Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:46 am

scionb4 wrote:Women want men to be men, just like men want women to be women. It's just natural. There's nothing politically incorrect about saying that, or at least there shouldn't be.


Without getting all undergrad, I'm just going to ask exactly what you think it means for a "men to be men" and "women to be women." It would seem quite tautological to me, but I would like to hear your explanation.

If for one, as a man, prefer my men to be witty more than anything else. I like my ladies the same way.

Mosca
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:10 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby Mosca » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:53 am

reasonabledoubt wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
scionb4 wrote:I agree with the points that you're making completely, but Orlando Bloom isn't exactly a pussy, he got jacked for Kingdom of Heaven as evidenced here:

--ImageRemoved--


While he may or may not be a pussy (I don't know him personally) he is certainly not jacked in that picture...


He's certainly not puny. You see those arms?


Wow, if any of you think this hollywood phony is jacked then you must be a big gang of pussies. Those are absolutely pathetic arms.... mine are probably three times as big + more defined.

:lol:
Last edited by Mosca on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:55 am

Don't breed.
Image

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:58 am

ccs224 wrote:
scionb4 wrote:Women want men to be men, just like men want women to be women. It's just natural. There's nothing politically incorrect about saying that, or at least there shouldn't be.


Without getting all undergrad, I'm just going to ask exactly what you think it means for a "men to be men" and "women to be women." It would seem quite tautological to me, but I would like to hear your explanation.

If for one, as a man, prefer my men to be witty more than anything else. I like my ladies the same way.


Obviously, there is no quantifiable way to measure this, but I would say that when men start to act/dress/look more effeminate, that is typically unattractive to women. When women start to act/look/dress more masculine, that is VERY unattractive to men. I will illustrate with visuals (I'm not saying that you have to be as attractive as the two attractive people below to qualify as a man or a woman, very few people are:

Attractive male (and I know this because my mom blushes every time she sees him):

Image

Unattractive male due to his unwillingness to be a man (my mom would be so ashamed if I dressed like this):

Image

Attractive female (she is intelligent, successful, talented, and powerful, while at the same tim feminine:

Image

Unattractive woman (does not want to highlight her femininity):

Image

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:59 am

ccs224 wrote:Don't breed.
Image


For people who "live at the gym" they're pretty dis-proportioned too. Pauly D and Vinny just look like retards, you can tell "The Situation" just does curls and tri work nonstop while neglecting other body parts, and Ronnie looks like he got fat off M-Drol haha

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:06 am

scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
scionb4 wrote:Women want men to be men, just like men want women to be women. It's just natural. There's nothing politically incorrect about saying that, or at least there shouldn't be.


Without getting all undergrad, I'm just going to ask exactly what you think it means for a "men to be men" and "women to be women." It would seem quite tautological to me, but I would like to hear your explanation.

If for one, as a man, prefer my men to be witty more than anything else. I like my ladies the same way.


Obviously, there is no quantifiable way to measure this, but I would say that when men start to act/dress/look more effeminate, that is typically unattractive to women. When women start to act/look/dress more masculine, that is VERY unattractive to men. I will illustrate with visuals (I'm not saying that you have to be as attractive as the two attractive people below to qualify as a man or a woman, very few people are:

Attractive male (and I know this because my mom blushes every time she sees him):

Image

Unattractive male due to his unwillingness to be a man (my mom would be so ashamed if I dressed like this):

Image

Attractive female (she is intelligent, successful, talented, and powerful, while at the same tim feminine:

Image

Unattractive woman (does not want to highlight her femininity):

Image


Scion, thank you for using pictures and your mother to describe what you think are typically attractive men and women.

I would say that your definitions hold little weight in the real world. I think an empirical survey of who people actually find attractive outside of the media would show very different results. However, since I don't have access to such a study, I would say that I find none of your photos attractive. Your "men want women to be women" statement seems to define being a man as being attracted to photo three, yet I am not in the least. In fact, I would prefer photo two if I was forced to choose. I certainly have all the anatomy that would normally classify me as a man, but I don't seem to fit into your definition. How would you explain this?

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:07 am

ccs224 wrote: In fact, I would prefer photo two if I was forced to choose. I certainly have all the anatomy that would normally classify me as a man, but I don't seem to fit into your definition. How would you explain this?


He's not taking into account hipsters, the emo, scene kids, and all other lovers of the androgynous. I'd certainly paint you as one of the four.

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:10 am

ccs224 wrote:
scionb4 wrote:
ccs224 wrote:
scionb4 wrote:Women want men to be men, just like men want women to be women. It's just natural. There's nothing politically incorrect about saying that, or at least there shouldn't be.


Without getting all undergrad, I'm just going to ask exactly what you think it means for a "men to be men" and "women to be women." It would seem quite tautological to me, but I would like to hear your explanation.

If for one, as a man, prefer my men to be witty more than anything else. I like my ladies the same way.


Obviously, there is no quantifiable way to measure this, but I would say that when men start to act/dress/look more effeminate, that is typically unattractive to women. When women start to act/look/dress more masculine, that is VERY unattractive to men. I will illustrate with visuals (I'm not saying that you have to be as attractive as the two attractive people below to qualify as a man or a woman, very few people are:

Attractive male (and I know this because my mom blushes every time she sees him):

Image

Unattractive male due to his unwillingness to be a man (my mom would be so ashamed if I dressed like this):

Image

Attractive female (she is intelligent, successful, talented, and powerful, while at the same tim feminine:

Image

Unattractive woman (does not want to highlight her femininity):

Image


Scion, thank you for using pictures and your mother to describe what you think are typically attractive men and women.

I would say that your definitions hold little weight in the real world. I think an empirical survey of who people actually find attractive outside of the media would show very different results. However, since I don't have access to such a study, I would say that I find none of your photos attractive. Your "men want women to be women" statement seems to define being a man as being attracted to photo three, yet I am not in the least. In fact, I would prefer photo two if I was forced to choose. I certainly have all the anatomy that would normally classify me as a man, but I don't seem to fit into your definition. How would you explain this?


I think you can explain who you think is attractive a lot better than I can. However, I personally think you are FUCKING WRONG if you think that most straight men wouldn't think that Rachel Fucking Weisz isn't attractive, because she is absolutely one of the most gorgeous women alive. If you find photo 2 more attractive than 1, I would say not only are you a homosexual, but you have bad taste. Does that help you understand?

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:18 am

I would say that your definitions hold little weight in the real world. I think an empirical survey of who people actually find attractive outside of the media would show very different results. However, since I don't have access to such a study, I would say that I find none of your photos attractive. Your "men want women to be women" statement seems to define being a man as being attracted to photo three, yet I am not in the least. In fact, I would prefer photo two if I was forced to choose. I certainly have all the anatomy that would normally classify me as a man, but I don't seem to fit into your definition. How would you explain this?[/quote]

I think you can explain who you think is attractive a lot better than I can. However, I personally think you are FUCKING WRONG if you think that most straight men wouldn't think that Rachel Fucking Weisz isn't attractive, because she is absolutely one of the most gorgeous women alive. If you find photo 2 more attractive than 1, I would say not only are you a homosexual, but you have bad taste. Does that help you understand?[/quote]

I certainly can define what I find attractive much better than you, but I am also not the one making blanket statements about who and what are attractive to 99% of the human race (props to my third sex friends). And yes, I am of course a homosexual, and my taste is impeccable. However, nothing that you have written helps me understand your definitions of attractiveness, most likely because they do no stand up in the real world (though the reveal a lot of Freudian anxiety about your mother finding you attractive or not). I would still like to see how you define men who are not attracted to Rachel Fucking Weisz and, in addition, I would be interested to hear why the woman in photo four "does not want to highlight her femininity" (is it because her hair is not long enough? her two piece bikini might cause her to be mistaken for a man? her dye job did not cover the roots?)

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:21 am

I would also add that your restrictive definitions of what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" (pomo scare quotes are relevant here) are about fifty years behind the times, bro.

Edit: To add an obligatory bro.
Last edited by ccs224 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:24 am

ccs224 wrote:I would also add that your restrictive definitions of what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" (pomo scare quotes are relevant here) are about fifty years behind the times.


Just because I usually like this argument because it's one of the few that I see both sides rather easily...please give a more up-to-date description

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:32 am

James Bond wrote:
ccs224 wrote:I would also add that your restrictive definitions of what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" (pomo scare quotes are relevant here) are about fifty years behind the times.


Just because I usually like this argument because it's one of the few that I see both sides rather easily...please give a more up-to-date description


I think the whole idea of defining what "men like" and what "women like" as pretty passe. Not only is the idea of creating a category that encompasses all "men" or "women" silly, particularly in describing what one finds attractive (given the much wider visibility in men who throw bones at other men than in, say, 1961, and vice versa), but human sexuality is so diverse and, often, localized, that any blanket description is worthless. Some guy on the internet might find Rachel Fucking Weisz to the his female ideal, but it's most likely not who he will be attracted to in real life, nor would the men who make others melt in Omaha be the same men who get people off in NYC. Any comments claiming to define what men or women are universally attracted to are not only ridiculously reductionist, they are also simply fucking stupid, and more often than not insulting.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:35 am

ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
ccs224 wrote:I would also add that your restrictive definitions of what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" (pomo scare quotes are relevant here) are about fifty years behind the times.


Just because I usually like this argument because it's one of the few that I see both sides rather easily...please give a more up-to-date description


I think the whole idea of defining what "men like" and what "women like" as pretty passe. Not only is the idea of creating a category that encompasses all "men" or "women" silly, particularly in describing what one finds attractive (given the much wider visibility in men who throw bones at other men than in, say, 1961, and vice versa), but human sexuality is so diverse and, often, localized, that any blanket description is worthless. Some guy on the internet might find Rachel Fucking Weisz to the his female ideal, but it's most likely not who he will be attracted to in real life, nor would the men who make others melt in Omaha be the same men who get people off in NYC. Any comments claiming to define what men or women are universally attracted to are not only ridiculously reductionist, they are also simply fucking stupid, and more often than not insulting.


I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*

User avatar
mpasi
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby mpasi » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:40 am

I'm behind the rest of the class...what the hell is a bro?

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:44 am

mpasi wrote:I'm behind the rest of the class...what the hell is a bro?


http://www.broslikethissite.com

User avatar
ccs224
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ccs224 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:45 am

James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler

User avatar
gmail
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:41 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby gmail » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:15 am

lets just step back and agree that there are a variety of people in law school. if you can't get over that, you're a tool.


edit: Creed sucks, though

User avatar
sophia.olive
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:38 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby sophia.olive » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:38 am

Must I clear everything up. Everyone has a certain amount of "maleness" and a certain amount of "femaleness." you add it up you have 100%. Now lets say you are joey (boy or girl doesn't really matter), joey is 75% maleness and 25% femaleness, he/she will generally be attracted to 25% femaleness and 75% femaleness. of course hormones, watching to many action movies, society, being raised be only a father/mother all effect this. This is not only looks, you could have a buff guy with femine mannerisms and women will sense that and if they want 100% maleness they will not be attracted. Likewise some one could wear tight jeans and arch their hand, but bark like a cave man when someone looks at their girl. Some girls may even like 100% femaleness but in a man because they like the penis. The %s may not even effect sexual preference.

now personally i like the 25% maleness 75% femaleness

Image


who knows though

User avatar
JCougar
Posts: 3175
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:47 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby JCougar » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:53 am

ughOSU wrote:I have an ego and I unapologetically admit it. Hipsters have egos and they don't admit it. That's the difference.


I think there's some truth to this. Self-pity, self-important apathy and/or self-loathing is just as self-centered as self-indulgence, and self-love, IMHO. You'd probably be more likely to see me at a hipster party than a bro party, but both can be either full of themselves or pretty cool depending on the individual person.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4858
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby Borhas » Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:54 am

gmail wrote:lets just step back and agree that there are a variety of people in law school. if you can't get over that, you're a tool.


edit: Creed sucks, though


If you don't like what I like you are wrong, and a douche bag.

is that clear?

User avatar
reasonabledoubt
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:24 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby reasonabledoubt » Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:38 am

James Bond wrote:
ccs224 wrote:Don't breed.
Image


For people who "live at the gym" they're pretty dis-proportioned too. Pauly D and Vinny just look like retards, you can tell "The Situation" just does curls and tri work nonstop while neglecting other body parts, and Ronnie looks like he got fat off M-Drol haha



These clowns are definitely doing it wrong and completely disproportioned. Good assessment... I agree. Hey Jersey girls, quite plucking your eyebrows too. Jokers.

ughOSU
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby ughOSU » Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:40 am

Kohinoor wrote:Thread about bros currently the gayest thread on TLS. Flawless.

and getting gayer...

Also, Orlando Bloom is definetely not jacked at all.

eaters333
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:50 pm

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby eaters333 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:48 am

this is really confusing because in california a "bro" is some dude who rides motocross and dresses in famous, skin industries, listens to kotton mouth kings, and says things like BAMF and DGAF

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby James Bond » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:03 pm

gmail wrote:edit: Creed sucks, though


The most truthful thing stated yet

scionb4
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:57 am

Re: Bros in law School (Just Cuz Hipsters are gettin hated on)

Postby scionb4 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:07 pm

ccs224 wrote:
James Bond wrote:I was meaning more what it means to "be a man" or "be a woman" not what they find attractive. Obviously that's dependent on hundreds of factors. Hell, in ages past being fat was a good thing. *shudder*


See, now you're making me get all undergrad. I would say that there are no actual definitions to "being a man" or "being a woman." These are horrible terms that conflate physical characteristics with social roles. If one can tell someone who is supposedly objectively (anatomically) a man or a woman to "be a man/woman" than you are showing the tautological nature of these definitions. Masculinity and femininity have much more to do with one's position in a gendered hierarchy than with any physical characteristics. To be a man by such definitions means to continue a gendered system whereby men dominate, subordinate and exploit women and "feminized men." To be a woman to take up a role which does not challenge such subordination.

Hell, in ages past men having sex with young boys was considered a higher form of love than having sex with women (according to Plato). That doesn't make me shudder, it just reminds me of how socially controlled sexual desire and gender norms are, and how divergent they are across ages (making any definition of what is "natural" ridiculous).

/judith butler


How many of these ideas are your own, and how many are regurgitated from some book in a gender studies class you took?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: grandpapy360 and 5 guests