
Originally Posted by
Morning Glory
I guess that's where we disagree then. to me the idea of a qualified worker, is someone that actually has some kind of qualification for work. the fact is that anyone can be a stripper. anyone can stand around naked. there is some degree of dancing and "salesmanship" if you will, but no one can honesty argue that they go to a strip club because they really admire a girls clasical training in ballet. they go to see naked people. bottom line.
the only discrepency is between those that are hot and those that are not, which isn't really something that has anything to do with your ability to do anything at all, "ugly" girls can stil grind their vaginas on a mans penis, it doesn't know the difference. so I think that it's a little ridiculous to say that certain types of women that may be found unattractive are "poorly suited" to work at a job, since if allready demonstrarted it has nothing to do with the ability to be able to perform a function in reality, other than psychologically.
Now I can appreciate, as always, if not agree, as usual, with TZs honesty. what I am more in opposition to is trying to justify it through all these loops, instead of just admitting that it is shallow and one sided (not debating whether that is bad or good, just that it is.)who are you really trying to convince, me or you? I don't classify people on how they look, so I'm not the one that has to convince myself why someone is qualified or not for anything based on that.
Bookmarks