October 18th, 2004


Previous Entry Next Entry
05:58 pm - on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)...

(57 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 18th, 2004 - 05:01 pm (Link)
I prefer the "before" picture. Sexy!
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: October 18th, 2004 - 06:45 pm (Link)
The "before" picture is quite hot, isn't it?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 18th, 2004 - 08:11 pm (Link)
well, I certainly don't dispute that they are attractive. But I definitely wouldn't say its better than the after pics.
[User Picture]From: sk4p Date: October 18th, 2004 - 07:03 pm (Link)
Completely agree.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 18th, 2004 - 08:15 pm (Link)
same question to you. Why? While I certainly don't think they're unattractive in the before pic, I can't say its better. George has on an old sweatshirt and Ratha had only been out of the shower like 10 seconds and hadn't even combed her hair yet. So is there something you specifically like there, or something you specifically don't like elsewhere?
[User Picture]From: jameel Date: October 18th, 2004 - 09:55 pm (Link)
A simple equation: wet = hot

I do like the after pictures; don't get me wrong. I also like the before picture.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 19th, 2004 - 06:12 am (Link)
I guess there can be something to the wet equals hot equation, but I guess I tend to think wet belongs more with bikini's and less with t-shirts and jeans. But I can at least see where you're going.
[User Picture]From: sk4p Date: October 19th, 2004 - 04:53 am (Link)
Like Jameel says, wet = hot ... Though for Ratha it wasn't consciously "wet"; it was "slightly disheveled", which I generally find hot. Plus, belly.

On further reflection, I like George's "after #1" and "after #4" better than her "before".

I like Ratha's "after #2" best among the afters, with #4 close behind, but I'm still not honestly sure whether I like those better than her "before". Let's face it, she's wearing less in the "before" picture. The T-shirt is not all that immensely concealing. And I Like Skin.

Problem with Ratha's "after #1" is no matter how much you say it, the slip looks like underwear to me, and so with the jeans it just looks completely wrong to me. Put her in just the slip and I know exactly what picture I'd support. ;)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 19th, 2004 - 06:27 am (Link)
From: jameel Date: October 19th, 2004 - 09:45 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 19th, 2004 - 10:38 am (Link)
From: jameel Date: October 19th, 2004 - 10:44 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 19th, 2004 - 10:56 am (Link)
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 18th, 2004 - 07:18 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 18th, 2004 - 08:24 pm (Link)
hmmm... well at least you gave one reason. Better than all the boys. I agree the showing tummy thing is tres sexy. Couldn't do that with George because they were work clothes, but again, that would sort of be implicit in my feminine tomboy look I talked about. As for Ratha, you can sort of tell that the midriff is exposed in pic #2 (it was a little more obvious in person than it was in the picture). And in the third picture she pulled down the cami down a little farther than I would have her rathered. As she walks around in it though, you're going to see a definite hint of belly, just like in the before pic.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 18th, 2004 - 08:10 pm (Link)
ummm... why exactly do you think so? Do you have something against the new clothes or is there something you just really like about the old ones?
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 20th, 2004 - 09:45 am (Link)
I loathe clothing that shouldn't be worn during carpentry. I like comfort and utility, and that preference got tangled with what I find attractive on women. Ratha looks like she just played football or moved furniture, and George looks ready to curl up with a book or a beer.

I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with. Women who dress in tshirts and jeans are more likely to be tolerable to converse with, and are therefor more likely sexual partner candidates. So, dishevelled tomboy == sexy, prom queen == useless and uninteresting.

I also dig scars.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 11:54 am (Link)
Ok, you've done a good job of at least eloquently stating your argument here. I'm going to punch holes in it now, because its flawed in like a gazillion ways (I'm gonna give you 5). Don't take it personally:

1) you make the assumption that everyone finds the same clothing comfortable that you do. I took much care in making sure that the clothes that they got were comfortable for them, and I think they'd both agree that they are. Maverick Makeovers aside, It would still be flawed. Just because you find a t-shirt comfortable, that doesn't mean everyone does. With girls, one obvious thing to show this is bras. I know some women who find wearing bras to be an extreme inconvenience and quite uncomfortable. I know others who would never leave the house without them, because they find that uncomfortable. Some people like how gym shoes feel, some people hate them. Some women (and men) love the free feeling of a skirt, and some find them annoying. etc. etc. etc. So since you can never really gauge how the person is actually feeling about the outfit they're wearing, your basic premise becomes flawed.

2) Ratha did not just play football. George was was not going to be drinking. I wouldn't wear my wrestling clothes to work and I would wear my work clothes to wrestling. There are different outfits appropriate to different occasions. You may disagree here, I suppose. But I am the czar of fashion or something, and I'm sticking to that claim. If for no other reason, we obviously, at least anecodotally agree that clothing makes an impression on others. I expect me might also agree that it is usually better to create a favorable impression. While you can't please all the people all of the time, I would surmise that my theories on fashion will probably favorable affect more than yours, and therefore by the 80/20 rule is probably better to apply.

3) You state that you judge women by how they dress but state that you find women who dress simply to impress men to be unappealing. The breakdown of this argument as circular reasoning should be obvious. If they made a conscious effort to only wear t-shirts and jeans, then they'd essentially be doing what you were saying was unappealing in the first place.

4) Making the assumptions that someone is unintelligent because they are pretty or fashionable is an extremely chauvinistic and prejudicial thing to do. And frequently just wrong. If you do that, you're probably missing out. Ratha and George are exactly the same conversationalists in the later pictures as the first one. So your reasoning here is instantly flawed. The world simply doesn't map to the convenient premise you want it to here. At the very least, I am more interesting than just about anyone, and I'm damn pretty.

5) Ratha's scar is much more visible in the new clothes than it was in the first picture
From: ouchfest Date: October 20th, 2004 - 03:23 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 04:45 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 04:14 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:05 am (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:06 am (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 03:44 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:37 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 06:33 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 03:31 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:11 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 06:52 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:38 pm (Link)
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 20th, 2004 - 12:47 pm (Link)

dude...

you're going to ruin girls for the rest of us!

shiima
From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 12:52 pm (Link)

Re: dude...

From: sundaygray Date: October 21st, 2004 - 06:24 am (Link)

Re: dude...

From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 06:29 am (Link)

Re: dude...

[User Picture]From: dariaphoebe Date: October 20th, 2004 - 05:42 pm (Link)
I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with.

Efficiency is a mark of terrorists. Also, practicality sucks. If you let clothes be in the way of what you're doing, regardless of practicality, I mock your resourcefulness.

Seriously though, all those women you don't want to spend time with? Lots of other people anxiously waiting...
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 04:40 am (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 07:03 pm (Link)
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com