How do you eat your snack crackers?

[Texasbelle]

Originally Posted by TheNarrator

I never made any statements. I asked him two questions trying to verify if I had interpreted correctly what he had said, which was - "neither of you two are proven studs may think you are but no children so no proof".

I think if someone's attractive, then someone's attractive, regardless of if they have a sex life, are married, have children, or not. Just because one abstains from sex or any sort of sexual activity doesn't mean they aren't attractive.

Then your question still didn't make sense. A proven stud in the animal world which could directly relate to humans as well is an animal that has sired off spring. So yes children would be required.

[sassy1]

my how things digress...we were talking about snack crackers, right?

[TheNarrator]

Originally Posted by Texasbelle

Then your question still didn't make sense. A proven stud in the animal world which could directly relate to humans as well is an animal that has sired off spring. So yes children would be required.

Though some people act like animals, we are different, so the siring offspring bit doesn't necessarily mean you're attractive. If a woman has a child due to rape, the man still has offspring, but the sex wasn't consensual, so he is not considered attractive- to that woman, at least.
From what I've understood the act of sex itself seems to "prove" that the male and female are attractive, and there need not be children involved.

I don't see how my questions didn't make sense, they were attempts to understand what he meant by his statement; "Having children automatically means you're attractive?" "Are you implying that because you've had children, you've had sexual intercourse, which means someone found you attractive enough to have sex with?"

[Santabot]

Originally Posted by TheNarrator

Though some people act like animals, we are different, so the siring offspring bit doesn't necessarily mean you're attractive. If a woman has a child due to rape, the man still has offspring, but the sex wasn't consensual, so he is not considered attractive- to that woman, at least.
From what I've understood the act of sex itself seems to "prove" that the male and female are attractive, and there need not be children involved.

I don't see how my questions didn't make sense, they were attempts to understand what he meant by his statement; "Having children automatically means you're attractive?" "Are you implying that because you've had children, you've had sexual intercourse, which means someone found you attractive enough to have sex with?"

I don't see how anybody could find her statements confusing.. they make plenty of sense.

Texasbelle is a bit confused, as she posts on a Shreveport board while living in East Texas, a bad sign from the start