Brands that represent quality above all else

[whacked]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I think we have run into one of those situation in which a man with a hammer is trying to slam a bunch of screws and bolts into a piece of plywood.

 

[LabelKing]

Do you think Mafoofan wears his politburo glasses to keep his pimp hand strong?

 

[yfyf]

Originally Posted by lance konami

We do it all for the nookie. Personally I find it amusing that the fellas here think that the pursuit of all this stuff is based out of some wholesome love for quality and not because it gets you some kind of reward in some aspect of your life. "I don't do it for anyone else! I do it for ME!" is my favorite excuse.
I do it for the internet igents on webcam, streamed.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Do you think Mafoofan wears his politburo glasses to keep his pimp hand strong?
Classic.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by whacked

Everthing I do, I do it for you.

 

[lance konami]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

There are many reasons for it but you're totally simplifying and pointing out motives that might be totally wrong and are, in most cases. You think Manton's wears DB suits with knit tie so he can come back home to his wife and be "Yo *****, wassup, come get some, Mr. Handsome is home!". Do you think I dress like a gaylord to impress the ladies? I'd get a Porsche or something like that if that was my goal.

I do think men wear suits mostly to convey something. What does a suit convey? First it conveys that you have the resources to even buy one. Good suits aren't cheap. Secondly they convey your socioeconomic "ranking" at least to a degree. If you're wearing a suit every day during the week you're obviously not a janitor or a construction worker on the side of the street. A lot of information can be gleamed from a man's dress.

So while he may not be wearing a DB suit in order to demand some ass from his wife, it is something that men do to maintain their status (and job), and of course, women always look for status in mates.

I don't think you dress like a gaylord, but I do think you are interested in maintaining a certain style that's uniquely yours because you care about your appearance. If you didn't give a ****, you wouldn't put any effort into it at all. If men didn't care about how they appeared to the opposite sex (or same sex) no one would put any effort into anything at all, including their education, job, where they lived, etc.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by lance konami

If men didn't care about how they appeared to the opposite sex (or same sex) no one would put any effort into anything at all, including their education, job, where they lived, etc.

Do you really think that?

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by lance konami

I do think men wear suits mostly to convey something. What does a suit convey? First it conveys that you have the resources to even buy one. Good suits aren't cheap. Secondly they convey your socioeconomic "ranking" at least to a degree. If you're wearing a suit every day during the week you're obviously not a janitor or a construction worker on the side of the street. A lot of information can be gleamed from a man's dress.

So while he may not be wearing a DB suit in order to demand some ass from his wife, it is something that men do to maintain their status (and job), and of course, women always look for status in mates.

I don't think you dress like a gaylord, but I do think you are interested in maintaining a certain style that's uniquely yours because you care about your appearance. If you didn't give a ****, you wouldn't put any effort into it at all. If men didn't care about how they appeared to the opposite sex (or same sex) no one would put any effort into anything at all, including their education, job, where they lived, etc.

Did Michelangelo paint the Sistine chapel to impress bitches?

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Did Michelangelo paint the Sistine chapel to impress bitches?

To impress man-bitches.

 

[lance konami]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Do you really think that?
I suppose the thought might sound foreign to some at first, I guess I have to remind myself that I see everything from an anthropological/evolutionary psychology perspective and not everyone will agree with me, but yes I really do think that these days.

 

[voxsartoria]

Hinckley.




- B

 

[lance konami]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Did Michelangelo paint the Sistine chapel to impress bitches?

Hah.

You know, there's actually an impressive amount of scientific study in this area that suggest that artistic talent and creativity evolved as a sexual ornament.

Check out "The Mating Mind" by Geoffrey Miller who goes into this concept in great detail.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by lance konami

I suppose the thought might sound foreign to some at first, I guess I have to remind myself that I see everything from an anthropological/evolutionary psychology perspective and not everyone will agree with me, but yes I really do think that these days.
In that case, I believe that a place can be defined using historical, relational and identitiary criterias, and that surmodernity leads to the production of non-places, so you might be right.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by lance konami

I suppose the thought might sound foreign to some at first, I guess I have to remind myself that I see everything from an anthropological/evolutionary psychology perspective and not everyone will agree with me, but yes I really do think that these days.

But most anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists don't see it that way!

 

[RJmanbearpig]

Originally Posted by iammatt

In that case, I believe that a place can be defined using historical, relational and identitiary criterias, and that surmodernity leads to the production of non-penises, so you might be right.

FTFY.

It would be good if some of the resident psychiatrists such as Teh Tehplitz and teh Bresch could weigh in.

 

[TIEALIGN]

Originally Posted by lance konami

I suppose the thought might sound foreign to some at first, I guess I have to remind myself that I see everything from an anthropological/evolutionary psychology perspective and not everyone will agree with me, but yes I really do think that these days.
I wouldn't deny that there is truth to your assertion but I think your attempt to apply it to all situations is to simplistic. I also believe that many anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists would disagree with your statement as well.

Originally Posted by RJmanbearpig

FTFY. It would be good if some of the resident psychiatrists such as Teh Tehplitz and teh Bresch could weigh in.
This thread wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without you commentary.