Bless you, Charles, for bringing a little tropical light to our grey Monday.
Charles, why why why do you objectify women in pretty much every post you ever write? Is there some sort of philosophy behind it? Do you believe that women exist simply for your sexual gratification? Maybe if you could give a rational reason for this, we the readers could find you a bit less despicable.
Please post more recipes with palm fronds in them. (Delicious.)
Could you please post another lady, possibly with more T&A? This one is a little too "dance 10, looks 3" for my taste.
@2, why do you assume that Charles believes women exist SOLELY for his gratification? Certainly no one could disagree that they exist IN PART for that reason, for him and for everyone sexually oriented towards them. So where are you getting this "simply" from?
Oh, wait -- it's October. Classes have started. Duh.
I would like to point out that most workplaces don't make a lot of fine distinctions in their prohibitions. "Using office computers to view pictures of naked women" doesn't usually make any allowances for angles of view or bits that are visible.
@2 if you really knew Mudede you would know that this post was really an excuse to eroticize about and objectify concrete.
A few more years of global warming and the real thing will be native to Kent.
Settle down Mabel.
#6 You are right. I don't really know Mudede. This is why I am giving this the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand how his view of women relates to to posting nude photos of them next to totally unrelated posts. Because maybe there is some actual relevance I am missing.
#5 Classes may have started, but I do not see how my PhD courses in Chemical Engineering are relevant, do you? Even though I happen to be a woman, I also happen to be attracted to them. So I very much enjoy the female body, and photos of such. However, I cannot help but think that Charles uses these women and their bodies as decoration, completely irrelevant to the point of the post. If he had a series of posts titled: sexy girlie pictures, then great. But he is discussing politics, or economics, or whatever, and this seems like he only sees women's contribution to these subjects as relevant if they are showing T&A.
wack wack wack, huh charles?
@9---Charles' posts help me whenever people point out how sexualized gay culture is. The man can't write fake palms without including naked women. At least he avoided his favorite pompous third person style of "What do we see? We see..."
Oh ugh... I dont know why I bother....he obviously doesn't care what others think of his puerile ramblings here...
I'm about as rabid feminist as they come, but Charles' posts don't bother me for some reason. Maybe it's because I get the sense that he genuinely likes women, which is an all too uncommon trait among straight men.
Whatever. I'm as critical of Mr Mudede as the next slogger, but in this case, keep the great photos coming, Charles.
I've seen those fake-tree cell towers. They look like absolute shit, not sure they are an improvement over the basic ugly functional cell tower.
Charles has been auditioning to be Playboy's House Pundit for how many years now?
Is it really Monica?
@11 "we" is first person
sorry, i just had to.
and i hate chaz's use of women as decoration, too. blech.
@16--you're right, of course. I was thinking of first person plural and the royal We, and how readers are expected to agree with The Writer etc but I messed up....
hi erin. olechka is olga by the way. funny.
Charles, do you have any photos of this chick showing copper and bush?
If so, please post.
"In northern locations, the same processes are used to mimic pine trees"
Wait, what? Northern locations? How come I've seen these in Los Angeles then?
Comments are closed on this post.