So even according to YOUR definition of "objectification" what justification did Khalliqa have for entering that thread making the comments that she did?...the answer is NONE.

At first I thought the reason she did it was simply out of a genuine concern for the objectification of women...which is why I saw the need to start this thread and give her (and the other women on this site) a little insight on the Masculine Nature and how we as Men are VISUAL and stimulated by what we see... even if it is just a pair of breasts or a womens curves but that does not mean that we ONLY view women as a collection of body parts. However, once she entered this thread and started questioning my motives and insinuation that I (someone who has never posted a naked woman pic or pimp article on any site) was trying to harbor "porn" and "pimping"...simply because I suggested that CERTAIN content for BOTH men and women be gender specific...I knew that she had deeper issues. For example look at how she even tried to go after other WOMEN like shulamite and ER simply because they don't subscribe to her insecurity fueled, single minded crusade to end any and all enjoyment that men get from looking at the opposite sex.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
You get an A for effort for dredging through sista's spot, but D+ in comprehension since you failed to note that the sistas are not posting butt nekkid pics with male genitalia hanging out, or crotch only pictures of brothas or strip club clips of brothas jiggling their packages. They are posting pics of the ENTIRE brotha, not the brothas BODY PARTS. As i have previously noted, the one picture of naked black male genitalia in that thread was not posted by a black woman, but instead a white australian woman. The sistas, in their admiration of a brotha's masculine form, are not reducing him to "a dick".


As I mentioned above... the pic's in the carnival thread were not showing just "body parts" and they were equivalent to the pic's displayed of the men in the thread I cited. Those pic's where also of the ENTIRE woman so what is your point as it relates to THIS particular discussion? As both you and I have already stated if the issue you really have is simply men looking a BODY PARTS instead of the whole women that's a DIFFERENT issue entirely...Moreover, quiet as it's kept most men (at least I do) PREFER to see the womens FACE and BODY together and not just big ole pictures of vaginas. For men that prefer seeing only the latter to the former that sounds like some form of disorder which once again is a whole other issue.

Furthermore, you stating that the pic of the naked black genitilia was taken by a "white australian woman" Changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....if anything it hurts your claim that "The sistas, in their admiration of a brotha's masculine form, are not reducing him to "a dick"...Because I did not see ONE admonishment from ONE sista to this WHITE WOMAN who came on a BLACK site and basically reinforced the "Black Mandingo" stereotype right in front of y'all faces. I didn't see any of these grand standing rants about reducing a person to nothing but body parts then (even with all the history that a WHITE WOMAN doing it should conjure up) ...Nor did I see any unity in the 'sistahood' coming together to demand the banishment of this "white australian woman" for having the audacity to come on this site and degrade one of your brothers in such a way...All I see is appreciation for her doing so even to this day.

Look I'm not here to judge as I said I really don't mind women looking a pic's of men "butt nekkid" or otherwise...it's fine with me whatever floats your boat. However, don't come at me with this double standard about what women are doing compared to men when it's the EXACT same thing. It's ok to be in favor of the equal rights of women but pick your battles and allys with care. I think shulamite and ER have the right attitude on this issue they are women who know what they like and they accept the fact that men like what we like...without all these bogus and HYPOCRITICAL accusations of who's objectifying what.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Further, your admonishments toward me are misplaced since I have not called for a moratorium on swimsuit/bathing beauty pics, nor have i called for gender restrictions on each forum. I also distinguished between pictures which have no face or other attributes but only an ASS and rightly labeled that as objectification and further explained objectification since you didn't seem to know what it actually is. I don't see how my gray beard stubble fetish is comparable but i'm willing to take a look at it.


I believe I addressed the gist of this point above...however, with regard to my definition of "sexual objectification" it's actually similar to the definition that Khalliqa provided in her wiki link...

"Sexual objectification is objectification of a person. It occurs when a person is seen as a sexual object when their sexual attributes and physical attractiveness are separated from the rest of their personality and existence as an individual, and reduced to instruments of pleasure for another person.[1][2] The concept of sexual objectification and, in particular, the objectification of women, is an important idea in feminist theory and psychological theories derived from feminism.[3][4] Many feminists regard sexual objectification as objectionable and as playing an important role in the inequality of the sexes.[1] Some feminists and non-feminists, however, argue that increased sexual freedom for women and gay men has led to an increase of the sexual objectification of men.[5][6][7][8] Thus, the objectification of men is an important idea in masculist theory.[9][10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

As you might have noticed it says nothing about objectification having to be limited to only viewing "Body Parts" as you seem to be claiming...but viewing a PERSON as a sexual object...it also shows that Men are objectified also. As I said though we ALL objectify to some degree...personally, I like seeing a woman with a nice smooth belly (which is why I guess I like belly dancing) I'm objectifying because I'm focusing on the belly..but does that mean I ONLY see women as Bellies with arms and legs attached?.. NO. Just like me citing your "gray beard stubble fetish" on Djimon Honsu was STILL objectification because you focused in on it even though as India Arie would say...'he is not his hair'.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
You have created a post entitled "The Masculine Nature", and yet, throughout all this verbiage have failed to define exactly what you are trying to say about "The Masculine Nature." It's obvious that with bolded print and expansive posts you would like the reader to know something about the so-called masculine nature, but WHAT? Confused


Actually, I've already talked about key points regarding the Masculine Nature in the OP when I spoke about the fact that Men are visual by Nature and that some of our reactions are motivated by bio chemical stimulations and not us just wanting to "objectify" women. To the extent that this thread has veered a little off that track you may want to look no further than at Khalliqa...who entered this thread with the cynical, unfounded and accusatory presumption that I started this thread in order to harbor "pimping" and "porn". Anyway, NS as I said in my opening statement I believe what I have said should have answered your question by now...so there is no need for me to take this any further with you. Now I would like to finish up with Khalliqa and address her since her epic hypocrisy and disingenuousness on this matter is the main course and yours was just a side dish.

I'm currently entertaining a guest from out of town right now so me spending too much time on the board today would be rude...So I will respond to Khalliqa's post tommorow.
Last edited {1}
KhalliqaKhalliqaA1
quote:

However, once she entered this thread and started questioning my motives and insinuation that I (someone who has never posted a naked woman pic or pimp article on any site) was trying to harbor "porn" and "pimping"...simply because I suggested that CERTAIN content for BOTH men and women be gender specific..


Awwww dag.. is that what this is about??

*shifts*

Sorry 'bout dat man..

It was totally my fault for not editing properly..

see wha ha happen wuz...

I was posting this:


quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:

Since you're justifiying this for the men..

You do realize there is a difference between sexual objectification and appreciation right?

I'm beginning to think I've been naively believing that men are capable of the latter.. but increasingly I'm reminded by men that not only are you incapable of functioning outside of the former.. but you prefer to revel in the former..

Okay...

this is something I will have to accept and will respond accordingly.. It would mean men would have to be treated like enemies.. because as a woman I resent any woman being sexually objectified or sexually objectifying herself... at best this would mean men are enabling her worst characteristics in return to pleasure their lust and at worst they are directly controlling and influencing her worst characteristics in exchange for stimulating their lusts...

I've always believed treating men like enemies was astoundingly ridiculous.. I've known a few men in my life who love women but also respect them.. perhaps it was all an act and they really do not see women as more than a** and t*ts..


at any rate.. this board has debated this for a while.. if you want to degrade women and watch porn why not just go to a porn site.. because you apparently are requesting privacy on the basis of this and not some other overarching noble reason...

MBM has the capability of sectioning off a group for privacy this has been discussed ad nauseum.. just shoot him an email get a consensus etc..

But thanks for revealing yourself before there is a possibility it is done..


ooohhhhh grrrrrr.. I just read your comment about "bellydancing" being sexy.. perhaps....

but the history of bellydancing reveals that it was a beautiful art form developed by, controlled by and performed by women FOR WOMEN ONLY.. it became corrupted through western travellers who brought fanciful tales of "belydancing women"..

Belly dancers were initially fully clothed women and the art form had more to do with physical development for childbirth and competition for proof of health as well as spiritual expression for women...

No man was involved.. it devolved into something exploitive in western hands..

mmmk.. just wanted to say that...


primarily to men in general which is why my post started out like this:

"I'm beginning to think I've been naively believing that men are capable of the latter.. but increasingly I'm reminded by men that not only are you incapable of functioning outside of the former.. but you prefer to revel in the former.."

in this whole post (above) I was not thinking about you personally as a specific target regarding posting pics of nekkid women.. but the general attitude of the men collectively... and was just typing quickly ..

but I can see how when I wrote the above bolded, obviously because I say "YOU" what else are you supposed to think in a post where I have been speaking about men in general..? Apparently this says that you believe I broke rank mid post and began to accuse you of porn..

I really didn't.. I just lost my grammar etiquette and switched nouns...

daggonit.. hmph! I shouldn't have done that

my bad papi...
NSpiritNSpiritA1
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:

The only downside about communicating on message boards is that unlike realtime a conversation it can drag out longer that it ordinarily would simply because it takes time for me to get back and respond to a point. If this conversation between NS and I were in real time like ddouble said it would be over... This is not just about NS in particular just my personal gripe about the format in general... When someone keeps making different points (whether valid or not) it still takes time for me to get back to them and separate the point that is valid from the one that's not. Which what I am about to say below should do... so I will now end my rant and do just that as follows...


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:

Bottomline you women are the same types who will criticize men for doing the EXACT same thing you do for no other reason than your own insecurity.



You will note that in my response to you i expounded upon a DEFINITION which had been incorrectly associated with exploitation and victimization. I refrained from making any personal judgements about you and certainly did not venture to categorize you as a "type" or hazard any off base assumptions about an alleged "insecurity".


Actually, as it relates to the personal "insecurity" part of my statement that was weighted more towards Khalliqa (whom I was primarily responding to prior to your question) as I believe that to be her prime motivation for her consistent outcry against men posting pic's of women in general (not just "body parts" as you claim)...not simply because of what she deems to be "objectification". Your reason for addressing what you deem to be "objectification" may not be rooted in personal insecurity issues like Khalliqa...Yours however are probably rooted in the insecurity you have regarding the status of women as a WHOLE and therefore you are concerned about men only looking at women as a HOLE....I get it. You have to realize though that despite your seemingly genuine solidarity with Khalliqa on this issue your respective motives for doing so are quite different. Case and point I do acknowledge your more conciliatory view of men posting pics of women in general...you just seem to have a problem with body part pic's...that's a whole OTHER ISSUE and like you said when you first asked me that question... "Perhaps it deserves a new thread of its own". Now contrast that with Khalliqa who ran into the "Carnival" thread and started accusing men of "objectifying" women... when from the few pic's I saw showed the WHOLE woman (not just body parts) some of whom were smiling and showing off their artistic flare and political acumen. So even according to YOUR definition of "objectification" what justification did Khalliqa have for entering that thread making the comments that she did?...the answer is NONE.

At first I thought the reason she did it was simply out of a genuine concern for the objectification of women...which is why I saw the need to start this thread and give her (and the other women on this site) a little insight on the Masculine Nature and how we as Men are VISUAL and stimulated by what we see... even if it is just a pair of breasts or a womens curves but that does not mean that we ONLY view women as a collection of body parts. However, once she entered this thread and started questioning my motives and insinuation that I (someone who has never posted a naked woman pic or pimp article on any site) was trying to harbor "porn" and "pimping"...simply because I suggested that CERTAIN content for BOTH men and women be gender specific...I knew that she had deeper issues. For example look at how she even tried to go after other WOMEN like shulamite and ER simply because they don't subscribe to her insecurity fueled, single minded crusade to end any and all enjoyment that men get from looking at the opposite sex.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
You get an A for effort for dredging through sista's spot, but D+ in comprehension since you failed to note that the sistas are not posting butt nekkid pics with male genitalia hanging out, or crotch only pictures of brothas or strip club clips of brothas jiggling their packages. They are posting pics of the ENTIRE brotha, not the brothas BODY PARTS. As i have previously noted, the one picture of naked black male genitalia in that thread was not posted by a black woman, but instead a white australian woman. The sistas, in their admiration of a brotha's masculine form, are not reducing him to "a dick".


As I mentioned above... the pic's in the carnival thread were not showing just "body parts" and they were equivalent to the pic's displayed of the men in the thread I cited. Those pic's where also of the ENTIRE woman so what is your point as it relates to THIS particular discussion? As both you and I have already stated if the issue you really have is simply men looking a BODY PARTS instead of the whole women that's a DIFFERENT issue entirely...Moreover, quiet as it's kept most men (at least I do) PREFER to see the womens FACE and BODY together and not just big ole pictures of vaginas. For men that prefer seeing only the latter to the former that sounds like some form of disorder which once again is a whole other issue.

Furthermore, you stating that the pic of the naked black genitilia was taken by a "white australian woman" Changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....if anything it hurts your claim that "The sistas, in their admiration of a brotha's masculine form, are not reducing him to "a dick"...Because I did not see ONE admonishment from ONE sista to this WHITE WOMAN who came on a BLACK site and basically reinforced the "Black Mandingo" stereotype right in front of y'all faces. I didn't see any of these grand standing rants about reducing a person to nothing but body parts then (even with all the history that a WHITE WOMAN doing it should conjure up) ...Nor did I see any unity in the 'sistahood' coming together to demand the banishment of this "white australian woman" for having the audacity to come on this site and degrade one of your brothers in such a way...All I see is appreciation for her doing so even to this day.

Look I'm not here to judge as I said I really don't mind women looking a pic's of men "butt nekkid" or otherwise...it's fine with me whatever floats your boat. However, don't come at me with this double standard about what women are doing compared to men when it's the EXACT same thing. It's ok to be in favor of the equal rights of women but pick your battles and allys with care. I think shulamite and ER have the right attitude on this issue they are women who know what they like and they accept the fact that men like what we like...without all these bogus and HYPOCRITICAL accusations of who's objectifying what.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Further, your admonishments toward me are misplaced since I have not called for a moratorium on swimsuit/bathing beauty pics, nor have i called for gender restrictions on each forum. I also distinguished between pictures which have no face or other attributes but only an ASS and rightly labeled that as objectification and further explained objectification since you didn't seem to know what it actually is. I don't see how my gray beard stubble fetish is comparable but i'm willing to take a look at it.


I believe I addressed the gist of this point above...however, with regard to my definition of "sexual objectification" it's actually similar to the definition that Khalliqa provided in her wiki link...

"Sexual objectification is objectification of a person. It occurs when a person is seen as a sexual object when their sexual attributes and physical attractiveness are separated from the rest of their personality and existence as an individual, and reduced to instruments of pleasure for another person.[1][2] The concept of sexual objectification and, in particular, the objectification of women, is an important idea in feminist theory and psychological theories derived from feminism.[3][4] Many feminists regard sexual objectification as objectionable and as playing an important role in the inequality of the sexes.[1] Some feminists and non-feminists, however, argue that increased sexual freedom for women and gay men has led to an increase of the sexual objectification of men.[5][6][7][8] Thus, the objectification of men is an important idea in masculist theory.[9][10]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

As you might have noticed it says nothing about objectification having to be limited to only viewing "Body Parts" as you seem to be claiming...but viewing a PERSON as a sexual object...it also shows that Men are objectified also. As I said though we ALL objectify to some degree...personally, I like seeing a woman with a nice smooth belly (which is why I guess I like belly dancing) I'm objectifying because I'm focusing on the belly..but does that mean I ONLY see women as Bellies with arms and legs attached?.. NO. Just like me citing your "gray beard stubble fetish" on Djimon Honsu was STILL objectification because you focused in on it even though as India Arie would say...'he is not his hair'.


quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
You have created a post entitled "The Masculine Nature", and yet, throughout all this verbiage have failed to define exactly what you are trying to say about "The Masculine Nature." It's obvious that with bolded print and expansive posts you would like the reader to know something about the so-called masculine nature, but WHAT? Confused


Actually, I've already talked about key points regarding the Masculine Nature in the OP when I spoke about the fact that Men are visual by Nature and that some of our reactions are motivated by bio chemical stimulations and not us just wanting to "objectify" women. To the extent that this thread has veered a little off that track you may want to look no further than at Khalliqa...who entered this thread with the cynical, unfounded and accusatory presumption that I started this thread in order to harbor "pimping" and "porn". Anyway, NS as I said in my opening statement I believe what I have said should have answered your question by now...so there is no need for me to take this any further with you. Now I would like to finish up with Khalliqa and address her since her epic hypocrisy and disingenuousness on this matter is the main course and yours was just a side dish.

I'm currently entertaining a guest from out of town right now so me spending too much time on the board today would be rude...So I will respond to Khalliqa's post tommorow.




I didn't read through all of this. I'll just assume there is an apology for levying a personal attack against me in there somewhere, since I didn't personally attack you. You are forgiven. Go and sin no more.

BTW, does this mean you'll be posting your "BEEF" soon? Confused
shulamiteshulamiteA1
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
it also shows a sort of pseudo authoritative slant when you use a term like "when left to their own conversations" regarding GROWN MEN. Let's get one thing straight up front.. you DO NOT 'leave' Men to their own conversations they just have them...


I had initially overlooked this, but find it so very germane, that I wanted to re-post it. This concept applies to all adults (e.g. substituting "adults" for "MEN").

(shulamite, wishing more people would understand and respect this basic point...)
LieDecrypterLieDecrypterA2
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:

However, once she entered this thread and started questioning my motives and insinuation that I (someone who has never posted a naked woman pic or pimp article on any site) was trying to harbor "porn" and "pimping"...simply because I suggested that CERTAIN content for BOTH men and women be gender specific..


Awwww dag.. is that what this is about??

*shifts*

Sorry 'bout dat man..

It was totally my fault for not editing properly..

see wha ha happen wuz...

I was posting this:

at any rate.. this board has debated this for a while.. if you want to degrade women and watch porn why not just go to a porn site.. because you apparently are requesting privacy on the basis of this and not some other overarching noble reason...

"I'm beginning to think I've been naively believing that men are capable of the latter.. but increasingly I'm reminded by men that not only are you incapable of functioning outside of the former.. but you prefer to revel in the former.."

in this whole post (above) I was not thinking about you personally as a specific target regarding posting pics of nekkid women.. but the general attitude of the men collectively... and was just typing quickly ..

but I can see how when I wrote the above bolded, obviously because I say "YOU" what else are you supposed to think in a post where I have been speaking about men in general..? Apparently this says that you believe I broke rank mid post and began to accuse you of porn..

I really didn't.. I just lost my grammar etiquette and switched nouns...

daggonit.. hmph! I shouldn't have done that

my bad papi...



Okay Khalliqa, I see that you are trying to explain yourself... and what you said does makes sense... in that based on the above you could have easily meant "YOU" as in "you guys"...and not "YOU" as in me personally...I get that. However, the context in which you said someone was trying to promote "porn" or "pimping" was based simply on the act of them suggesting privacy...which is what I did. So how is it possible that you really meant to exclude me from your initial accusation? Furthermore, what also contradicts this explanation you just gave are the following statements you made....


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
The retaliatory arguments in this thread are simply about the right to see porn and pimp articles,( calling this "manhood"), and requiring that no one take offense and say something about it...and just like any strip club.. the females that are down with porn and pimps support their efforts...


In this quote it is clear that you meant to include me in your description of those seeking the right to see porn and pimp articles...As I am the main person in this thread making "retaliatory arguments"...so again how is it possible that you really meant to exclude me from this?...incidentally you go on to accuse every women in this thread who doesn't subscribe to your narrow minded insecurity fueled viewpoint of being basically 'strippers' and 'hoez'.



quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
So basically you are against objectifying our women. But your approval of pictures of objectifying women in private leaves me confused.. what other negative and destructive behaviors would you condone simply because they are done privately?


In this quote you are clearly trying to question my character...obviously insinuating that since I support certain things on this board as being confidential that somehow I must support other "negative and destructive" behaviors.


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
MBM has the capability of sectioning off a group for privacy this has been discussed ad nauseum.. just shoot him an email get a consensus etc..

But thanks for revealing yourself before there is a possibility it is done..


Here you are making an assumption about me DIRECTLY not 'men in general'...you are somehow concluding that I've "revealed" myself (presumably in a negative way) for simply making the suggestion that both Men AND Women have certain private gender specific conversations.

Khalliqa, I would like to accept your explanation but the facts speak for themselves...you undoubtedly meant to direct your statements at me personally so just be women enough to stand by your statements and admit it...All that you are doing now by trying to back track away from your statements is make yourself look manipulative and incredibly dishonest...more on this later....
KhalliqaKhalliqaA1
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrypter:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:

However, once she entered this thread and started questioning my motives and insinuation that I (someone who has never posted a naked woman pic or pimp article on any site) was trying to harbor "porn" and "pimping"...simply because I suggested that CERTAIN content for BOTH men and women be gender specific..


Awwww dag.. is that what this is about??

*shifts*

Sorry 'bout dat man..

It was totally my fault for not editing properly..

see wha ha happen wuz...

I was posting this:

at any rate.. this board has debated this for a while.. if you want to degrade women and watch porn why not just go to a porn site.. because you apparently are requesting privacy on the basis of this and not some other overarching noble reason...

"I'm beginning to think I've been naively believing that men are capable of the latter.. but increasingly I'm reminded by men that not only are you incapable of functioning outside of the former.. but you prefer to revel in the former.."

in this whole post (above) I was not thinking about you personally as a specific target regarding posting pics of nekkid women.. but the general attitude of the men collectively... and was just typing quickly ..

but I can see how when I wrote the above bolded, obviously because I say "YOU" what else are you supposed to think in a post where I have been speaking about men in general..? Apparently this says that you believe I broke rank mid post and began to accuse you of porn..

I really didn't.. I just lost my grammar etiquette and switched nouns...

daggonit.. hmph! I shouldn't have done that

my bad papi...



Okay Khalliqa, I see that you are trying to explain yourself... and what you said does makes sense... in that based on the above you could have easily meant "YOU" as in "you guys"...and not "YOU" as in me personally...I get that. However, the context in which you said someone was trying to promote "porn" or "pimping" was based simply on the act of them suggesting privacy...which is what I did. So how is it possible that you really meant to exclude me from your initial accusation? Furthermore, what also contradicts this explanation you just gave are the following statements you made....


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
The retaliatory arguments in this thread are simply about the right to see porn and pimp articles,( calling this "manhood"), and requiring that no one take offense and say something about it...and just like any strip club.. the females that are down with porn and pimps support their efforts...


In this quote it is clear that you meant to include me in your description of those seeking the right to see porn and pimp articles...As I am the main person in this thread making "retaliatory arguments"...so again how is it possible that you really meant to exclude me from this?...incidentally you go on to accuse every women in this thread who doesn't subscribe to your narrow minded insecurity fueled viewpoint of being basically 'strippers' and 'hoez'.



quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
So basically you are against objectifying our women. But your approval of pictures of objectifying women in private leaves me confused.. what other negative and destructive behaviors would you condone simply because they are done privately?


In this quote you are clearly trying to question my character...obviously insinuating that since I support certain things on this board as being confidential that somehow I must support other "negative and destructive" behaviors.


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
MBM has the capability of sectioning off a group for privacy this has been discussed ad nauseum.. just shoot him an email get a consensus etc..

But thanks for revealing yourself before there is a possibility it is done..


Here you are making an assumption about me DIRECTLY not 'men in general'...you are somehow concluding that I've "revealed" myself (presumably in a negative way) for simply making the suggestion that both Men AND Women have certain private gender specific conversations.

Khalliqa, I would like to accept your explanation but the facts speak for themselves...you undoubtedly meant to direct your statements at me personally so just be women enough to stand by your statements and admit it...All that you are doing now by trying to back track away from your statements is make yourself look manipulative and incredibly dishonest...more on this later....


Okay sweetie...


*toodles*
LieDecrypterLieDecrypterA2
@ Fabulous:

It's Ok Fab I'm not offended...for I know that he is but only performing the duties contained within his current job description as "The Watcher"... not to mention a trial run for his aspirations to be promoted to "head moderator in charge"...I ain't mad at him.


@ ddouble:

While I appreciate your effort to advise me... I must state that it won't be necessary and it certainly isn't necessary that you to beg me to let this drop as I have the situation under control. I also believe you may have it backwards with respect to who is "spitting in the wind"... that would be Khalliqa who is constantly making statements that are coming back to slap her in the face...I'm merely pointing this out. At any rate perhaps since you have engaged her many times on issues like this and have grown weary of it I can understand how you could personally be ready to move on. However, in spite of the fact that I'm familiar with Khalliqa from another board we have never engaged each other in this way and have always been at peace (I guess maybe because I never really bothered to discuss social issues such as this with her) so this is new to me.

In fact as I said in the OP for the most part when I visit boards like this I typically don't involve myself in discussions like this because I know where they always lead...I prefer just to stick with those issues that require FACTS and FIGURES (numbers not bodies) such as Economics. So this is probably among the last posts I will ever make of this nature before I return to my main focus which is the current and future socio-economic condition of Black folk... Then after I deem that I have disseminated enough information I will ultimately cut my posting on these boards all together and just allow people to fend for themselves...but at least I can feel satisfied that I helped to get the truth out whether our people take heed or not.

Anyway, as I mentioned before this only seems to be dragging out because I don't post on a daily basis... if this were a realtime conversation it would already be over. However, Khalliqa asked me some specific questions and made comments that I never addressed but should... Which I'm taking the time to do right now...So I would not at all blame you if you decide at this point to exercise your right to no longer view or post in this thread... since it is so obvious that you've moved on...

quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
LieDecrypter:

Would you say... that the portion of the brain called the limbic system..., in the male... becomes dominate when you view the feminine form and requires that you respond ?


Actually, that's pretty much what I stated from day one when I said that men being attracted to what they see is PHYSIOLOGICAL and not about intentionally objectifying women...with men our sexual needs are in the same part of the brain as other needs such as food and other biological necessities that's why men seek out ways to satiate it (even in symbolic ways) such as looking at pic's. If women understood and accepted this aspect of the masculine nature certain things considered objectionable would not be...most of the time men are just trying to quench a biological need it's not always about y'all so it should not be taken so personally.



quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by LieDecrytper:

"Lay it all out there" in fellowship with his brothers and view pic's of women who VOLUNTARILY posed for said pic's.


wait.. Lay what all out there? Are you suggesting that men have a viewpoint on women that they normally wish to keep hidden..., which would reveal their true thoughts as it relates to black women?


I think if you want a clearer definition as to what "Lay it all out there" means I believe you should direct that question to MBM as I presume it's his quote. All I can do is speculate as to what he means...but my initial impression is that he is inviting brothers to talk about things that men talk about when they get together...which usually women will come up in some form of fashion.



quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:

***What was your original stance on the content of the Den PRIOR to this? and how did you choose to deal with it BEFORE this retaliatory approach of posting here out of spite against the men who posted in the Sista's spot?***


The DEN was created by the founder for a specific reason.. you can ask him if the DEN was created as a means to promote Porn.. I entered the DEN simply as a reminder to the brothers of their responsibilities on this forum... I felt justified in speaking because the brothers repeatedly made a point of voicing their frustrations with women in the Sistas Spot...


I don't believe that MBM created the DEN to promote porn however what he deems to be "porn" and what you consider porn might vary greatly...which is my point. Furthermore I don't think that you entering the DEN to remind brothers of their responsibilities is either your duty, necessary or even your REAL reason for doing so. Again your whole premise for doing so is born out of spite...if not and it is merely out of altruism why not just state your case and be done with it...why all the personal accusations, assumptions and innuendo?


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
was it Djimon's 200 point I.Q. that had Khalliqa ready to "lose herself"?


No...

It was his wholistic presence and the promise of a man of balance ...his form: "Djimon is a beautiful specimen of a man...."
as well as the mystique of his persona: "I wonder what is mind is like....Do you ever wonder that? Like is witty?" Much like the presence of Don Cheadle in Rwanda.. where his hero role displayed characteristics like: I was completely fixated on him.... (the hero role, romantic... courageous.... smooth.... witty... The image of manhood displayed through the characters they play or the way they carry themselves in public was intriguing, yes...


You really don't need to explain why you like certain men or even movie characters...that's your prerogative and no one can take that away from you...so knock yourself out rent all their DVD's until your hearts content...My only point was to show that you clearly are attracted to a mans PHYSICAL attributes FIRST and THEN you wonder about his intellectual faculties (as you did with Djimon Honson) there really is nothing wrong with this and it's natural. So when men are oogling over a woman in a pic you should not then all of a sudden mount your pseudo moral "high horse" and come galloping in talking about "objectification"... especially when you have done the exact same thing yourself no matter how you slice it...it reeks of hypocrisy that's all.


quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Anyway, having said that I would still be reluctant to to post my actual pic on this site where either you or Khalliqa could see it...because judging by how you two keep gushing over brother Djimon Honsu you guys have it bad for us chocolate brothers.... I want you to only evaluate me on my mind and not just my "BEEF" and I think that upon seeing my pic you two would no longer respect my mind but will begin to objectify me.


Chocolate is not sufficient to move me.. what I perceive to be of depth and presence (the physical combined with their dignified poise) are some of the things the men I've described seem to carry... at least enough of it to make me curious enough to want to know if it derives from any type of integrity or insight in reality.... and if found not to be so.. there are those here who know me well enough that if found to be a show only, my interests wanes.. chocolate is not enough...

Though I think your posts are interesting.. and your online persona is adequately nice most times.. Your overall persona doesn't make me curious enough to want to know what you look like..... try it out with someone else who may be interested enough...



Khalliqa, you really should just view my statement within the context it was given...I was not seeking a definition of nor am I campaigning to be whatever metaphysical thing a man must be to "move" you. I was merely making the point that considering that both you and NS are so infatuated with Djimon Honson based only on his PHYSICAL. That since I'm also a chocolate brother built similar to him I believe that you two would begin to objectify me also if I posted pic's...which I just jokingly pointed out in order to expose the irony of it.

To your last assumption you made regarding my "overall persona"... again I'm not here to campaign for the affections of YOU or anyone else for that matter... I'm just here to share the knowledge God gave me with my people....Over the years that I've been visiting these boards I've been on the receiving end of every human emotion imaginable Love, Hate, Envy, Jealously, Lust, you name it... While I appreciate all the positivity and support that I get I don't do this for that... I'm just going to keep doing what I do until I decide it's time to focus exclusively on my life away from these boards some people will like me some won't... oh well...

Anyway, in closing I will say this... it is interesting that you make a point to state that you are not curious to know what I look like and you are basing this on some type of 'attraction'...Everyone wants to know how other posters actually look or sound it's only natural...I'm even curious about people I can't stand...so why are you trying so hard to cover up this basic fact and trying to make me sound mediocre all of a sudden? You have been reading and supporting my posts longer than all of the ladies here... who I bet are curious about what I look like as I am curious about them...what makes you different? You seem to be covering... and as you revealed in that "R Kelly trapped in the closet chapter 39" style back and forth between you and WM you were "taught not to state your real feelings"....

http://africanamerica.org/eve/...70384/m/52710268/p/7

So you could be madly in love with a brotha and you would do everything in your power to conceal it...I'm not saying this is the case with me (or that I even want it to be for that matter) but your statements and behaviors are quite curious.
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×