rationalskepticism.org

purplerat wrote:all those words and still not a single sentence directed towards anything relevant to this thread.

That's what I've been saying about your posts and others.

Here is a post from Dr Kwaltz which contains images of scantily clad women, and a comment about how he likes women with curves. That's his opinion of women with curves. Is that post related to the OP? Was there a dog-pile on Dr. Kwaltz for posting that? http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153095

DoctorE posts "Curvy women....slurp..." with a wink emoticon there. He likes them curvy women. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153999 - that does seem to be irrelevant to the original post, doesn't it. The OP is not really about whether men find them attractive or appealing, is it?

Calilaesseia sees fit to say "Allow me to offer a nod of approval for normal women with curves, as opposed to self-propelled sticks of bamboo ..." Directly on point? http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p154314

Chairman Bill and mraltair are discussing this Kylie Minogue video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX7jeaXiETA -- they apparently find her rather appealing, without "curves," I guess. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p237014

Here, nineonefour is discussing what he and his wife find appealing in women they see on the tellie -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... ml#p153804 - nineonefour doesn't need women who disappear when they turn sideways.

So, the series of posts immediately preceding mine involved a lengthy discussion and back and forth by several different members here, not about the original OP, but about the relative merits of curvy and non-curvy women.

I then posted, when I revived the thread, a couple of posts about "curvy men" and their appeal vis-a-vis the traditional notion of a fit male. I have also explained why I posted what I initially posted in reviving this thread, and what the point of discussion would be.

I was attacked quite vigorously from then on about reviving a "zombie thread" and not sticking to the point of the OP.

You've also accused me of not posting anything of relevance "to this thread." Well, here http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259047 - that comment relates to objectification, patriarchy and sexism related to curvy/noncurvy imagery. That is far more relevant to the thread than the host of previous comments about how much some guys really love curvy women, and how they can't stand those stick thin "lollipop" women.

Here I posted about whether women could or could not objectify men, in response to an inquiry directed toward me about that topic. http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259119 -- again -- that is far closer to the topic of the OP than the post after post about the sexual appeal of curvy women that is already previously on the thread, without any sort of dogpile and accusations of trolling directed toward them.

You yourself jumped in and accused me of "just trolling." How so? How have I been trolling?

I even answered YOUR direct question about what I thought my posts had to do with the thread -- http://www.rationalskepticism.org/the-a ... l#p2259128 I explained that "the thread is about curvy women not allowed in lingerie ads. My post related to why curvy women might not generally be in lingerie ads. That's on topic." It's certainly far more "on topic" than mere discussions of the sex appeal of curvy women being greater than that of thin women. And, guys posting "curvy women.... slurp" -- which did not elicit accusations of trolling, and did not get a dog-pile of vigilante forum members harping on the propriety of the post rather than discussing the issues.

Let me remind you, this was not a thread that was alive and kicking. This was a thread I revived. Apparently, you were not interested in the topic to be discussing it. If it's not a topic you're interested in, I mean, you have other options. And, if it is, you can at least stop falsely accusing me of not explaining why I posted it and how I think it related generally to the topic. And, do recall that I also explained that I acknowledge that my posts reviving this thread were "tangential" in nature to the topic of the "OP" -- that shouldn't be a problem, however, given that the thread had strayed far from that original post throughout the time it was active.