Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Women in shorts cause car to “crash” into pole [View all]seabeyond
(110,159 posts)179. so, your post had nothing to do with my reply to lumder. gotcha. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
224 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Gotta love DU3 --those of us who object to men publicly lusting after children
geek tragedy
Mar 2013
#16
Noticing something and expressing that the type of 'noticing' you were doing was distracting enough
redqueen
Mar 2013
#104
i have never, once, seen the word sexually aggressive used to imply whorish. you make the claim?
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#126
oh geez, so true. isnt it. consistent. and ALL the fuckin' time. repeat and rinse again.
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#151
how old are the people in that picture? I mean, when the picture was taken. Do you know?
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2013
#196
So you agree that lusting after underage girls is ok? You can cuss me all you want.
backtoblue
Mar 2013
#63
I am not interested in hearing your reaction to a comment directed to someone else.
Buzz Clik
Mar 2013
#84
Actually, your ability to understand one word I've written is pretty close to zero.
Buzz Clik
Mar 2013
#91
Yes, I did check the TOS box. Tombstone says he was a previously banned troll. nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2013
#110
it is there for all to read buzz. whisp about said it the way it is. see how foolish that post of
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#129
throw in warrens dismissal with a thread of hair on fire wimminz and men. clever enough not
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#152
"clever enough not to defend"... what? to not defend "message auto-removed"?
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2013
#184
when only listening to your buddies continually reinforce it is nature, biology, to get off on girls
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#52
no, as another poster noted, it was common for young women to hold hands or walk arm in arm
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#127
now and then. now, we photoshop to have a group of men blocking way, and intimidating
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#56
i think that is more apt with what the women are doing in that picture. but hey... if yawl want
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#153
I'm sorry, maybe you can give me the cliffs notes version of the outrage.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2013
#158
I want to know more about the pornification photoshop conspiracy you mention upthread.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2013
#169
Reference to photoshopping didn't account for there being two different pictures.
dipsydoodle
Mar 2013
#170
wait.. you're suggesting that I replied to you in a somewhat non-linear fashion?
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2013
#183
prove to the others in the herd that they 'belong' and don't care what the women think.
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#103
My dad in his old age kept crashing into stuff oogling at women walking on the side walk.
Cleita
Mar 2013
#105
I also noticed several jury results posted, too, but there haven't been any call-outs yet.
pacalo
Mar 2013
#213