PDA

View Full Version : Can You Find Beauty In A Man?


Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 12:32 AM
Men, can you find beauty in another man?

http://www.freespiritart.com/images/weistling-refuge-strength.jpg


Women, can you find beauty in another woman?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes5/curves.png

(a lot of women seem to be able to, but i didnt want to come of discriminatory like)

(and i posted the above picture, not because i find the women beautiful, but it seems like the kind of thing women would say was beautiful, in some kind of attempt to perpetuate this thing about natural beauty and some how boost their own self esteem about their own imperfections etc.)

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:36 AM
any man who makes a thread about him findind doods beautiful is a fuckin fag!

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:37 AM
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/gaythread.jpg

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 12:39 AM
Just answer Yes or No, and elaborate if you would like.

(is the guy in the picture that Hamilton from top gear?)

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:44 AM
hahaha yea



elaborate?

well

no man should find another man ''beautiful'' dat shit is just gay as fuck to even have that thought in ur mind kid shits gay as fuck....

a man complimants another mans shoes or car, not their outfit or eyes or gay shit like that..


pat besides the negreppin me, i held u in high regards, but now its like ur one of them, by them i mean the rest of these faggits in genchat!

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 12:47 AM
Thanks for the explanation dude.

But just like Elaine said "You know, just admitted that a man is handsome, doesn't necessarily make you a homosexual"






But it doesn't help.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:49 AM
but the fact is to be able to say such faggotry, u had to been checkin out the dood like if ur were a female which = gay as fuck in our book!

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 12:50 AM
Yeah, i understand your viewpoint.

I wonder if anyone else thinks different.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:50 AM
and who the fuck is elaine?

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 01:00 AM
Jerry and her used to date.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:04 AM
bitch ass wigger^^^ u str8 pussy buaaay

TSA
09-22-2008, 01:05 AM
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8706/hducs.jpg
idk what a beautiful man looks like, i just go off what ppl say like brad pitt and will smith if have to cite a good looking man.

but women are real everywhere with whatthey classify as good looking so idk
one girl cause think a guy is super hawt then the next will think he's super ugly in the same day
idk

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8706/hducs.jpg

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 01:19 AM
Ok, so basically a no.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:27 AM
y dont u go back to playin doctor wiff the neighboring kids u faggit































hahahaha

























http://bp3.blogger.com/_ZCyvUPSOmiE/RpYNKK2X4wI/AAAAAAAAAW4/YV-a9z64eAw/s320/IMG_2712.JPG (http://bp3.blogger.com/_ZCyvUPSOmiE/RpYNKK2X4wI/AAAAAAAAAW4/YV-a9z64eAw/s1600-h/IMG_2712.JPG)http://bp2.blogger.com/_ZCyvUPSOmiE/RpYPE62X4xI/AAAAAAAAAXA/5a36OPXwFes/s320/IMG_2713.JPG (http://bp2.blogger.com/_ZCyvUPSOmiE/RpYPE62X4xI/AAAAAAAAAXA/5a36OPXwFes/s1600-h/IMG_2713.JPG)

Ohsaes
09-22-2008, 01:30 AM
Yo I wouldn't call it beauty... more like admiration, truth. etc.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:32 AM
21 posts in and already wucorp has made u a fag!










































get out now!!!!!!!!!!!

Ohsaes
09-22-2008, 01:37 AM
21 posts in and already wucorp has made u a fag!




get out now!!!!!!!!!!!

the best disguise for one is to profess utterly how much you disgust them... you seem more like the fag to be honest, but I won't hold it against you...

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:42 AM
u would wanna hold it against me u friggin fag

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 01:42 AM
Seriously skampoe, stop fucking destroying my thread you piece of shit.,

Just fucking stop it.

Stop being a whiney annoying little bitch.

Stop posting gay pictures.

They are not funny at all.

Just shut the fuck up.

Please.

{pb}

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:45 AM
yo SKAMP has a man-crush on TSA...........Truth.

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/lance%20bass.jpg




















faggyclaus
































http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2293487220_15e5990609.jpg?v=0

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:47 AM
Seriously skampoe, stop fucking destroying my thread you piece of shit.,

Just fucking stop it.

Stop being a whiney annoying little bitch.

Stop posting gay pictures.

They are not funny at all.

Just shut the fuck up.

Please.

{pb}
god forbid i ruin ur homo ass thread






































patty mcfaggy




















http://a423.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/10/s_c13a6a108ea1ff6061d91880a3d81f3e.jpg

Ohsaes
09-22-2008, 01:49 AM
yo yo yo, if you want beef get an account and challenge me at letsbeef.com
don't talk shit unless you can back it up.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 01:51 AM
u would want me to back it up u fag

Ohsaes
09-22-2008, 01:57 AM
u would want me to back it up u fag

Met a'lot of dips stupid in the head like you, fucked them up too, I'm not talkin' about words yo, my fucking fists, and if you were not hiding behind yo pussy ass monitor, yo little bitch ass wouldn't be talkin' shit. Now if you wanna stop being a pussy, register and battle me ;) live on the mic, and we will let the people vote. If not it's simple:

Shut the fuck up, your done talking

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 02:01 AM
http://x63.xanga.com/9fbd22f1d2d30110475032/z78598584.jpg

zooruka
09-22-2008, 02:05 AM
.

But just like Elaine said "You know, just admitted that a man is handsome, doesn't necessarily make you a homosexual"


this is true

Yo I wouldn't call it beauty... more like admiration, truth. etc.

cosign

Longbongcilvaringz
09-22-2008, 02:08 AM
Fuck you skampoe.

I really mean it this time.

You've lost your last supporter pretty much.

Fuck you.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 02:17 AM
stop gettin all emo patty its just the internet geez







































http://jj.am/gallery/d/50416-1/puppy.jpg

STYLE
09-22-2008, 03:38 AM
but its like you are really gay skamp.
YOU are the 1st one to call someone gay.
YOU are the #1 poster of pix of dix
YOU are the #1 poster of gay pix
YOU are the #1 poster of chix with dix
YOU are the one who sees everything as being gay. cause homo thoughts stay in your mind.

YOU are obsessed with homosexuality

i think the evidence is stacked you skamp. you are gay. face the facts.
















now to answer the question....

i can find beauty in a man. its not hard to say "yeah that guy is/is not good looking"

you just have to be confident and comfortable with your sexuality.

being afraid that something, outside of having sex with a man, will make you gay, is the 1st sign that you are gay.


i will admit that i judge men based on whether they look better or worse than me. ort better yet if he and i were side by side who would get the girl off of looks alone.

idk vain? yeah.
do i give a rats ass? no


gay? c'mere suck my dick and find out.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 03:45 AM
fag^^^

STYLE
09-22-2008, 03:52 AM
fag^^^


i rest my case.

skampoe is a homophobic closet homo.
http://www.moviemaker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/july-9.jpg

http://www.cinema.com/image_lib/19_024.jpg

KERZO
09-22-2008, 04:01 AM
skampoe you acting like you aint a homo but you must be cos you fuck this man on the regular...



http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d31/Fermex/Photoshop%20Edits/Skampiggieswife.jpg

You tryna tell me that aint a dude. the jaw alone is comparable to arnold schwarzenegger and i know she's packing a tool down in them pants..

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d31/Fermex/Photoshop%20Edits/Skampiggieswife.jpg

Can you tell her to take that gobstopper out her mouth....oh wait there aint one there, that is her fucking mouth!! she looks like she's chewing on rocks skampoe ffs

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 04:18 AM
hahahahahaahahah


i have a wife and am happily married
































u have up and down syndrome witcha horrendous face




















http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpg

KERZO
09-22-2008, 04:36 AM
hahahahahaahahah


i have a manly looking big jawed ugly ass wife and am happily married
































u have up and down syndrome witcha horrendous face




















http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpg

*corrected*



if your not gay skampoe, then why do you repeatedly comment on how guys look.

you even said you could'nt judge a mans looks because that would be gay.....then you go on to judge how i look. you cant be that retarded that you cant see what your doing....

your stupidity is only exceeded by your obesity skampiggy -

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d31/Fermex/Photoshop%20Edits/Skampiggi.jpg

go away and make a shitty raspy ass diss track that no-one in their right mind would listen to....cos then you'd stop pretending like you aint a homo when most of us know you secretly are.

STYLE
09-22-2008, 11:05 AM
damn fermi took the gloves off.

Durag
09-22-2008, 11:14 AM
*ignores Skampoe and Fermi's argument*

In answer to the thread, i cant really find beauty in a man to be honest, but like Style said, i sometimes judge other men on wether im better looking than them or not. Usually i am so its ok.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 11:31 AM
styel stope riding dick u fuckin fag





spermi






























http://www.aeropause.com/wordpress/archives/images/2008/06/bill_gates_718639.jpghttp://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpg

TAURO
09-22-2008, 11:33 AM
I can find beauty in a man. My grandfather (RIP) in his younger years was a very good looking man, I can only imagine the amount of poontang he was offered before he met his dearest.

Insecurity is a sign of homosexuality.

TheWolf
09-22-2008, 11:35 AM
Everyone can pretty much look at a fellow man and tell if he's attractive to women.

So, yes.

And how Skampoe can say he cant tell, and then judge posters on being ugly is beyond me.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 11:49 AM
Everyone can pretty much look at a fellow man and tell if he's attractive to women.

So, yes.

And how Skampoe can say he cant tell, and then judge posters on being ugly is beyond me.

u got it wrong homie, i dont judge posters, the thing is fermi callin niggaz out on being fat n ugly when he is horrendous and gets no pussy!

i may be an overweight lover but i gets pussy!




im just a sexy mu fucka and spermi is mad cuz he could never be l;ike me




































http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/skampoe/spermi.jpg


with a disgusting face like that u should stfu!

KERZO
09-22-2008, 11:58 AM
hahaha ive told you numerous times i have a woman but i aint gonna post her picture on here for you rapists to masturbate over..luckily i don't feel the need to prove my sexuality by posting loads of anti-gay threads like you...

I'd actually fuck a man if i had to look at this cake smuggler every night -

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d31/Fermex/Photoshop%20Edits/SkampolinaCakeSmuggler.jpg

she looks more manly than Rosie O'donnell ffs

IrOnMaN
09-22-2008, 12:10 PM
This thread is gay beyond compare.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:11 PM
yea right u still live with ur parents

STYLE
09-22-2008, 12:17 PM
dolicia is fiiiiiiiinnnne!!!!
http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dolicia_bryan4.jpg

http://streetknowledge.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dolicia_bryan2.jpg

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 12:19 PM
god daaaayummm shes bad as fuck!

IrOnMaN
09-22-2008, 12:30 PM
^^Yes, she is.

JASPER
09-22-2008, 04:16 PM
I think I can tell if a man is sexy or not. It's one of those takes-one-to-know-one kind of things.

HANZO
09-22-2008, 04:19 PM
to the initial question i answer: NO.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/fuzzdacat/Vestiladies/Dolicia.jpg


she is fuckin bangin

The Grandmaster
09-22-2008, 04:24 PM
no homo but if you can find a man ugly, then you can certainly find a man good looking.

it's called having eyes and judgement not being gay.

Olive Oil Goombah
09-22-2008, 04:51 PM
This reminds me of the thread i made asking who had the gall to admit they watched Brokeback Mountain and Skamp went off on a tirade accusing anyone who saw it as being gay or accepting 'gayness'. Than irondan jumped in saying your gay if you watch it at which point i questioned whether it is gay to own Pulp Fiction because of its gay rape scene.
Furthermore skamp went on to say he would not watch Dark KNight because Heath Ledger made out with a guy in Brokeback Mountain.

I honestly think he is harboring repressed gay feelings.

SKAMPOE
09-22-2008, 04:58 PM
wrong!!^^

lmao @ all the psychologists in the house!

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 03:48 AM
now to answer the question....

i can find beauty in a man. its not hard to say "yeah that guy is/is not good looking"

you just have to be confident and comfortable with your sexuality.

being afraid that something, outside of having sex with a man, will make you gay, is the 1st sign that you are gay.


i will admit that i judge men based on whether they look better or worse than me. ort better yet if he and i were side by side who would get the girl off of looks alone.

idk vain? yeah.
do i give a rats ass? no


gay? c'mere suck my dick and find out.


Thanks for being the first person to honestly and seriously respond to the thread.

I understand your perspective.

*ignores Skampoe and Fermi's argument*

In answer to the thread, i cant really find beauty in a man to be honest, but like Style said, i sometimes judge other men on wether im better looking than them or not. Usually i am so its ok.

I feel the same way pretty much.

I can tell when someone is ugly, but apart from that i general judge guys as 'normal' or 'abnormal'

I can find beauty in a man. My grandfather (RIP) in his younger years was a very good looking man, I can only imagine the amount of poontang he was offered before he met his dearest.

Insecurity is a sign of homosexuality.

True.

Everyone can pretty much look at a fellow man and tell if he's attractive to women.

So, yes.

And how Skampoe can say he cant tell, and then judge posters on being ugly is beyond me.

Thats a good point

This thread is gay beyond compare.

It's not gay at all.

I think I can tell if a man is sexy or not. It's one of those takes-one-to-know-one kind of things.

I understand that.

This reminds me of the thread i made asking who had the gall to admit they watched Brokeback Mountain and Skamp went off on a tirade accusing anyone who saw it as being gay or accepting 'gayness'. Than irondan jumped in saying your gay if you watch it at which point i questioned whether it is gay to own Pulp Fiction because of its gay rape scene.
Furthermore skamp went on to say he would not watch Dark KNight because Heath Ledger made out with a guy in Brokeback Mountain.

I honestly think he is harboring repressed gay feelings.

I think he definitely has some problems.

Deep seeded rage and feelings of resentment.

Robert
09-23-2008, 04:11 AM
This was a ridiculous thread to start in General Chat.

There is a difference between being able to tell if a man is good looking and detecting beauty in males.

Beautiful men from a heterosexual man's perspective will probably have quite a feminine appearance. To tell whether a man is good looking on the other hand is to draw from female ideas of attractiveness.

You smell me?

STYLE
09-23-2008, 04:35 AM
*sniffs but can't quite place the odor*


whats the diff?
imo, beauty is confined/defined to the male/female cultural definitions of beauty.


example
beautiful woman
http://images.askmen.com/galleries/singer/vanessa-williams/pictures/vanessa-williams-picture-1.jpg

beautiful man
http://www.mostbeautifulman.com/musicians/usher/images/pic01.jpg



both beautiful PEOPLE.

idk i think the handsom/beautiful/good-looking/attractive debate is just semantics.

Robert
09-23-2008, 04:43 AM
Maybe, but beauty does not always imply attractiveness.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 04:43 AM
This was a ridiculous thread to start in General Chat.

There is a difference between being able to tell if a man is good looking and detecting beauty in males.

Beautiful men from a heterosexual man's perspective will probably have quite a feminine appearance. To tell whether a man is good looking on the other hand is to draw from female ideas of attractiveness.

You smell me?

Why is it ridiculous starting it in here?

Regardless, it is my contention that the only reason heterosexual males can "find beauty" in other guys is because they have received messages from their life experiences indicating to them what is attractive and what is unattractive.

If someone is attractive, attention is usually drawn to them.

People pick up on this, and respond accordingly.

But maybe people just pick up on symmetrical facial features and the like, and make a judgement based on that.

And your last point is a bit ludicrous.

You find feminine looking men to be more handsome than masculine looking me...?

I dont know...

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 04:44 AM
Maybe, but beauty does not always imply attractiveness.

Yeah.. exactly..

Robert
09-23-2008, 04:48 AM
I don't think I made myself clear. It is logical that a heterosexual male will find a male with a feminine appearance more "beauty" then a male that exhibits overt masculine characteristics regardless of which man is more attractive in a females eyes.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 04:51 AM
Emotionally, playing him close like i'm suppose to be, something spoke to me.

Robert
09-23-2008, 04:57 AM
I am seriously going to hack you to pieces on your birthday.

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 05:02 AM
?

What?

Robert
09-23-2008, 05:13 AM
Good bye Horses, we're flying over you!

Longbongcilvaringz
09-23-2008, 05:17 AM
I have been testing Heeley's Cuir Pleine Fleur (fine leather) and it was a very pleasant surprise. Powder-clean/soft leather that moves to a more dominant accord of vetiver. All the notes I mentioned were easy to identify though they also played well together. Kinda reminds me of the smoothest part of Grey Flannel's drydown but with a leather accord from the begining and with a little powder (or maybe hay?).

I'm cautious as to powder scents on my skin (it's a softness I would rather enjoy from other people) but I feel it's a rather interesting close-to-skin and natural scent when done well. I'm interested in exploring more natural of-the-skin smelling scents now in terms of leather and musk notes. Suggestions anyone?

Though I pulled back from gourmands earlier as never being able to achieve a natural of-the-skin scent... I want to retract that because I think Lolita Lempicka au Masculin's drydown was super natural and though it has a bit of sweetness, it really felt natural as a pleasant skin scent.

CherChezLaMarauder
09-23-2008, 12:49 PM
you call a man beautiful and you might as well put your asshole up for sale.

SKAMPOE
09-23-2008, 01:41 PM
you call a man beautiful and you might as well put your asshole up for sale.
exactly my fuckin point!



pat bateman is a fuckin homosexual! rly!

neg rep me all u want u fuckin fruit!


Back Rapeman!

TheWolf
09-23-2008, 01:44 PM
Robert's mad cos Pat gets the top bunk.

Robert
09-23-2008, 10:30 PM
Robert's mad cos Pat gets the top bunk.

Interesting take on the matter.

A few problems: I no longer live with Mr. Bateman (this is probably the central pillar of my argument to "debunk" yours) and it would be me on the top bunk if we ever were forced to endure such an archaic sleeping arrangement.

But yes you were right, I am furious.

STYLE
09-23-2008, 10:47 PM
pat you would be a supreme OZ gawd if you were to bring Al Wissam (http://www.alwissam.com/) down unda.

i know the cat personally. Detroit Native. Stylemaster Clothing Customer

possibly a custom pattern? an oxblood butta soft bateman ghettoriffic design? ohhh shit.







what is beauty?

interesting study: http://www.viewzone.com/faces.html

"Experiments designed to measure attractiveness usually involve showing a series of images of human faces and asking subjects to rate their visual appeal.

Surprisingly, people from a variety of different ages, races and cultures agree on what is and isn't beautiful. Babies as young as 3 months can identify and prefer faces that most adults would deem beautiful.

Europeans can pick out the same beautiful Japanese faces as Japanese subjects; Japanese can agree on which European faces another Europeans will view as beautiful.

In fact, humans can even agree on the attractiveness of monkey faces, thus ruling out most unique racial, cultural and even species influences."

Attractiveness - a summary of facts
Attractive people earn more salary and get more promotions than average looking people.
One main feature that is indicative of healthy genetics is the symmetry of the face.
Recognition of beauty fosters better mate selection and healthier breeding.
Beautiful people usually associate with other beautiful people.
Beautiful people prefer date people who are a little more attractive than themselves.
Beautiful people and less beautiful people judge beauty in the same way, although less beautiful people often consider other factors as equally important.
People consider facial characteristics similar to their parents to be more attractive.
Members of a family or relations judge facial characteristics as implying personality traits in the same way.
Studies find couples often resemble eachother in facial characteristics.
Attractive people are viewed as honest and helpful while unattractive people are viewed as rude and unfair.
Women find a man more attractive in experiments when other women are pictured smiling at him.
Females find extremely masculine faces more attractive during their fertile periods.
Studies find less attractive men are more faithful and loving than handsome men.
Women looking for a mate like small eyes, a big nose and a large jaw.
Males in experiments prefer facial ratios similar to a woman of 24.8 years old.
The ideal figure of a woman is a waist to hip ratio of 0.67 to 0.80
intersting stuff they also have found correlations between facial symmetry and resistance to desiease and infection....

Killa BB
09-23-2008, 10:51 PM
*Raises Hand* I can! I can find beauty in a man!... *Gets boo'd off the stage*

Dokuro
09-23-2008, 11:31 PM
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

Longbongcilvaringz
09-24-2008, 03:28 AM
pat you would be a supreme OZ gawd if you were to bring Al Wissam (http://www.alwissam.com/) down unda.

i know the cat personally. Detroit Native. Stylemaster Clothing Customer

possibly a custom pattern? an oxblood butta soft bateman ghettoriffic design? ohhh shit.







what is beauty?

interesting study: http://www.viewzone.com/faces.html

"Experiments designed to measure attractiveness usually involve showing a series of images of human faces and asking subjects to rate their visual appeal.

Surprisingly, people from a variety of different ages, races and cultures agree on what is and isn't beautiful. Babies as young as 3 months can identify and prefer faces that most adults would deem beautiful.

Europeans can pick out the same beautiful Japanese faces as Japanese subjects; Japanese can agree on which European faces another Europeans will view as beautiful.

In fact, humans can even agree on the attractiveness of monkey faces, thus ruling out most unique racial, cultural and even species influences."

Attractiveness - a summary of facts
Attractive people earn more salary and get more promotions than average looking people.
One main feature that is indicative of healthy genetics is the symmetry of the face.
Recognition of beauty fosters better mate selection and healthier breeding.
Beautiful people usually associate with other beautiful people.
Beautiful people prefer date people who are a little more attractive than themselves.
Beautiful people and less beautiful people judge beauty in the same way, although less beautiful people often consider other factors as equally important.
People consider facial characteristics similar to their parents to be more attractive.
Members of a family or relations judge facial characteristics as implying personality traits in the same way.
Studies find couples often resemble eachother in facial characteristics.
Attractive people are viewed as honest and helpful while unattractive people are viewed as rude and unfair.
Women find a man more attractive in experiments when other women are pictured smiling at him.
Females find extremely masculine faces more attractive during their fertile periods.
Studies find less attractive men are more faithful and loving than handsome men.
Women looking for a mate like small eyes, a big nose and a large jaw.
Males in experiments prefer facial ratios similar to a woman of 24.8 years old.
The ideal figure of a woman is a waist to hip ratio of 0.67 to 0.80
intersting stuff they also have found correlations between facial symmetry and resistance to desiease and infection....

Al Wissam isn't my style

Not saying it's not anyone's style, i just wouldnt pull it off.

And yeah, i guess beauty does come down to selecting a genetically superior partner.

Opposites attract = Mixture of genes = Stronger Super Humans.

diggy
05-18-2009, 07:41 PM
Pat, are you asking (in an indirect way) if others on this site are gay?

Why do you care if a man sees beauty in another man?

SickT
05-18-2009, 08:41 PM
Pat, are you asking (in an indirect way) if others on this site are gay?

Why do you care if a man sees beauty in another man?

why do you care about his sexuality?

TheBoarzHeadBoy
05-18-2009, 08:56 PM
Sure a man can be beautiful.

Ain't nothing wrong with getting you dick sucked. Its only gay to suck another mans dick...

Prison Rules...

[The preceding message was a joke brought to you by Homophobes Anonymous]

Dokuro
05-18-2009, 09:04 PM
nope

Man they exist only to war with each other they fight not to live but to satisfy their own greed, there avarice knows no bounds. Men have sinned they should be tried and punished for their crimes.
With in us burns the woe of all life stifled the limitations of all that might have been but for man.
Within us sounds the lands agonized cry it suffered wrought by the hands of man.
Within us flows the power of all men’s wrongs a power born of man to be the death of man.
Though he receives lights judgment he continues along the path toward his own undoing men is a fool and so shall he parish

oDoUoSoKo
05-18-2009, 09:27 PM
Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.

Dokuro
05-18-2009, 09:34 PM
^^ahahahahahhaahahahahaahahah you have ernd my respect

but remember the one sppeking in yours is a monkey mine is a plant

SKAMPOE
05-18-2009, 09:42 PM
Pat, are you asking (in an indirect way) if others on this site are gay?

Why do you care if a man sees beauty in another man?
rapeman is a fag man, watxh out or he'll rapeyabak
^^ahahahahahhaahahahahaahahah you have ernd my respect

but remember the one sppeking in yours is a monkey mine is a plant
hhaha

PuNcH_iN_PuNcH_OuT
05-18-2009, 10:10 PM
burn all fags kill all fags

fags fags fags

oDoUoSoKo
05-18-2009, 10:11 PM
are your serious^^

PuNcH_iN_PuNcH_OuT
05-18-2009, 10:16 PM
no

SHRAP
05-18-2009, 10:36 PM
man i guess that would depend on what your definition of beauty is. of course god is beautiful but beauty in another man, nope. respect yes but definitely not beauty

Dokuro
05-18-2009, 11:16 PM
you know what i find beautifal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_beirut_destruction/img/1.jpg


In mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics), the Poincaré conjecture (French, pronounced [pwɛ̃kaʀe] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-0) is a theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem) about the characterization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characterization_(mathematics)) of the three-dimensional sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere) among three-dimensional manifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-manifold). It began as a popular, important conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture), but is now considered a theorem to the satisfaction of the awarders of the Fields medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_medal). The claim concerns a space that locally looks like ordinary three dimensional space but is connected, finite in size, and lacks any boundary (a closed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_manifold) 3-manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-manifold)). The Poincaré conjecture claims that if such a space has the additional property that each loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_(topology)) in the space can be continuously tightened to a point, then it is just a three-dimensional sphere. An analogous result has been known in higher dimensions for some time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/P1S2all.jpg/400px-P1S2all.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P1S2all.jpg) [/URL]
For closed 2 dimensional surfaces, if every loop can be continuously tightened to a point, then the surface is a 2-sphere. The Poincaré conjecture attempts to determine if the same is true for closed 3-dimensional spaces.


After nearly a century of effort by mathematicians, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman"]Grigori Perelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P1S2all.jpg) sketched a proof of the conjecture in a series of papers made available in 2002 and 2003. The proof followed the program of Richard Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_(professor)). Several high-profile teams of mathematicians have since verified the correctness of Perelman's proof.
The Poincaré conjecture was, before being proven, one of the most important open questions in topology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology). It is one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems), for which the Clay Mathematics Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Mathematics_Institute) offered a $1,000,000 prize for the first correct solution. Perelman's work survived review and was confirmed in 2006, leading to him being offered a Fields Medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal), which he declined. The Poincaré conjecture remains the only solved Millennium problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_problem).
On December 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_22), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the journal Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)) honored Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture as the scientific "Breakthrough of the Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_of_the_Year)," the first time this had been bestowed in the area of mathematics.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-science-1)
Millennium Prize Problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems)P versus NP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP_problem)The Hodge conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_conjecture)The Poincaré conjectureThe Riemann hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis)Yang–Mills existence and mass gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang%E2%80%93Mills_existence_and_mass_gap)Navier–S tokes existence and smoothness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness)The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_and_Swinnerton-Dyer_conjecture)Contents

[hide (javascript:toggleToc())]
<LI class=toclevel-1>1 History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#History)
<LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 Poincaré's question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#Poincar.C3.A9.27s_questio n) <LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 In other dimensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#In_other_dimensions) <LI class=toclevel-2>1.3 Attempted solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#Attempted_solutions)
1.4 Hamilton's program and Perelman's solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#Hamilton.27s_program_and_ Perelman.27s_solution)
<LI class=toclevel-1>2 Ricci flow with surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#Ricci_flow_with_surgery) <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#Notes)
4 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#External_links)


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=1)] History


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=2)] Poincaré's question

At the beginning of the 20th century, Henri Poincaré (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9) was working on the foundations of topology — what would later be called combinatorial topology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_topology) and then algebraic topology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_topology). He was particularly interested in what topological properties characterized a sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere).
Poincaré claimed in 1900 that homology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(mathematics)), a tool he had devised based on prior work by Enrico Betti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Betti), was sufficient to tell if a 3-manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-manifold) was a 3-sphere. However, in a 1904 paper he described a counterexample to this claim, a space now called the Poincaré homology sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_homology_sphere). The Poincaré sphere was the first example of a homology sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_sphere), a manifold that had the same homology as a sphere, of which many others have since been constructed. To establish that the Poincaré sphere was different from the 3-sphere, Poincaré introduced a new topological invariant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_invariant), the fundamental group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_group), and showed that the Poincaré sphere had a fundamental group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_group) of order 120, while the 3-sphere had a trivial fundamental group. In this way he was able to conclude that these two spaces were, indeed, different.
In the same paper, Poincaré wondered whether a 3-manifold with the homology of a 3-sphere and also trivial fundamental group had to be a 3-sphere. Poincaré's new condition - i.e., "trivial fundamental group" - can be phrased as "every loop can be shrunk to a point."
The original phrasing was as follows:
Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?
Poincaré never declared whether he believed this additional condition would characterize the 3-sphere, but nonetheless, the statement that it does is known as the Poincaré conjecture. Here is the standard form of the conjecture:
Every simply connected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simply_connected), closed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_manifold) 3-manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold) is homeomorphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphism) to the 3-sphere.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=3)] In other dimensions

Main article: Generalized Poincaré conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture)
The classification of closed surfaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface#Classification_of_closed_surfaces) gives an affirmative answer to the analogous question in two dimensions. For dimensions greater than three, one can pose the Generalized Poincaré conjecture: is a homotopy n-sphere homeomorphic to the n-sphere? The stronger assumption is necessary; in dimensions four and higher there are simply-connected manifolds which are not homeomorphic to an n-sphere.
Historically, while the conjecture in dimension three seemed plausible, the generalized conjecture was thought to be false. In 1961 Stephen Smale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Smale) shocked mathematicians by proving the Generalized Poincaré conjecture for dimensions greater than four and extended his techniques to prove the fundamental h-cobordism theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-cobordism_theorem). In 1982 Michael Freedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Freedman) proved the Poincaré conjecture in dimension four. Freedman's work left open the possibility that there is a smooth four-manifold homeomorphic to the four-sphere which is not diffeomorphic to the four-sphere. This so-called smooth Poincare conjecture, in dimension four, remains open and is thought to be very difficult. Milnor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milnor)'s exotic spheres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_sphere) show that the smooth Poincare conjecture is false in dimension seven, for example.
These earlier successes in higher dimensions left the case of three dimensions in limbo. The Poincaré conjecture was essentially true in both dimension four and all higher dimensions for substantially different reasons. In dimension three, the conjecture had an uncertain reputation until the geometrization conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrization_conjecture) put it into a framework governing all 3-manifolds. John Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morgan_(mathematician)) wrote:[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-2)
"It is my view that before Thurston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thurston)'s work on hyperbolic 3-manifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_3-manifold) and . . . the Geometrization conjecture there was no consensus among the experts as to whether the Poincaré conjecture was true or false. After Thurston's work, notwithstanding the fact that it had no direct bearing on the Poincaré conjecture, a consensus developed that the Poincaré conjecture (and the Geometrization conjecture) were true."

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=4)] Attempted solutions

This problem seems to have lain dormant for a time, until J. H. C. Whitehead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._H._C._Whitehead) revived interest in the conjecture, when in the 1930s he first claimed a proof, and then retracted it. In the process, he discovered some interesting examples of simply connected non-compact 3-manifolds not homeomorphic to R3, the prototype of which is now called the Whitehead manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead_manifold).
In the 1950s and 1960s, other mathematicians were to claim proofs only to discover a flaw. Influential mathematicians such as Bing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RH_Bing), Haken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Haken), Moise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_E._Moise), and Papakyriakopoulos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christos_Papakyriakopoulos) attacked the conjecture. In 1958 Bing proved a weak version of the Poincaré conjecture: if every simple closed curve of a compact 3-manifold is contained in a 3-ball, then the manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-3) Bing also described some of the pitfalls in trying to prove the Poincaré conjecture.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-4)
Over time, the conjecture gained the reputation of being particularly tricky to tackle. John Milnor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._W._Milnor) commented that sometimes the errors in false proofs can be "rather subtle and difficult to detect."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-5) Work on the conjecture improved understanding of 3-manifolds. Experts in the field were often reluctant to announce proofs, and tended to view any such announcement with skepticism. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed some well-publicized fallacious proofs (which were not actually published in peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review) form).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-7)
An exposition of attempts to prove this conjecture can be found in the non-technical book "Poincaré's Prize" by George Szpiro.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=5)] Hamilton's program and Perelman's solution

Main article: Solution of the Poincaré conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_of_the_Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture)
Hamilton's program was started in his 1982 paper in which he introduced the Ricci flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_flow) on a manifold and showed how to use it to prove some special cases of the Poincaré conjecture.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-8) In the following years he extended this work, but was unable to prove the conjecture. The actual solution wasn't found until Grigori Perelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman) of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steklov_Institute_of_Mathematics), Saint Petersburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg) published his papers using ideas from Hamilton's work.
In late 2002 and 2003 Perelman posted three papers on the arXiv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-11) In these papers he sketched a proof of the Poincaré conjecture and a more general conjecture, Thurston's geometrization conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston%27s_geometrization_conjecture), completing the Ricci flow program outlined earlier by Richard Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_(professor)).
From May to July 2006, several groups presented papers that filled in the details of Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture, as follows:

Bruce Kleiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Kleiner) and John W. Lott posted a paper on the arXiv in May 2006 which filled in the details of Perelman's proof of the geometrization conjecture.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-12)
Huai-Dong Cao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huai-Dong_Cao) and Xi-Ping Zhu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi-Ping_Zhu) published a paper in the June 2006 issue of the Asian Journal of Mathematics giving a complete proof of the Poincaré and geometrization conjectures, in which they used some earlier work by Kleiner and Lott.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-13)
John Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Morgan_(mathematician)) and Gang Tian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_Tian) posted a paper on the arXiv in July 2006 which gave a detailed proof of just the Poincaré Conjecture (which is somewhat easier than the full geometrization conjecture)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-14) and expanded this to a book.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-15)
All three groups found that the gaps in Perelman's papers were minor and could be filled in using his own techniques.
On August 22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_22), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the ICM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Congress_of_Mathematicians) awarded Perelman the Fields Medal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal) for his work on the conjecture, but Perelman refused the medal.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-18) John Morgan spoke at the ICM on the Poincaré conjecture on August 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_24), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), declaring that "in 2003, Perelman solved the Poincaré Conjecture."[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-19)
The August 2006 issue of The New Yorker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker) contains an article, titled "Manifold Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_Destiny)", that details some of the issues surrounding Perelman's accomplishment, particularly some disagreements that arose between the mathematicians responsible for verifying his proof.
The proof was called the "Breakthrough of the year" by Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)) magazine.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-science-1)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&action=edit&section=6)] Ricci flow with surgery

Main article: Ricci flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_flow)
Hamilton's program for proving the Poincaré conjecture involves first putting a Riemannian metric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_metric) on the unknown simply connected closed 3-manifold. The idea is to try to improve this metric; for example, if the metric can be improved enough so that it has constant curvature, then it must be the 3-sphere. The metric is improved using the Ricci flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_flow) equations;
where g is the metric and R its Ricci curvature, and one hopes that as the time t increases the manifold becomes easier to understand. Ricci flow expands the negative curvature part of the manifold and contracts the positive curvature part.
In some cases Hamilton was able to show that this works; for example, if the manifold has positive Ricci curvature everywhere he showed that the manifold becomes extinct in finite time under Ricci flow without any other singularities. (In other words, the manifold collapses to a point in finite time; it is easy to describe the structure just before the manifold collapses.) This easily implies the Poincaré conjecture in the case of positive Ricci curvature. However in general the Ricci flow equations lead to singularities of the metric after a finite time. Perelman showed how to continue past these singularities: very roughly, he cuts the manifold along the singularities, splitting the manifold into several pieces, and then continues with the Ricci flow on each of these pieces. This procedure is known as Ricci flow with surgery.
A special case of Perelman's theorems about Ricci flow with surgery is given as follows.
The Ricci flow with surgery on a closed oriented 3-manifold is well defined for all time. If the fundamental group is a free product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_product) of finite groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_group) and cyclic groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_group) then the Ricci flow with surgery becomes extinct in finite time, and at all times all components of the manifold are connected sums of S2 bundles over S1 and quotients of S3.
This result implies the Poincaré conjecture because it is easy to check it for the possible manifolds listed in the conclusion.
The condition on the fundamental group turns out to be necessary (and sufficient) for finite time extinction, and in particular includes the case of trivial fundamental group. It is equivalent to saying that the prime decomposition of the manifold has no acyclic components, and turns out to be equivalent to the condition that all geometric pieces of the manifold have geometries based on the two Thurston geometries S2×R and S3. By studying the limit of the manifold for large time, Perelman proved Thurston's geometrization conjecture for any fundamental group: at large times the manifold has a thick-thin decomposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thick-thin_decomposition&action=edit&redlink=1), whose thick piece has a hyperbolic structure, and whose thin piece is a graph manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_manifold), but this extra complication is not necessary for proving just the Poincaré conjecture.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture#cite_note-20)





and of couse semetrix