Reply #53: Yes, you did [View All]

[TorchTheWitch]

You brought up her physical appearance and provided a photo to "prove" her to be physically unattractive which would not even have entered your mind at all had she been a man. Her physical appearance has nothing to do with how much the law sucks or how horrible a person she is but you brought it into the arguement as though her physical appearance actually mattered. And worse, your belief in her being physically unattractive is largely due to her wrinkles and sagging skin as though these normal signs of aging are to be thought of as so unappealing as to be ugly.

Why? What the hell does how she look have fuck all to do with the law or how terrible a person she is? Why did you even make note of what she looks like at all? Why would you not have made note of physical appearance if she were a man? Why is your knee-jerk reaction to point out physical appeal or lack there of when it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything when you would not have thought to do so were she a man and largely focus on the normal signs of aging such as wrinkles and sagging skin as signs of uglyness?

Your OP is grossly sexist and ageist, and the fact that you seem to have done it subconsciously is even more disturbing than if you had done it on purpose because it just goes to show how ingrained it is to judge people - particularly women - based on physical appearance as though physical appearance actually matters.

Way to go crapping on your own thread. Look at the responses... all of them are about physical appearance or why you brought physical appearance into it and not a one of them so much as mentions anything about this law that you believe is so horrible it brought you to tears.