such a ruiner
I am very much saying (speculating, actually) that “unthreatening” (which you determined must refer to asexual boyishness when it in fact refers to a lack of adult ambition or perhaps even intelligence) is in fact what these women want.
lol that you think this is somehow more acceptable
I don’t believe that I was making that suggestion (or acknowledging anyone else as an arbiter).
Do you regard it as unacceptable to make the same suggestion with the genders reversed? If not, why the difference?
ambition makes u look pretty ugly
looks good on blondes iirc
kicking and screaming gucci little ck
If not, why the difference?
you are asking this question
When I am king you will be first against the mattress.
You aren’t answering it.
Guys, I’m kind of starting to think Ruffalo is cute.
(Sorry for the gendered form of address)
“unthreatening” (which you determined must refer to asexual boyishness when it in fact refers to a lack of adult ambition or perhaps even intelligence)
what I was getting at is that you imply that it’s LESS insulting to suggest women are attracted to “a lack of adult ambition or perhaps even intelligence” than to suggest that they are attracted to “asexual boyishness” when in fact both suggestions are patronizing and insulting by their very nature.
xp
You aren’t answering it.
because men and women are not categories that can be arbitrarily swapped out and reversed fyi—these are categories that are informed by billions of years of biology and millions of years of human culture, they are not interchangeable
why am I bothering
i think he has made it clear that minimizing notional offence was not a desired aim
can we discuss Mark Ruffalo’s chest hair kthnkx
what I was getting at is that you imply that it’s LESS insulting to suggest women are attracted to “a lack of adult ambition or perhaps even intelligence” than to suggest that they are attracted to “asexual boyishness” when in fact both suggestions are patronizing and insulting by their very nature.
I implied no such thing, either about all women, or the insult level. I was referring only to a possible reason (among others I’ve listed in the thread) that some women who find Mark Ruffalo attractive might do so, and wished to be understood properly as to the precision of that reason, when others decided my words meant something else, and that that something else was the basis for being patronizing and/or insulting.
Nor did I wholly dismiss the basis of the attraction, and repeated it in less judgmental terms that I think make it more acceptable/understandable, whichever gender is doing the desiring.
keep digging
he’s got a looseness that borders on rakishness. an apparent carelessness, he can seem almost unwatched, but he rubs his eyes, yawns, draws attention to himself. in films he just paws at everything around him.
the more this “threatening” word gets retracted from any commonly understood definition of what it usually means, the more obvious it is that this is some very specific bone being picked and has no actual significance in terms of actually describing anything real.
this is a good one to let go
because men and women are not categories that can be arbitrarily swapped out and reversed fyi—these are categories that are informed by billions of years of biology and millions of years of human culture, they are not interchangeable
I see. Because we are victims of our biology and environment and can not transcend them, even for purposes of academic argument, we need a form of affirmative action in favor of validating womens’ speech and desire such that it is unacceptable at this point to suggest that some women might act in the same fashion as some men (which fashion we have heretofore regarded as sexist)?
can we discuss Mark Ruffalo’s chest hair kthnkx
Yeah, I’m not even that into chest hair* but I just saw that and thought “jesus christ, YES”
*well, except for TY’s weird sprinkly blond chest hair oh god it’s been WEEKS since I posted a Thom pls pls pls I am fit to burst with fuckwant I’m so sorry but I have to...
AAAAAHHHH I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER NOW lookit his eyes are so twinkly
so when ILX proper comes back gabbneb will still be 51’s right
51d
i think he has made it clear that minimizing notional offence was not a desired aim
While I don’t wish to give offense, you’re correct that I don’t seek to minimize it. I try to be provocative in order to provoke thought (which is what I think this place is or should be about). Whether that works is another story.
If I wanted to “patronize” anyone, I would shut up.
can you work thru this idea you have of the ‘unambitious’ even ‘unintelligent’ becoming desire objects
iyo is this functionally pathological or is it merely an undesirable desiring?
dont be mean
he can’t help it
can we discuss Mark Ruffalo’s chest hair kthnkx
i feel like his watch would get caught in all of that
ow
Fuck it, let’s just talk about Hitler hairdoes until the sun explodes
the panic, the vomit
the panic, the vomit
god loves his chest hair
god loves his chest hair yeah
a general girls&gays ws thread might be in order. i think its important to remember the main topic of general affirmation in this thread. mark ruffalo is attractive.
can you work thru this idea you have of the ‘unambitious’ even ‘unintelligent’ becoming desire objects
iyo is this functionally pathological or is it merely an undesirable desiring?
I don’t believe I called it undesirable. And I’m positing “unambitious” or “unintelligent” only relatively to the desirer. Perhaps that is in fact a (socially) desirable desire at this particular point in history—women wishing to be more successful than their partners.
by attractive I assume you mean lacking in adult ambition or perhaps even intelligence
xp
of course. i am threatened by men who are ambitious and intelligent.
You know what Mark Ruffalo is ~about~ to do here?
BITE HIS SHIRT.
It’s a thing. It’s so a thing.
a general girls&gays ws thread might be in order. i think its important to remember the main topic of general affirmation in this thread. mark ruffalo is attractive.
― judith, Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:46 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
yes! i am sorry, plax, i keep running off at the mouth itt and then i’ll think of you and your clarity of purpose in starting this thread and feel guilt.
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (969 of them)
but no, horseshoe you are a delight on this thread!
it started so well! donofrio is probably mark ruffalo in a mark ruffalo suit!
<3
he kind of looks like brando in that shirt biting picture, am i crazy/racist?
xp haha that is one of my fave jho posts of all time now
I think he just looks like some Platonic ideal of hott mediterranean latin lover *insert racist stereotype here* coz even I’m feelin’ that pic. But it could just be the shirt biting.
no i see it! i think there is a brando/ruffalo connection definitely
Wow. Yes.
also gabbneb, i believe that you meant unthreatening in the (nonsensical) way you claim, but that’s not how it’s usually used when describing men, and in your initial post “unthreatening” was certainly legible in the usual sense of “asexual” or “someone 12-year old girls would like because they don’t know anything about anything.”
man, that screentest. he is so bashful!
he seems high to me
also gabbneb, i believe that you meant unthreatening in the (nonsensical) way you claim, but that’s not how it’s usually used when describing me
Fair enough. I’d like to think that ILX is free of that sort of thing.
and in your initial post “unthreatening” was certainly legible in the usual sense of “asexual” or “someone 12-year old girls would like because they don’t know anything about anything.”
Fair enough, again, but I explicated it not too many posts later (and had adverted to a genderless view in the original post).
Why the fuck are we having this discussion here when Ruffalo’s chest hair presents more semiotic challenges?
holy hell @ at FT’s last ruffalo pic
Yeah, can we talk about that chest hair some more?
I explicated it not too many posts later (and had adverted to a genderless view in the original post).
― illegal crew member (C.K. Dexter Holland), Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:07 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
maybe you and i should just get our own thread, but to me saying that mark ruffalo is unthreatening in comparison to dudes who are more like the dude version of “strong women” is not genderless! how we characterize “strong women” and “threatening men” (lol) is all about characteristics that we think of as typically masculine.
lo.jpg)
is all about characteristics that we think of as typically masculine.
And I think it’s clear that I don’t, or at least am speaking academically as if they are not. Perhaps because I was raised by equally successful parents (who admittedly are not free of gender roles)?
my dilemma here is the facial hair, i think i prefer clean-shaven ruffalo out of the box but i’m willing to entertain other povs
ah the non-gendered paradise that is “speaking academically”
he has a clean shaven face that suggests three day stubble. he has a mussed look about him. i realise this is getting a bit terius nash.
haha i totally end up feeling all terius nash after posting about mark ruffalo for too long
in the sense of, i am being a creep
And I think it’s clear that I don’t, or at least am speaking academically as if they are not. Perhaps because I was raised by equally successful parents (who admittedly are not free of gender roles)?
― illegal crew member (C.K. Dexter Holland), Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:16 AM (2 minutes ago)
i don’t think it is in any way possible to imagine such a space in which gender is abolished. and to do so would be to imagine a completely different context for desire from the one we are stuck in. what you are trying to do is p much just as dumb as what you are actually doing.
Horseshoe, you know I met stanley tucci, right??
“she got it fixed just so I can fuck it up”
Horseshoe, you know I met stanley tucci, right??
― smoove operator, Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:22 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink
HOLD UP
i did not know that
This is an ongoing problem, when some people are “speaking academically” from some abstract “intellectual” position and others of us are speaking from the flesh and bone experiences of our actual lives. And I’m just sick of this privileging of the former over the latter like it just doesn’t ~exist~ or can be hand-waved away.
I need to go to bed. And dream of blond chesthair.
what was he like???
urbanely charming