Helping out your ratio while simultaneously pointing out that if you don't want to objectify your partner, "There is no one more erotic, nor beautiful than my partners face as she orgasms." Would be the better way to phrase this... If she happens to like being objectified (a known kink) then forget I said anything and carry on! — MSC

I think that's how object-oriented programming took initial shape. A bunch of sexually frustrated programmers who objectify sexual objects into objects to sub for partners in their abject lack of finding a suitable subject being a reject, etc etc etc, I'll leave it to you to fill out the rest.

I think that's how object-oriented programming took initial shape. A bunch of sexually frustrated programmers who objectify sexual objects into objects to sub for partners in their abject lack of finding a suitable subject being a reject, etc etc etc, I'll leave it to you to fill out the rest. — god must be atheist

Hahahaha! That made me laugh :') explains all the female armour in almost every video game. Metal bikinis and shit.

Your phrasing would suggest that the face is a person. The partner is a “one”, but her face is a “thing”.

There is nothing more erotic, nor beautiful, than my partner's face as she orgasms. — Banno

Obviously you've never seen @Baden at just the right moment in just the right light.

↪MSC Your phrasing would suggest that the face is a person. The partner is a “one”, but her face is a “thing”. — Pfhorrest

"One" as in the god-thread? Or one as in one person at a time? Single line, no pushing. While in the line.

↪MSC Your phrasing would suggest that the face is a person. The partner is a “one”, but her face is a “thing”. — Pfhorrest

My genius friend Paul S. came up to me one day, and asked me, "Is the sum of a woman better than her whole?"

Like the One, a whole is useless by itself.

I actually sent that video to everyone. Don't be jelly.

"One" as in the god-thread? — god must be atheist

No, as in someONE vs someTHING, which is the change they made.

A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING.

A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING. — Pfhorrest

I know. I was merely playing.

A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING. — Pfhorrest

I know. I was merely playing.

Hmm. 1.01

A. One's comments
1. Good (reasonable/knowledegable/insightful) (G)
2. Bad (unreasonable/ignorant/irrelevant) (B)

B. Being mentioned
3. Approving good comments (A)
4. Disapproving bad comments (D)

$\frac{Mentions}{Comments} = \frac{G + B}{A + D}$

The ratio doesn't reflect how valuable a member is to the forum (small G, large B & small A, D $\leq$ G, as when you're ignored, would mean a ratio $\geq$ 1).