LazyGunn wrote:

i fucking hated every single vocodered vocal on homework, complete rubbish

Granted I only know Around the World, but that was about a million times better than the first one here. Wonder what makes us feel so opposite?

Brooks wrote:

It's a funny and slightly unfortunate thing that I'm auto-wary of anyone conventionally hawt (of either gender fyi) who also makes a go of summat in the arts. Practically speaking very few of us can make a living or even be intellectually satisfied just being handsome objects but the number of times I've caught myself immediately thinking "ugh of course you're successful eh" is not a happy number.

In this case I have no problem, because Scott's hairtrigger career is based on very good foundations: years of effort and brains. Any fault lies with TV producers. But then does it? Because the Prof. Cox argument of engaging t'yoot holds strong.

I'm sure I'd feel differently if I was equally qualified and working in a cafe, of course. But ultimately, I like her and it's not her fault. (Ill-advised shoot above notwithstanding.)

I'd also get my tits out for money, so I've no worries with Missus. Connections and nepotism 'fore competence are my bugbears, B. Not so much earning bucks from beauty.

That thing you said last page about "oh you look good so of course" kinda plagues my mind too. Not sure where its roots lie, probs in insecurity here.

I'm ashamed that Tempy is a man.

Oh yeah.  PMing.

surprised and disappointed we've gone this far without a miserable little pile of secrets ref.

I'm not making any moral equivalence between the two, rather the way in which society responds to sexual preferences which may arguably be beyond an individual's control. 

Alternatively, you can just carry on with the 'OMG EVIL CHILD FUCKERS' rhetoric.

I don't think anyone who is rational would think a gay adult male would be more likely to abuse a male child than a straight adult male would be.

Can't speak for how Sun readers would think though.

The adulation for the likes of Errol Flynn who fucked anything that walked or crawled is perhaps a throwback to his time but it endures somewhat.

If you take the bible literally (as a scarily large number of people in the states do), you lose any claim at being rational.

Men are idiots and women are mental.

Would overlap be the euphemism du jour?

Yossarian wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

Presumebly because it irks you that if you were so inclined to engage in something, you could be disadvantaged even if you're working damn hard at whatever you do, and some pretty young thing comes in and sails past you with no effort because of his perfectly symmetrical features.

I used to get irked by it myself, until it was pointed out to me that intelligence is no less down to the luck of your genes than looks, but intelligence is seen as a virtue and no one gets annoyed with intelligent people getting far in life.

That's not quite true. Good education and hard work can and do overcome this.

You can increase knowledge, not intelligence.

Ability to juggle info is how I've tended to treat it. Not so much what you know as how quick you are on the draw. It's definitely trainable/hone-able and class-agnostic but there will be some kind of threshold set by individual biology.