POLL: Are thongs sexy?

Remove all ads!

I have not attacked you once in this exchange.All t he attacks come from you saying things like I havent read your posts(ludicris by the way)You even get personal saying I dont know how to argue ect ect .Even going as far as to say my points have no relavance to your statements.

At any rate things have gone fare enough for such a silly topic about thongs.Sleep deprivation has gotten the better of me this morning.

 

Meow. Catfight.

 

This thread definitely needs pics.

 

I cannot stand thongs! When I was younger, we were kinda poor, so we bought all of our stuff at discount places. I spent half of my younger life trying to remove my poor fitting underwear from my "you know where." It is an outlandish contraption that is extremely uncomfortable to wear! LOL

So, does that mean I don't wear tight fittin jeans or pants? Absolutely not! Does that mean I have panty lines? Absolutely not! The secret? That would be Victoria's Secret. Here is a little story for you.

I went to a club in Pheonix, Arizona for my friends bachlorette party. I was wearing a pair of tight fitting, black pants, and a cute black top. They were not jean material...they were a mix of rayon and something else. I think you get the picture. Anyways, I am walking out of the club..and a guy goes "damn girl...you got any underwear on underneath those hot little pants you got on or what? Cause you ain't got no panty line to prove it." I smiled and said "well that is a secret." And he said "what?" So, I peeled down just enough of the side of my pants that he could see the strip of my bikini underwear and replied "Victoria's Secret that is." And he was like "I'll be damned, that's hot." He was needless to say, very impressed. LOL

The moral of the story. One, if you know what your underwear selection...you know that you don't have to have a thong in order to not show a panty line. Two, sometimes it is what you don't show to the public, that ends up being the most sexy.

As far as those girls that run around with their thongs showing...that is mostly immaturity...you will see it mostly on the younger girls. If you see it on a woman...it is either an accident and she didn't realize you could see them through her pants, or she is out for one thing (err sex) and wants every man who walks by to know it. You would be surprised at how many men don't find women wearing thongs that show in public...attractive.

Now behind close doors...with someone you are attracted to....or in a relationship with...that is a little different. If my man wants to see me in a pair...I'll ablige him. (winks) But, that usually means I won't have to wear them too long.

hehe

 

I will admit that I like seeing my girl in them. For the rest of them no. :-D

 

I'm sorry that I missed something completely in my previous posts. I can't believe I never concluded this earlier, but is it possible the Chev is a woman? I mean, I assumed he was a man, because of his portrait, but maybe not. Usually, men don't claim knowledge of what women think, how women act, and for what purposes women act and say the things they do unless they A) have been specifically told this by a woman (which is my case) or B) are a woman themself. If this is true Chev, I apologize for arguing with you earlier. You obviously have a much better understanding of the female psyche than I do, for obvious reasons.

 

Sheesh, guys...you're going to war over...thongs? It's not like someone shot the Archduke or something.

If you want to fight, put on your thongs and have at it, Sumo style.

If it's a thong that makes a woman sexy or not sexy, good or bad, slutty or not slutty...you've been hanging around the wrong women.

 

Satiana, the whole point in thongs is taking them off! ..well at least in my perspective

 

"If you want to fight, put on your thongs and have at it, Sumo style."

HackenSlash! /me vomits!

 

Sorry Lazy...I guess I owe you lunch. I was just trying to get them to play nice. Thought I might shock some sensibility into them.

I say we put Satiana in charge of the thong department.

 

Pardon? Let's be serious. It is quite normal that pointing several inconsistencies or drawing a few inconvinient conclusions from someone's own words is bound to attract arguments in personam. Don't expect me to be moved, please.

Aldeth, you may be fairly new, but you should have noticed that people refer to me as he, and well, chevalier is quite a common word of masculine gender.

In case you haven't noticed, my conclusions are derived from your own words (men usually recognise their own quotes), so not only do I not lay any claims to the understanding of whomever's psyche in my posts, but such understanding is complitely irrelevant. The whole of your further inference suffers from error at this point as well as the validity of conclusions suffers from dubious assumptions and unbased exclusion of one condition, which is, consequently, an improper modus tollendo ponens.

Basically, you are heading this way:

Men don't make claims of understanding women unless they are told things specifically by women or are women themselves (where I assume that 'men' meant people since to the best of my knowledge men aren't women at the same point in time).

Hence, for you, if people make claims, people either are told things by women or are women themselves. For you, I make claims and therefore I'm either told things by a woman or I'm a woman. You conclude that I'm a woman. It's a conclusion without proper inference all the way back (the assumption that I haven't been told things by women is unbased), but as it's an either/or alternative consisting of two mutually exclusive parts, you must have negated the possibility that I've been told things by women. This is your crippled modus tollendo ponens. You followed this pattern:

EITHER chevalier has been told things by women OR chevalier is a woman himself. Chevalier has not been told things by women, THEREFORE chevalier is a woman.

However, I now confirm being male. So, chevalier is not a woman. As chevalier is not a woman is a false conclusion, it cannot be implied from a correct assumption by virtue of the law of implication (1 never implies 0). Therefore, the sentence 'chevalier has not been told things by women' cannot be true. If it's not true, it's false. If 'chevalier has not been told things by women' is false, then 'chevalier has been told things by women' is correct.

Congratulations, you have just proved my credibility

However, you can continue to challenge lady Fortune and negate the newly proven fact. Then, chevalier is not a woman and chevalier has not been told things by women. However, this was an EITHER OR alternative. If both mutually exclusive parts are false, then the whole disjunction is false. So, 'men lay claims to understanding women' would imply a false either/or alternative. Truth never implies false (law of implication), therefore the sentence 'men make claims to understanding women' - in our singular case 'chevalier lays claims to understanding women' is false. Therefore: chevalier does not make claims to understanding women. If so, then, frankly, what's all the fuss about?


I suppose I don't have to ask you specifically to stay within the topic and carry whatever personal doubts regarding me might possibly arise in your head to PM or separate threads?

So, maybe you wish to rephrase?

In topic, though, as I finally can get to it, Satiana makes a very good point when she says it's mostly young immature ones who expose their underwear from under their clothing. Young immature or just immature If I recall correctly, I've said something along these lines already in this topic, although not so directly. Yea, that's a very good point. Immaturity. I would also add lack of healthy social development and of sense of elegance. It's no news that frowsy people lack sense of elegance, but poor social development might be more important here than it seems.

[ November 25, 2003, 14:21: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Hey Chev, Michael Jackson just called...he wants you to be his lawyer.

 

ROTFL

I was about to just ask Chev if he talked like that all the time, or if he was just practicing to be a lawyer!

 

Sorry Chev. I was just trying to get a rise out of you. I really think you are a man. I did take logic in college, and don't need a lesson on proving and disproving arguments. I just wrote it to see your reaction, and your response was predictable.

It just seemed strange to me that you were making generalizations about women who wear thongs, and what they act like and look like, when you have never met the specific women I was using in my example. (OK, I guess it's possible that you've met my wife as she's travelled through Europe, but it's highly unlikely.) Then I went on to make a ludicrous and incorrect assumption about your psyche (which I admit I am not privy to) and your gender (the ridulous and incorrect part). And you *were* making a generalization. When you take information you know about a given segment of the population (i.e. women you have met that wear thongs) and then apply it to everyone in that group (all people who wear thongs) it is a generalization. I was simply pointing out that each person has an individual personality, and saying "all women who do this, also are that" isn't really fair.

Additionally, I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. My point in my post (about 30 back) was that we can't say it's wrong for you to feel ill if you see a woman with an exposed thong (and you said that yourself) because what people find attractive is not really a choice. You don't choose to be attracted to someone or something, it's just a natural reaction. At best, if it's a decision it is a subconscious one.

You then went on to completely trash my post, and additionally made assumptions about my wife, which quite frankly I find offensive, seeing as how you've never met her and she isn't here to defend herself.

I guess what I'm saying is I didn't have any problem with the point you were trying to make, but rather how you went about it. Taking pot shots at my wife is crossing the line. If you want to argue your point, that's fine, but if you are going to talk about a real life person, making not-so-nice insuations about their sexual history isn't the best way to go about it.

*Rant ended*

Edit: grammar

[ November 25, 2003, 17:28: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Immature? I think you two are proving an excellent show of immaturity right now
(but then again, I'm quite sure we all differents ideas of what immature is)

Thongs are generalized related to things that enhance your idea of yourself, be it sexy, self-esteem, whatever OR they are comfortable to wear.
How come is this? Well why you else wear them?

Now I don't know, but from Satiana's tellings, I guess they aren't the most comfortable things to wear physically. (I must admit I can't really imagine them to be either, anyways..)

That leaves us with the notion of society thinking they're the sexy stuff! Yay! When society as a whole no longer consider them sexy, and if they're uncomfortable to wear.. I will personally doubt that anyone would wear them.

So what am I grasping at? Majority thinks thongs are sexy and thus they are universally sexy. Any individual can have a different idea, but that idea can never be universal when majority/power defines something else.

 

Well, no, Lokken, I can't agree with you. Flame wars tend to signify immaturity, but discussion in itself doesn't, even if you stand firmly by your points and no less firmly oppose the other folks' points.

Please, excuse the length. I know I'm being graphomaniac, but I'm going to clear things out and settle it so we could move on, so I need to take time and place to explain things and avoid doubts, repetitions, misunderstandings and the like. OK? It's nicely divided in paragraphs, quite ably written and some of it is quotes, so it shouldn't be that hard in reading

Aldeth, maybe you will find this suprising, but I knew from the beginning that you were making a ridiculous assumption on purpose and to spur a reaction. I provided you with one to check what you'll do about that. Apart from a ridiculous answer (you should have noticed the 'he' etc), I decided to take your sentence on my workshop and make a full page show off of formal logic for the fun of it. The other purpose was to illustrate the general rule applying to people attacking me in this thread: you don't argue with my points but instead attack me in personam, you don't read what I write, you don't recognise your own quotes, you ignore whole lot of my points that hit too close to home. In short: you're not interested in discussion, but in the outcome. Predicted outcome. Which questions the relevance of any arguments here. You also tend to apply different rules to me than you apply to yourselves (the infamous judgementality part). That result in twisting my words completely, quoting me freely and generally going by assumptions you make about me rather than what I truly write. My ridiculous fullpage back and forth inference over one short sentence was a very appropriate sarcastic reply, taking my point of please fighting arguments not persons to an absurd extreme, in case you missed that. Also to show that one needn't attack persons, as arguments is all one needs and all is there, by proving my own points without resorting to them even, just entirely from yours. Or disprove the whole of your view from just one sentence of yours.

The only generalisation that I make is that all women who wear thongs and expose them wear thongs and expose them. Show me where I call them sluts or say they sleep with anyone, or whatever. Open your eyes - hey, it's your imagination. I didn't say that. Really

But, how many times do I have to tell you I don't and to show you (in exact quotes) what I really wrote until you understand? When I say to you that I didn't say something (factual, not a matter of opinion) and you later say that I did, it's calling me liar. I don't care, but mind what ground you're stepping on.

Where exactly did I say all? Where exactly did I say anything about personality? Show me. Don't say I say that. Show me quotes. Full sentences not cut out of context.

Please, calm down your emotions. You are missing one important thing: we are exchanging opinions. Mine is opinion, yours is opinion and so on. People say 'attractive', 'cool', 'sexy', 'courageous' etc. I say 'frowsy', 'unsexy'. The object though is thongs sticking out of trousers. It's not women, as you're trying to force through. I also say that wearing a suit with your shirt on your trousers instead of in them, is frowsy and repellant. So, you might wish to take on defence of legions of men now. Add baggy trousers with buttons and zippers barely at the hight of your precious. Come on, millions await rescue from the evil chevalier. Note that I nowhere in this topic say what anyone should consider attractive and if it's wrong or not for him (attraction in itself is never wrong, btw - so sayeth the 'homophobe').

When I repeat your words, you're my source. I take your word on all you say. I only concluded your words right belong them quoted in full. For this reason a 'no offence note' wasn't even needed.

Pot shots? Who's trying to offend whom? Crossing line is your using your wife as an example and an argument for your points and then claiming personal attack against your wife when the arguments are attacked that you used her to illustrate.

I will again show you exact quotes from your post that I used to draw conclusions (it's even hard to call them conclusions, seeing as they're almost exactly what you wrote yourself):

Yea, so they aren't sluts (and I never said they were), but they dress like sluts. What did you mean by 'someone they are not'? Who, then, is the someone?

Agreed. Many times over in previous posts.

And, the biggest one:

So, it's you who say here that they wore thongs sticking out of pants to get free drinks and boost their self esteem. It's your own words and I repeat them. Do you not recognise them? Or do you attacking me for your own words?

You can say that 'dress sluttily' is a little too much on my part (actually it looks like Jihad on your part), but let me quote your own words from the same post:

So, you are more up to the point than I am. Your own words: 'they deliberately dressed a little slutty'. When I say 'they wittingly adopted the likeness of a slut', I said exactly the same.

My words are exactly:

As I pointed out above, you yourself wrote that "their purpose of wearing them was to get guys to look, get free drinks out of the deal, and boost their self esteem". So how do I speak differently when I say that they wittingly wore sticking out thongs on purpose to get drinks without paying for them? What else is 'free drinks out of the deal'? What else is 'their purpose of wearing them...' than stating that they did that on purpose, knowing what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve?

Frankly, you say in front of 6000 people on these boards that your wife used to dress in a slutty fashion and showed her thongs and bottom part to get drinks without paying for them and you say that it's I who gravely offend her when I quote you on that?

And well, you (without knowing me, which doesn't change much anyway) make assumptions about me and argue with them instead of my words, so how come you claim that I'm in the wrong when I speak about her without knowing her?

Please, explain for I don't get that. Really

Rest assured, I'm neither attacking you, nor attacking your wife. You live thousands of miles away, somewhere on the other side of the cable, I don't know you. With your permission, I don't care enough. I'm interested in the topic that is supposed to be discussed. I'm interested in your opinion. I'm interested in comparing our views and discussing our points. Really But I'm not interested in you personally. People who disagree with you (...disagreeing with them and so on), don't hate you. They might even like you and be friendly on personal basis. I would like to remind you that you didn't refrain yourself from speaking personally against myself rather than my arguments (you violated the most basic rule of discussion ), and dealing with me in a less than elegant way (vide the gender post that you think I didn't get and you consider so funny) . If you cool down a bit, you'll notice that you interchangeably accuse me of making generalisations that you in fact make yourself (show me one I made myself), and addressing specific persons personally (as your wife and each of her friends who were merely impersonal examples to illustrate your points). So, do I generalise or don't I? I can't do two wrongs that are mutually exclusive. Even I am not evil enough Perhaps you were not paying attention, but you should if you throw accusations. Frankly, isn't throwing accusations in a topic about thongs a bit paranoid, anyway? And please, try to apply the same rules to me as you apply to yourself.

I once again ask to keep to the subject and continue our discussion. Chevalier@o2.pl is open for any mail, including hatemail, so is PM and everyone can always make a topic on how [insert your favourite adjective] I am, I don't care. So anyone please don't feel ignored or neglected if I don't answer you, but follow the right path and you will get your answers.

I understand that not everyone has specific preparation for discussion or logical deductions, but everyone has common sense and some sense of tact and kindness. Supporting your points by throwing mud at your adversary is not only a matter of discussion rules, but of basic kindness. Attacking someone for what you do yourself and argueing with your own assumptions rather than the person's real words is a matter of common sense, not only logic.

OK, I guess I should now shut op or someone important could think I'm playing a mod and telling people what to do.

So, let's please continue. And play it cool

[ November 26, 2003, 00:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Given the obnoxious length of your last few posts Chev, it would appear that you're the one that needs to calm down. Drop it, fellahs - nobody cares.

Now, back to what's important....thongs!

Just something I'd like to add. The sexiness of a thong is directly proportional to the ass which they adorn. Scientific, no? That should be a pretty good barometer to whether or not a thong is sexy.

* hums tune to "She Blinded Me with Science" *

 

Right DMC - same page. The thong itself is immaterial. You may as well ask me if a piece of toast is sexy. If Tyra Banks straps a piece of toast on and prances around for me, I'm ALL ABOUT that toast.

Mmmmm. Toast.

Linda Tripp, however...there isn't enough wheat in all the farms of the world to produce enough flour to make enough bread to facilitate the amount of toast it would take to make Linda Tripp sexy.

Ick! Toast.

 

Before the final thong decision can be made, You must take THIS into consideration.