|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Universalis
Joined: 17 Nov 2003
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
MY vote is for Maggie Cheung.
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chicoloco
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Location: In the ring.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Elizabeth Taylor at 17 was, hands down, the most do-able woman of the last 100 years.
Ingrid Bergman, in her day, was the second.
I would have done either of them, and I'm a life-long, card-carrying fa@@ot.
Something about their beauty that, the longer you looked at them, the more depths and layers were to be seen.
(I didn't take the time to read this whole thread, so if I'm repeating someone, mea culpa.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yingwenlaoshi
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: ... location, location!
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nah. That only solidifies what you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yingwenlaoshi wrote: |
| Nah. That only solidifies what you are. |
Okay. Whatever. I'm cool with that. To me, this just means that gay guys know more about what real physical beauty is all about, that some straight guys can be led down a garden path of physical illusion.
Question, though. Does this mean they look manly to you? Is there some hard, butch edge to these two photos that makes you think these girls are hiding something between their thighs? Any little little bit of anything that is unfeminine in either of those photos I posted?
Or are you the type of guy who wants his sex objects to be total blank slates, without depth, onto which you can impose yourself without fear that the object of your attentions might be more interesting than you are?
Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatever
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Korea: More fun than jail.
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rosario Fucking Dawson
Sheeeeeit. Just watch "Alexander"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| yingwenlaoshi wrote: |
| Nah. That only solidifies what you are. |
Okay. Whatever. I'm cool with that. To me, this just means that gay guys know more about what real physical beauty is all about, that some straight guys can be led down a garden path of physical illusion.
Question, though. Does this mean they look manly to you? Is there some hard, butch edge to these two photos that makes you think these girls are hiding something between their thighs? Any little little bit of anything that is unfeminine in either of those photos I posted?
Or are you the type of guy who wants his sex objects to be total blank slates, without depth, onto which you can impose yourself without fear that the object of your attentions might be more interesting than you are?
Just curious. |
I'm not sure if this applies universally, but I'll just throw it out there. I think SOME gay men seem to mix/like an element of nostalgia into things when they consider beauty, and perhaps that may be an element of the particular pictures and individuals that you chose. I've known gay men that love collecting antique furniture, I (frankly) don't see what the appeal is.
I don't think there is anything "manly" about either photo, but the fact they are not contemporary may lend them a certain distance, unfamiliarity, so it's less easy to be attracted to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| yingwenlaoshi wrote: |
| Nah. That only solidifies what you are. |
Okay. Whatever. I'm cool with that. To me, this just means that gay guys know more about what real physical beauty is all about, that some straight guys can be led down a garden path of physical illusion.
Question, though. Does this mean they look manly to you? Is there some hard, butch edge to these two photos that makes you think these girls are hiding something between their thighs? Any little little bit of anything that is unfeminine in either of those photos I posted?
Or are you the type of guy who wants his sex objects to be total blank slates, without depth, onto which you can impose yourself without fear that the object of your attentions might be more interesting than you are?
Just curious. |
I'm not sure if this applies universally, but I'll just throw it out there. I think SOME gay men seem to mix/like an element of nostalgia into things when they consider beauty, and perhaps that may be an element of the particular pictures and individuals that you chose. I've known gay men that love collecting antique furniture, I (frankly) don't see what the appeal is.
I don't think there is anything "manly" about either photo, but the fact they are not contemporary may lend them a certain distance, unfamiliarity, so it's less easy to be attracted to them. |
Noted. In some part, granted. For myself, I'm not all that churned up about antique furniture, per se. Some of it's really cool, the stuff that stands the test of time, but most of it's just kitschy crap.
As physical beauty goes, for me, those two women do stand that test. Lana Turner? Pass. Monroe? Maybe, but more it's her pathos-laden story that inclines me to think of her as actually beautiful. Clark Gable? Eh. Tony Curtis? Meh. Brando? (In his prime?) Oh yeah.
None of the female beauties (I assume) who've appeared on this list will be remembered in 50 years, aside from maybe one or two, who will stand the test of time. I am not qualified to say who those two will be, since I left off the whole business of pop culture 25 years ago or so.
My guess, though, is that Michelle Pfeiffer might be one of them. One whose beauty goes beyond slutty clothes and trashy headshots. (Or is she too old, too, to qualify?)
If my criteria were just a matter of nostalgia and a bygone era of glamour, I'd have gone with Judy Garland and Hedy Lamaar. I went instead with women whose photos made me, as a young man, completely aware of what most men saw in women. Without needing to get all woody over them.
Being qu@@r doesn't render me unable to appreciate examples of physical perfection. Among the images most seared into my retinas is the glimpse of a set of breasts I saw once on a beach in Toulon, France. Were I a sculptor, those woud be the only breasts I would ever sculpt.
Without ever feeling like I needed to put my face between them to appreciate their perfection.
I do not, however, refute entirely your premise. Fa@@ots can indeed be silly about all of this shit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since we're going old-school:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dorothy Dandridge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lawyertood
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul, Incheon and the World--working undercover for the MOJ
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the "Catwomen" (along with Eartha Kitt and Lee Merriweather)from the Batman tv series, Julie Newmar, always did it for me when I was younger.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please, stop posting the grandmas.
Rosario *beep* Dawson is a great post from the last few pages in this thread.
gay guys, I think you need your own threads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swetepete
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
gay guys, I think you need your own threads. |
Gay threads? Like these?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MCSM
Joined: 20 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sadly, for jinju, gay means something a but more like:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lawyertood
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul, Incheon and the World--working undercover for the MOJ
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would you rather have this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
