View Full Version : (Humor and Satire) Political correctness is unsexy - it's biology
First a crash course - the science of sexual attraction boils down to body language and interaction style (looks matter as well, but they're not the 'be all end all' that they're made out to be in the media). Sexual attraction occurs by highlighting the sexual differences between male and female, while it is decreased by hiding or minimizing the differences - this is why no guy fantasizes about women with beards, and why women don't fantasizes about men with boob jobs.
(This is true in animals of every species, homo sapien included - like it or not humans are apes and we have our basic genetic traits hardwired into us from millions of years of evolutionary development - "The Definitive Book of Body Language" explains some of these things in good layman's terms for anyone interested in further reading).
The PC mindset on the other hand, is about out ignoring biologically established differences (even when they're true) just to avoid 'offending' people. So essentially the PC mindset is just encouraging you to be unsexy - woah :eek:
So dudes, if you have lady troubles and can't understand why because in your mind you're such a "nice guy", well PC indoctrination may be to blame - women need a man, not boring unisexual drone, especially one who's ashamed of his own junk just because "women have historically been more oppressed... or something". :cool:
You're welcome.
So your point is? Who is this rant aimed for?
So your point is? Who is this rant aimed for?
Point is the internet, and it's a great place for ranting and saying whatever you want about diverse subjects of interest, including ones that aren't exactly conversation you'd have with a couple of bros over cheap draft beers - it's aimed for anyone who's interested in how humans work and who enjoys intellectual subject matter
That's why I'm framing it as satirical - don't feel the need to get bogged down with an overly serious debate - especially given how unpopular 'arguing' is this side of the net.
Why'd you ask. Did you think it was referring to you or something?
Frightened Inmate No. 2
03-14-15, 02:15 AM
wow, this thread is sexist, homophobic, AND transphobic. you're so politically incorrect, you must be great with the ladies.
Iroquois
03-14-15, 04:32 AM
wow, this thread is sexist, homophobic, AND transphobic. you're so politically incorrect, you must be great with the ladies.
That's without mentioning the toxic concepts of masculinity, the appealing to science as if it is somehow incompatible with political correctness and last but not least the need to frame it as "satire" as if to deflect any possible counter-arguments by saying "hey, I was just joking, you people are silly for taking me seriously".
bluedeed
03-14-15, 04:36 AM
BANNED
christine
03-14-15, 06:06 AM
Seriously . Don't think you're getting the rise out of women on this board cos I think by now we've seen enough. Not worth the effort.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 07:24 AM
Actually this is an interesting subject.
PC and also society and law in general Vs Biology.
People who say killing an animal is cruel.
I got so much sh*t from a number of people when I mentioned I went rabbiting at weekends on nearby airfields for the M.O.D.
I also got a ton of grief when I had to kill the Cockatiel I had when she fell extremely ill.
Yet these people will gladly sit and eat a cruelly raised battery chicken or a slaughterhouse slab of beef.
The other thing with PC and law is that they want to change us from what we're not. Humans are killers.
For generations we fought to get to the top of the food chain. Now we're here, and law and PC are declared, it says we can't do that anymore.
Good job PC wasn't declared 5000 years ago, or 50000 years ago. If it had been, we'd all still be living in caves getting eaten by sabre-toothed tigers.
The fact is, there are differences between men and women. It's biological fact.
There are differences between blacks, Asians and whites. Again, it's a biological thing.
Law and PC doesn't want us to acknowledge that though.
They want us to shut up and "stop being sexist and racist". It's neither. It's biology.
wow, this thread is sexist, homophobic, AND transphobic.
So it's factually correct? ;) Awesome.
you're so politically incorrect, you must be great with the ladies.
Bro if you could get even laid at a Nevada Brothel with $300,000 cash in your pocket - I'd be very surprised.
Say what but girls go for guys like James Bond, Nikki Sixx, Jax Teller, etc
Not by bitter and pretentious "males" using decidedly unsexy phrases like "transphobic" on the internet in a vein, patronizing attempt to appear relevant (outside of a Socialist Workers movement rally).
Not that I'm referring to anyone in specific here - I'm just sayin'.
Seriously . Don't think you're getting the rise out of women on this board
Scientific facts shouldn't give a "rise" out of anyone - this isn't "Answers in Genesis" of course.
But apparently some think that science is too politically incorrect to state in public - much like a fan of Kent Hovind apparently thinks science is "anti-Christian" c'este la vie
cos I think by now we've seen enough. Not worth the effort.
Who's "we", You and your multiple personalities? ;) Why do you think you speak for 'women' when the majority of women would agree you're just putting a burr up your bum for no reason?
NatashaR
03-14-15, 08:05 AM
Guys if you wanna be successful with the ladies recent studies show that you need to be either a lumbersexual or a psycho billionaire who likes to beat women :p The rest of you are doomed to be forever alone
Guys if you wanna be successful with the ladies recent studies show that you need to be either a lumbersexual or a psycho billionaire who likes to beat women :p
That was probably a joke, but that's factually incorrect. Women are attracted to dominant, assertive behavior (which is totally unrelated to arrogant or abusive behavior) - and men with prestige are considered the ones most desired by women on the whole
While some women might stay with an abusive guy - it's because these are damaged women who likely grew up with abusive men in her life (ex. fathers, exes, etc) and this is all she knows - and they're not the majority of women by a longshot.
That's also a rather sexist thing to say - it's basically dumbing women down to the lowest common denominator just so some dork can feel 'validated' in the fact that he just sucks with women.
The rest of you are doomed to be forever alone
That's just something that guys who suck with women and don't want to self-improve say to feel "validated"
Just like the lazy employee who says he never gets the raise because he isn't "blowing the boss's c-" - when it's really because he's just a lazy employee who's got nothing to offer the company.
Actually this is an interesting subject.
PC and also society and law in general Vs Biology.
People who say killing an animal is cruel.
I got so much sh*t from a number of people when I mentioned I went rabbiting at weekends on nearby airfields for the M.O.D.
I also got a ton of grief when I had to kill the Cockatiel I had when she fell extremely ill.
Yet these people will gladly sit and eat a cruelly raised battery chicken or a slaughterhouse slab of beef.
I agree with you there man - I can't stand those people.at all - even the PETA fanatics I respect more since veganism is at least consistent..
But the pretentious fools who spend their time posting their rage about a 'dead lion or tiger' on the net, while muching on a Big Mac with their other hand - they can just bend themselves. To me that's basically the 'animal rights' equivalent of racial supremacy (ex. caring about 'beautiful white children' but not 'ugly black children' a la KKK), since you're just saying that some animals have more value than others based on how "cool" they look..
---
I think Hitler should've just put people like this in one of the ovens - along with the Jewish women, the ********, and the trannies, and we'd be better off (JK ;) )
The other thing with PC and law is that they want to change us from what we're not. Humans are killers.
For generations we fought to get to the top of the food chain. Now we're here, and law and PC are declared, it says we can't do that anymore.
Good job PC wasn't declared 5000 years ago, or 50000 years ago. If it had been, we'd all still be living in caves getting eaten by sabre-toothed tigers.
The fact is, there are differences between men and women. It's biological fact.
There are differences between blacks, Asians and whites. Again, it's a biological thing.
Law and PC doesn't want us to acknowledge that though.
They want us to shut up and "stop being sexist and racist". It's neither. It's biology.
Well said.
The fringe of the PC movement really aren't a far-cry from nuts like Kent Hovind who don't want evolution taught in schools because it's supposedly "anti-Christian".
Truth is some things may not be politically correct (or religiously correct) even when they're factually correct.
NatashaR
03-14-15, 08:37 AM
Haha of course I was kidding
Women are attracted to dominant, assertive behavior - and men with prestige are considered the ones most desired by women on the whole
This is actually true because those traits are characteristic for successful people.. and successful people often show that they are confident and have a certain charisma which are attractive qualities. However I find it interesting that a lot of men in high powered positions like dominant women.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 08:42 AM
Unoriginal and (extremely) oversimplified generalizations like this are never really interesting or refreshing, in my opinion.
Even if it's supposed to be humor.
That's without mentioning the toxic concepts of masculinity,
Pretty much every study shows that maintaining a strong T level is necessary for men to be their healthiest. (The PC mindset however is about becoming easy 'offended' over things, even when true - this generates cortisol - a horome counteractive to testosterone). :)
Ao no it's not "toxic", it simply based on our biological needs hardwired into us - sorry to say but I see very if any exceptions to this rule. Some guys who don't know how to be men just say it is, but that's just so they can feel validated. Biologically it's not true.
Just because we've advanced socially from the days of "women belong in the kitchen", and compulsory military service for males; doesn't mean the route drives which developed over millions of years suddenly disappeared. Sorry ;) I'm glad we're not the collectivist society we once were that tried to "force" people into certain professions just based on their sex.
At the same time the biological differences and drives are just as distinct and biologically routed as the differences between a cow and a bull, a ram and a sheep, etc - the nonsensical attempt at pretending that "we're exactly the same" even when it contradicts science and statistics needs to stop.
the appealing to science as if it is somehow incompatible with political correctness
Based on individuals like FINO2's expressed aversion to science, I'd say it isn't compatible.
but not least the need to frame it as "satire" as if to deflect any possible counter-arguments by saying "hey, I was just joking, you people are silly for taking me seriously".
It was satire a la Bill Maher or Dennis Miller but had a serious point - I framed it as satire to avoid giving it becoming overly serious, like the 50 Shades of Grey thread.
Feel free to list your counter arguments while I debunk them with science - seeing as you couldn't list a single source in our previous debate to the several I quoted I doubt this would last long, lol
Unoriginal and (extremely) oversimplified generalizations like this are never really interesting or refreshing, in my opinion.
Even if it's supposed to be humor.
I listed a book as a reference for people who want to read in more depth - there are lots of deep and interesting books that can't be squeezed into one post.
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-14-15, 09:12 AM
this is why no guy fantasizes about women with beards
Speak for yourself.;)
Iroquois
03-14-15, 09:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hx1nXe41A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hx1nXe41A
I've dropped deuces more manly than "Anchorman" - and I'm not exactly Vin Diesel either
If you're going to derail the thread and make fun of science a la Answers in Genesis though, you could've at least posted a Ron Swanson video - those are actually funny.
Speak for yourself.;)
Fetishists don't count - if you look hard enough you and probably find someone somewhere who's turned on by dead, homosexual cow fetuses... with beards
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 09:22 AM
I listed a book as a reference for people who want to read in more depth - there are lots of deep and interesting books that can't be squeezed into one post.
The message you're preaching is one-dimensional. I don't care how many books you list. You can't just generalize what "women" or "men" find attractive and what you especially can't do, is reduce it to some kind of primitive instinct. Attractiveness is multi-faceted and individual.
First of all, your post already excludes 5-10% of the people who are LGBT or at least have same-sex preferences (which is why Frightened Inmate chose to post those "unsexy phrases").
Second of all, you should check out some statistics about what kind of behavior women or men find attractive. There are character traits that are widely popular, but there are also things that women/men are very split about.
Political correctness can be taken too far for sure, but I think the typical approach to "sexiness" (which is well established in the teen male internet community) that you're talking about in your post is more a product of male insecurity and the will to find an answer (a key) to "what women want" than it is something that actually has any real value.
Iroquois
03-14-15, 09:35 AM
I've dropped deuces more manly than "Anchorman" - and I'm not exactly Vin Diesel either
If you're going to derail the thread and make fun of science a la Answers in Genesis though, you could've at least posted a Ron Swanson video - those are actually funny.
The reason I posted that particular exchange from Anchorman is that it satirises the worldview that science can unquestionably justify politically incorrect attitudes, especially since the context shows that Ron is clearly in the wrong when he delivers that line. I don't have nearly enough knowledge of Parks and Recreation to post a Ron Swanson video, so I don't.
The message you're preaching is one-dimensional. I don't care how many books you list. You can't just generalize what "women" or "men" find attractive and what you especially can't do, is reduce it to some kind of primitive instinct.
Yes you really can - it's not politically correct, but it's scientific fact that the routes of biological attraction are very simple and hardwired - one has to keep in mind that humans are apes, and despite our developed minds, our instincts have been in development for millions of years longers.
Attraction obviously doesn't refer to the more complex dynamics of actual human relationships however. However attraction is basically what 'inspires' people to get to know each other and form relationship bonds.
Attractiveness is multi-faceted and individual.
On the whole, there's very little individual variation compared to the basic biological similarities - however again actual relationship dynamics are more complicated (ex. attraction to a personality is separate from physical attraction). But understanding the basic attraction types is good for developing a stronger understanding - especially since this is a subject that the average Joe has no formal knowledge of whatsoever other than personal experience.
First of all, your post already excludes 5-10% of the people who are LGBT or at least have same-sex preferences
I've heard it more along the lines of 3-5% - but in their case it's because they developed differently due to genetics and influences in the womb environment - people don't just "choose to be gay" like it's some personal preference. So that's apples to oranges.
(which is why Frightened Inmate chose to post those "unsexy phrases").
I'd love to see him do that at a bar or any actual social situation and record the reactions he gets from the ladies, lol (this isn't the first thread where he's shown up with an angry and pretentious comment and nothing else to say, which is why I'm being shown harsh on him)
Second of all, you should check out some statistics about what kind of behavior women or men find attractive. There are character traits that are widely popular, but there are also things that women/men are very split about.
The basic concepts are fairly universal - anything more complicated than that (ex. what hair color 'attracts women' the most) is a lot more variant, and is pretty pointless to get caught up in anyway.
Think of it this way - every car buyer wants a functioning car - no one wants to buy a car which doesn't function properly - however personal preferences (such as paint job, accessories, etc) is much more diverse.
Political correctness can be taken too far for sure, but I think the typical approach to "sexiness" (which is well established in the teen male internet community) that you're talking about in your post
That's not what I'm talking about - minus a few humorous quips I'm talking about the basic biological routes.
is more a product of male insecurity and the will to find an answer (a key) to "what women want" than it is something that actually has any real value.
Most of the 'teen' advice you're talking about centers on superfluous and trendy thing such as "what clothing brand do women find the sexiest" rather than the actual biological components I'm talking about - and is pretty pointless - much like worrying about finding the 'perfect paint job' for your car when the engine isn't even functioning.
Haha of course I was kidding
.
Thanks, I'm embarrased that I took that seriously when you meant it as a joke
I have actually run into poor SOBs who really think that way, so on the internet it's sometimes hard to tell - lol :)
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 11:07 AM
Do you mean "roots" when you say "routes" or am I wrong?
Anyway, I'll respond to the parts I disagree with.
Yes you really can - it's not politically correct, but it's scientific fact that the routes of biological attraction are very simple and hardwired - one has to keep in mind that humans are apes, and despite our developed minds, our instincts have been in development for millions of years longers.
They may be simple and hardwired, but over the years they've also become more diversified.
It's not scientific fact that everyone has the same impulses regarding (behavioral) attraction, which is what you are trying to insinuate.
On the whole, there's very little individual variation compared to the basic biological similarities - however again actual relationship dynamics are more complicated (ex. attraction to a personality is separate from physical attraction). But understanding the basic attraction types is good for developing a stronger understanding - especially since this is a subject that the average Joe has no formal knowledge of whatsoever other than personal experience.
You were talking about behavioral aspects of attractiveness all along, right? Your first post talks about behavior, so I assumed we were only talking about that.
My point is that there is plenty of variation between what people think is attractive behavior-wise, not physically.
This can be easily demonstrated with surveys that result in statistics about what kind of behavior women think is attractive. Look up some of those surveys (there were some in the books of my psychology and sociology course, but I've sold those after I passed) and you'll see there's more than enough variation to reject your theory that we all share the same preferences.
I've heard it more along the lines of 3-5% - but in their case it's because they developed differently due to genetics and influences in the womb environment - people don't just "choose to be gay" like it's some personal preference. So that's apples to oranges.
Nope, 5-10% is generally accepted as being more correct. It includes the people who merely have minor, but still substantive same-sex preferences.
This part of your post is probably the most stupid one by the way. You're not counting LGBT's because they're genetically different and because they can't choose who they're attracted to, but your whole point is about the biological roots (or routes?) of what people find attractive.
Do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual?
It's not apples and oranges. They all should be taken into account when speaking about what people or specific genders in general find attractive (which is what you were doing in your first post).
I'd love to see him do that at a bar or any actual social situation and record the reactions he gets from the ladies, lol (this isn't the first thread where he's shown up with an angry and pretentious comment and nothing else to say, which is why I'm being shown harsh on him)
Who the hell cares about that? He's not in a bar and again, I think his criticism was valid.
The basic concepts are fairly universal - anything more complicated than that (ex. what hair color 'attracts women' the most) is a lot more variant, and is pretty pointless to get caught up in anyway.
I clearly stated I was talking about behavior, so this response makes no sense.
Most of the 'teen' advice you're talking about centers on superfluous and trendy thing such as "what clothing brand do women find the sexiest" rather than the actual biological components I'm talking about - and is pretty pointless - much like worrying about finding the 'perfect paint job' for your car when the engine isn't even functioning.
No, the "teen" opinion is actually exactly equal to your first post and a "teen" would also compare humans to cars, because they think a simple (but unfortunately badly chosen and not even remotely enlightening) metaphor makes them look smart. ;)
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 11:21 AM
So it's a "scientific fact" that humans are "hard wired" to find these traits attractive...
...Except of course for homosexuals, transexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, fetishists, and just plain people with individual tastes. But those people "don't count" so your theory remains true.
Right. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:32 AM
Stop being Humanist.
So it's a "scientific fact" that humans are "hard wired" to find these traits attractive...
Yes it is. This is true about every species of animal, such as chimpanzees (which share 99% of our DNA) - you're suggesting that humans are the one animal species which the rules of evolutionary biology don't apply to?
...Except of course for homosexuals, bisexuals,
Unless you're saying 'homosexuality is a choice' then this is incorrect. It does still exist in homosexuals though since they developed differently it'd be harder to identify.
But as a random example - there are plenty of gay couples with a 'dominant/submissive' dynamic (ex. a feminine lesbian who looks perfectly straight pared up with a stocky, masculine, crew cut lesbian).
A lesbian who identifies more with men would likely be drawn to feminine women, and vice versa.
So it does exist in homosexuals, it would just be dependent on which gender they identify with more since the stereotypical "feminine gay men/buch lesbians" have brains which developed closer to that of the opposite sex..
transexuals,
Transexuals simply identify as the opposite sex (due to problems in their development which caused them to develop the brain of one sex but the body of the other). However they'd still be drawn to the same universal traits in the sex of their preference; ex. a transexual 'woman' would still be drawn to the masculine traits in men.
pansexuals,
"Pansexual" isn't a term recognized by the APA.
fetishists,
Fetishism is a paraphilia according to the APA. It's not a biological attraction, it's influenced mainly by external factors such as trauma and is considered a dysfunction.
and just plain people with individual tastes.
The popular myth is that this even exists - though this conflicts with scientific fact. People are actually the same far more than they are different at a pure biological level.
The "individual tastes" people are simply minor variances on the basic biological drives. Just like while a Camaro and a Mustang are both different cars with different types of performance - the most basic functions of gasoline powered automobiles are universal; you can't put water in the gas tank of a Camaro just because "all cars are different".
At the most basic level the tastes are much more the same than they are different, and they can't be changed.
Every tiger for example might have individual differences, but the most basic are pretty much universal throughout the species. Tigers which "like eating tofu" for example just don't exist. Humans are 99% chimpanzee, and our basic behavioral traits have been in development since before modern humans even walked the earth - sorry.
Right. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.
"Evolution is a bunch of hooey - there's no way monkeys could just turn into man - plus if monkeys evolved into man, why are monkeys still here?"
:rolleyes:
You know this is what you sound like, right? Apparently you know more than hundreds of scientists who've devoted their life to studying humans and animals; science is bunk just because "everyone seems different to me"?
Wow am I on MovieForum or "Answers in Genesis" forum... sometimes it's hard to tell
It's kind of amusing watching you try to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everyone Who Isn't You, where everyone who disputes something has to be immediately compared to some other type of person you dislike (Jihadists, Creationists, plain old religious people, etc). Like that time you thought Sexy Celebrity (Sexy Celebrity!) was some kind of Christian fundamentalist prude just because he pushed back on something you said.
I'm afraid your categorization of the people of the world is dramatically lacking in the nuance required to explain real human begins.
That's why I'm framing it as satirical - don't feel the need to get bogged down with an overly serious debate - especially given how unpopular 'arguing' is this side of the net.
And yet people willingly argue with you pretty much all the time. Huh.
As has been explained many times, nobody here has a problem with arguing. They have a problem with certain types of arguing. Trying to pretend otherwise is just a psychological defense mechanism to avoid confronting the antisocial manner in which you argue. Sorry if that's blunt.
D
They may be simple and hardwired, but over the years they've also become more diversified.
On a biological level they have not, because it takes a long, long time for development on a biological level to happen. Animals evolved for over millions of years.
It's not scientific fact that everyone has the same impulses regarding (behavioral) attraction, which is what you are trying to insinuate.
On a purely physical level it is - if you're talking about more complicated behavioral dynamics then no, however this type of 'relationship' dynamic is fairly unique to the human species.
You can read about Paul Elkman and his discoveries; the body language in humans and the messages it communicates (even cultures isolated from the rest of the world) was found to be pretty much universal in it's meaning.
You were talking about behavioral aspects of attractiveness all along, right? Your first post talks about behavior, so I assumed we were only talking about that.
The 'behavior' I was referring to essentially boils down to body language and interaction style - anything more unique than that is unrelated.
My point is that there is plenty of variation between what people think is attractive behavior-wise, not physically.
When it comes to body language and interaction style, there isn't.
The problem is you're talking about behavior on a more complex human level (which is a different type of attraction) - while I'm talking about on a level more comprable to chimpanzee mating behavior - on that basic a level it's pretty much universal
This can be easily demonstrated with surveys that result in statistics about what kind of behavior women think is attractive. Look up some of those surveys (there were some in the books of my psychology and sociology course, but I've sold those after I passed) and you'll see there's more than enough variation to reject your theory that we all share the same preferences.
That doesn't reject the theory since it's not referring to what I'm talking about; it's bringing a more complex dynamic into the picture.
Nope, 5-10% is generally accepted as being more correct. It includes the people who merely have minor, but still substantive same-sex preferences.
This part of your post is probably the most stupid one by the way. You're not counting LGBT's because they're genetically different and because they can't choose who they're attracted to, but your whole point is about the biological roots (or routes?) of what people find attractive.
Do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual?
Homsexuals weren't mentioned because obligatorily mentioning them just to be politically correct isn't necessary - and they exist in only a few of the 1000s of species of animals on the planet.
Likewise the cause of homosexuality is routed in genetics and womb development - you're comparing it to a "preference" (like a different taste in movies) which is pretty stupid of you.
It's not apples and oranges. They all should be taken into account when speaking about what people or specific genders in general find attractive (which is what you were doing in your first post).
We're talking about heterosexual attraction since homosexuality as an extreme rarity in the animal kingdom - in the case of homosexuals though, what I'm referring to would still exists - I'd venture though that it'd depend more on which gender their brain identifies with the most (ex. a feminine gay man would likely be attracted to a very 'macho' one, and vice versa).
I clearly stated I was talking about behavior, so this response makes no sense.
What type of "behavior"? The behavior I was talking about is basic interaction style and body language (comparable to effective and ineffective mating behavior in other animals) - you're apparently changing the discussion from something purely biological to something which now involves more complex relationship dynamics, which have much less to do with attraction on a biological level.
No, the "teen" opinion is actually exactly equal to your first post
You're intermingling the satire with the serious discussion now.
and a "teen" would also compare humans to cars, because they think a simple (but unfortunately badly chosen and not even remotely enlightening) metaphor makes them look smart. ;)
No a biologist would compare humans to cars (though computers would be a more accurate comparison), because he's actually interested in understanding how humans work - and if it weren't for investigative people like him we'd still be living in the stone ages.
It's ironic how you're dissing science while at the same time you live dependent on it every day and take all that for granted.
A teen would be much more likely to just say "oh everyone is different" and scoff at science because they've been to lazy to read about it.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 12:01 PM
Actually a lot of physical attraction, as in, if you like someone at first meeting, is a lot down to smell, rather than looks. I'm not talking deodorant or perfume either.
Studies have proven that hormones and pheromones released by the body can attract some people, but not others... and it's a totally subconscious thing.
I fell for a woman who, on the outside, was pretty ugly. But I fell head over heals for her once I got talking to her. And it wasn't as if she was super funny or super smart, which is what normally attracts me to a girl.
Since reading up on stuff like biology, I've come to the conclusion it was probably her pheromones.
It's kind of amusing watching you try to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everyone Who Isn't You
You presume way too much.
I wasn't referring to "me" for example, since from a pure evolutionary standpoint I wouldn't be a "alpha male" of a wolf pack - I wasn't born with the genes of a Navy Seal or military general if you got that impression. The good thing about people though is that success is more "democratic" than in other animals - since people aren't driven 100% by our instinct; we have minds and can make decisions to self-improve - which I think is what really measures success in the long run.
, where everyone who disputes something has to be immediately compared to some other type of person you dislike (Jihadists, Creationists, plain old religious people, etc). Like that time you thought Sexy Celebrity (Sexy Celebrity!) was some kind of Christian fundamentalist prude just because he pushed back on something you said.
Not interested in red herrings, thanks.
I'm afraid your categorization of the people of the world is dramatically lacking in the nuance required to explain real human begins.
It's not meant to explain "real human beings", it's meant to explain biology at a very basic level.
"Real human beings" are more complex, but that's because of our minds and personalities - these traits however don't "override" or nullify our basic evolutionary drive. Biology at a basic level is like a concrete foundation; complex human behavior is like the skyscraper built on it - but try building a skyscraper on a shaky foundation and you'll run into trouble.
Another analogy - just like a cardiologist who talks about how the heart works isn't trying to explain "real human beings" and the complex human behaviors which might influence the heart's condition (ex. smoking or eating bad foods which leads to heart disease) - he's just explaining the basic functions that our behaviors are based on - a foundation if you will, not a "unified" conclusion to be applied 100% literally in every context.
And yet people willingly argue with you pretty much all the time. Huh.
As has been explained many times, nobody here has a problem with arguing. They have a problem with certain types of arguing. Trying to pretend otherwise is just a psychological defense mechanism to avoid confronting the antisocial manner in which you argue. Sorry if that's blunt.
And I don't trust your objectivity - plenty of people here and on other websites I post on don't respond in the way someone like Frightened Inmate does (as he's done to other posters as well - which I purposely 'give him a hard time' hoping he'll eventually get the message and not show up in my threads anymore).
You focus on "me" (even bringing up unrelated tangents) exclusively - most likely because you just find the subject matter of the thread uncomfortable. Whether you realize this consciously or not, I believe it's the case.
But this thread's not about me, it's about what I was talking about.
Actually a lot of physical attraction, as in, if you like someone at first meeting, is a lot down to smell, rather than looks. I'm not talking deodorant or perfume either.
Thanks for that interesting post.
I've actually heard mixed opinions on pheromones - I was aware of their existence, but I've heard that due to humans showering every day, using deodorant, and covering their armpits with clothes, etc that pheromones get covered up more often than not, and don't play as big a role in attraction as they may have back in the 'caveman era'
The Rodent
03-14-15, 12:13 PM
Nah, pheromones still make it out. Something like that is a certainty to escape and make its way up someone's nose, no matter how much you wash or how much clothing you have on.
I think the only way is to completely seal yourself off in a radiation suit.
Ever noticed how if you go into someone's bedroom it always stinks?
I remember my friend's room when we were kids and it always stunk of B.O... yet a girl, subconsciously, might find that smell attractive. Some might not but there will be some that would.
The B.O might be quite pungent yet the girl is picking up on pheromones.
bluedeed
03-14-15, 12:28 PM
The good thing about people though is that success is more "democratic" than in other animals - since people aren't driven 100% by our instinct; we have minds and can make decisions to self-improve - which I think is what really measures success in the long run.
This has been MoFo's White Privilege Post of the Day! Thanks everyone for attending, if you're looking for more socially unconscious posts, be sure to stay tuned, I'm sure this will be topped
This has been MoFo's White Privilege Post of the Day!
I don't understand that post since the discussion has nothing to do with race.
But sounds like you're saying that evolution suggests that some races are 'better' than others? Not sure if you've been reading Mein Kampf too much or what, but that's completely incorrect, and is just pseudoscience used by the likes of Hitler to promote their agenda.
All of the studies show that what little genetic variations there are between races are so insignificant that they don't have any bearing on individual human potential. I'd give sources for you but I don't think would be worth my time to that for someone who'd bring up "white superiority" in a discussion about human biology.
Thanks everyone for attending, if you're looking for more socially unconscious posts, be sure to stay tuned, I'm sure this will be topped
How can I stay tuned when I wasn't paying an iota of attention to you to begin with? (as is the case in real life as well) Maybe if you post on Stormfront people will pay you more heed, Hermann.
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 12:38 PM
The APA considered homosexuality a psychological disorder until 1973, so I won't be considering them any kind of authority on the subject.
The APA considered homosexuality a psychological disorder until 1973, so I won't be considering them any kind of authority on the subject.
This is a joke post right? You're just dissing the entire American psychiatric industry - this really is sounding like Answers in Genesis now.
The entire reason homosexuality is not considered a disorder today is due to organizations like the APA studying it more and finding the route causes. Expecting them to be "right" about everything decades ago is pretty unrealistic.
I mean Hippocrates believed that draining blood was a cure for illnesses (which is what lead to George Washington's death) - does that make him an idiot too?
Not interested in red herrings, thanks.
Red herrings are things thrown out to mislead or distract. The example I listed is directly relevant to the argument I made, so it wouldn't qualify.
The argument in question is that you slot everyone who disagrees with you into simplistic categories. I listed one such example (though there have been several), because it was particularly blatant. It shows your willingness to make broad assumptions about people with next to no information about them, other than the fact that they've disagreed with something you've said. Given that these assumptions have been horrendously inaccurate, you should probably stop form conclusions on such flimsy rationales. It speaks to a simplistic "me vs. them" mentality that doesn't brook the ideological nuance you find in most people.
It's not meant to explain "real human beings", it's meant to explain biology at a very basic level.
"Real human beings" are more complex, but that's because of our minds and personalities - these traits however don't "override" or nullify our basic evolutionary drive.
I was referring to the ridiculously over-the-top comparisons you make when people disagree with you. Like for example, just now, when bluedeed sarcastically disagreed with the idea that human success was relatively democratic, and you immediately asked him about Mein Kampf. You seriously don't see the problem with that?
And I don't trust your objectivity - plenty of people here and on other websites I post on don't respond in the way someone like Frightened Inmate does
Oh, I'm quite sure this is true. But it's just emblematic of how terrible most of the Internet is at arguing.
I almost don't even blame you for all this. It seems quite likely that your idea of argument, based on your age and response to contradiction, is simply the result of the websites you spent your formative years on. They taught you all wrong.
http://chrisbrodhead.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/gwh-02919-detail.jpg
You focus on "me" (even bringing up unrelated tangents) exclusively - most likely because you just find the subject matter of the thread uncomfortable. Whether you realize this consciously or not, I believe it's the case.
I love the "whether you realize this consciously or not" escape hatch, which allows you to believe absolutely anything you want without the possibility of being contradicted.
But hey, if them's the rules, then here's my speculation about your deep down mental state: I think you don't make friends easily, are currently (and usually) single, and you have antisocial tendencies. And I think it's easier to pretend everyone here hates arguing (despite ample evidence to the contrary) than it is to confront these things.
But this thread's not about me, it's about what I was talking about.
People can talk in ways that make it about them.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 12:50 PM
You're not counting LGBT's because they're genetically different and because they can't choose who they're attracted to
There is no proof of a gay gene.
There is no proof of a gay gene.
There's not a specifically "gay" gene but the consensus is that genetics in general, along with early womb development are what cause homosexuality. The studies show that parts of the brain structure of homosexuals developed closer to that of the opposite sex.
The idea that it's 'just a preference' like a different taste in movies - or that a boy 'turns gay' because he never played sports in middle school is unfounded.
This is a joke post right? You're just dissing the entire American psychiatric industry - this really is sounding like Answers in Genesis now.
Example #4,943 of you responding to something someone says by likening it to something else you find extreme.
Does your brain even have the capacity to acknowledge new categories of humans, or does everything go into preexisting ones, like some kind of taxonomic Leonard Shelby?
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 01:02 PM
There is no proof of a gay gene.
I only repeated what he said and pointed out why his exclusion based on his argument that they're genetically different held no value.
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:04 PM
Great topic. Generalizations are just that. First off, polls are only polls. They give some indication, but not fact. Also lots of polls are conducted using land line phones, so your going to get probably older people, and those who are at home more often than not.
I would bring historical context into this. First off, a man's strength was very necessary early on, even up until last century. Nowadays, not so much. I think people evolve too, and that we can't narrow everything down - the computers in our heads act quickly to attraction as well. For instance, I usually like redheads or blondes, but that's a generalization. It just means that because of those traits, skin color, freckles, eye color, etc., height might correlate.
Another thing about attraction - thousands of years ago you went with who was around in close proximity. Then we got cars and we got more broad. Now with the internet people usually have filters, so a lot of faces won't get a chance.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 01:04 PM
What exactly is 90sAce saying? I didn't really want to get involved here, but I hate reading a bunch of lengthy posts. I need three or four quick summarizing sentences.
Example #4,943 of you responding to something someone says by likening it to something else you find extreme.
Non sequiter. You have to admit that dissing the entire APA in a discussion about science is a pretty dumb move though. The only reason homosexuality is not considered an "abomination" anymore is due to modern psychology.
The reason I use 'extreme' analogies is because I think that the thought process is very similar (it just hasn't been taken quite as far) - so I use these analogies to draw attention to the irrationaltiy - especially since some forms of irrationality are more 'accepted' by the mainstream than others even if they're arguably equally 'irrational'. (ex. drinking alcohol frequently isn't as viewed as negatively as using cocaine, even if both can be equally destructive).
Does your brain even have the capacity to acknowledge new categories of humans, or does everything go into preexisting ones, like some kind of taxonomic Leonard Shelby?
Please read up on biology if you want to learn about these things, and how your post is totally off-tangent. You're referring to personality or belief differences; I was referring to biological components and similarities - not remotely comparable at all.
The things I'm saying (not counting the satirical wording) are biologically correct though - I'm getting the impression that you have an objection more to what it implies rather than whether it's actually correct or not (e.x. that explaining humans in terms of biological function is "cold")
Plus I already acknowledged in our religion discussion that the "drive" behind a secular belief and a religious one does have the same route - I just argued that the religious belief is riskier since it's based more on the non-verifiable than the verifiable.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:06 PM
Great topic. Generalizations are just that. First off, polls are only polls. They give some indication, but not fact. Also lots of polls are conducted using land line phones, so your going to get probably older people, and those who are at home more often than not.
I would bring historical context into this. First off, a man's strength was very necessary early on, even up until last century. Nowadays, not so much. I think people evolve too, and that we can't narrow everything down - the computers in our heads act quickly to attraction as well. For instance, I usually like redheads or blondes, but that's a generalization. It just means that because of those traits, skin color, freckles, eye color, etc., height might correlate.
Another thing about attraction - thousands of years ago you went with who was around in close proximity. Then we got cars and we got more broad. Now with the internet people usually have filters, so a lot of faces won't get a chance.
In the words of Harry Stamper when his daughter starts dating Batfleck... "It's not love, it's a lack of options."
Iroquois
03-14-15, 01:06 PM
What exactly is 90sAce saying? I didn't really want to get involved here, but I hate reading a bunch of lengthy posts. I need three or four quick summarizing sentences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hx1nXe41A
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:06 PM
I also disagree with the generalization that Asians are different than other groups, or skin colors, at least DNA speaking. I think it's more environment. I think if you took an Asian baby at a week old to Mexico, things would be different. I think the first few years are very important, those you live with, the people you interact with, and the things you choose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6hx1nXe41A
Funny but:
http://thecripplegate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Strawman.jpg
Iroquois
03-14-15, 01:08 PM
Non sequiter. You have to admit that dissing the entire APA in a discussion about science is a pretty dumb move though. The only reason homosexuality is not considered an "abomination" anymore is due to modern psychology.
Going by that logic, if the APA has been wrong about homosexuality by classifying it as a mental illness and then declassifying it in 1973, what's to say they can't also be wrong about pansexuality?
Iroquois
03-14-15, 01:12 PM
Funny
That was the idea, yes.
Going by that logic, if the APA has been wrong about homosexuality by classifying it as a mental illness and then declassifying it in 1973, what's to say they can't also be wrong about pansexuality?
"Pansexuality" isn't a recognized term, just like "metrosexual" so it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific terms.
On Wikipedia it says "Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward people of any sex or gender identity" - so it sounds just like a fancier term for "bisexual" to me.
Not to mention the APA didn't "single-handedly" declare homosexuality abnormal - prior to modern psychology this was unfortunately the 'default' position - due in part to Western cultures having a lot of influence from religious attitudes which were anti-homosexuality - if it wasn't for psychology homosexuality would probably still be a criminal offense like it is in religious nations such as Saudi Arabia.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:13 PM
I was under the impression that Pansexual is the same as Bisexual.
Pan just means Bisexual that includes no preference to Race.
Iroquois
03-14-15, 01:14 PM
"Pansexuality" isn't a recognized term, just like "metrosexual" so it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific terms.
You are not seriously equating pansexuals with metrosexuals. The former is an actual sexual identity while the latter is literally a slang word.
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:16 PM
Going by that logic, if the APA has been wrong about homosexuality by classifying it as a mental illness and then declassifying it in 1973, what's to say they can't also be wrong about pansexuality?
I think this is more about cultural norms. The same people who weren't against gay marriage are now for it. I bet some scientists might go along with man-made climate change (which I totally agree is man-made) but some choose to keep their standing in the profession. Religion plays a lot, too. There are a lot of x's when it comes to cause and effect.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:16 PM
... Metrosexual simply means Closet Homosexual. Like Boybands and those "men" you see on TOWIE.
I also disagree with the generalization that Asians are different than other groups, or skin colors, at least DNA speaking. I think it's more environment. I think if you took an Asian baby at a week old to Mexico, things would be different. I think the first few years are very important, those you live with, the people you interact with, and the things you choose.
Interesting side topic:
Most modern Mexicans are descended partly from Native Mexican Americans (ex. the Aztec tribe); Native Americans are originally descended from Asia (they immigrated to the Americas across the Bering Straight 10,000s of years ago). So they're closer racially to Asians than to whites or blacks.
You are not seriously equating pansexuals with metrosexuals. The former is an actual sexual identity while the latter is literally a slang word.
"Pansexual" is not a medically recognized term - the term the APA would use is bisexual. The only difference I saw according to Wikipedia is that the person would have to be okay with dating a transgender.
You're acting like these terms are in some widespread use, when they're not mainstream or scientifically recognized. I don't know if you're a member of a LGBT group or not, but the term "pansexual" isn't used by anyone outside of LGBT organizations - and 99% of the population wouldn't even know what it means.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:22 PM
Actually there's research underway to see if Asian people, Chinese and Japanese for example, descended from a different species than Homo Sapiens.
They have different teeth and jaw structure to every other type of Human being, which points to them having a different lineage.
In essence, as far as DNA goes, Asian people may not actually be Human.
The argument here is how then, can a white person, or a black person, breed with an Asian?
Well studies have shown that Neanderthal DNA is present in some Humans today, meaning that as an Ape species, we are compatible with each other.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 01:22 PM
Likewise the cause of homosexuality is routed in genetics and womb development - you're comparing it to a "preference" (like a different taste in movies) which is pretty stupid of you.
No, I'm comparing it to what you're constantly calling "biologically rooted (genetic) instincts" or are they "preferences" now?
It seems like I am comparing genetics to genetics according to your point of view, is it not? ;)
Frankly, I think you're full of crap. You're not consistent. You need to be consistent if you want to properly explain your point of view.
What type of "behavior"? The behavior I was talking about is basic interaction style and body language (comparable to effective and ineffective mating behavior in other animals) - you're apparently changing the discussion from something purely biological to something which now involves more complex relationship dynamics, which have much less to do with attraction on a biological level.
So, the point of this thread was that political correctness is changing our body language and is therefore making us unattractive?
No a biologist would compare humans to cars (though computers would be a more accurate comparison), because he's actually interested in understanding how humans work - and if it weren't for investigative people like him we'd still be living in the stone ages.
A biologist wouldn't compare humans to anything. He would just study them and look at his findings.
It's ironic how you're dissing science while at the same time you live dependent on it every day and take all that for granted.
I'm not dissing science. I'm criticizing you because you're not using and interpreting science properly and I mean literally everywhere you're trying to use it as an argument for some weird opinion of yours.
Actually there's research underway to see if Asian people, Chinese and Japanese for example, descended from a different species than Homo Sapiens.
They have different teeth and jaw structure to every other type of Human being, which points to them having a different lineage.
In essence, as far as DNA goes, Asian people may not actually be Human.
The argument here is how then, can a white person, or a black person, breed with an Asian?
Well studies have shown that Neanderthal DNA is present in some Humans today, meaning that as an Ape species, we are compatible with each other.
I've never heard of that - any links? That sounds way out there to me.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:24 PM
In addition... DNA is a strange thing...
A Human and a Pig are closer related to each other DNA wise, than the African Elephant is to the Indian Elephant
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:27 PM
Interesting side topic:
Most modern Mexicans are descended partly from Native Mexican Americans (ex. the Aztec tribe); Native Americans are originally descended from Asia (they immigrated to the Americas across the Bering Straight 10,000s of years ago). So they're closer racially to Asians than to whites or blacks.
Ok, if a Scandinavian baby was abducted and taken to China.? For one, the light skin and tall height might have quite an effect.
As for DNA, the difference is so little, even between humans and monkeys. Wouldn't you agree environment is a more stronger indication?
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:29 PM
There are probably a ton of things we aren't considering. I think the Earth is so old, that even with all the research, we'll never know it all. I wonder if in 20 years, or 200 years, the things we think now are true become debunked?
The Rodent
03-14-15, 01:31 PM
There are probably a ton of things we aren't considering. I think the Earth is so old, that even with all the research, we'll never know it all. I wonder if in 20 years, or 200 years, the things we think now are true become debunked?
Good point.
I've noticed something as well. Everything I learned at school... means nothing these days.
Especially science classes.
I've taught myself more since leaving school than I ever learned at school, simply because everything I was taught means nothing anymore.
Good point.
I've noticed something as well. Everything I learned at school... means nothing these days.
Especially science classes.
I've taught myself more since leaving school than I ever learned at school, simply because everything I was taught means nothing anymore.
I didn't learn anything I've learned from school that's for sure. That's why I'm glad I live in the internet age - it allows for the average Joe to learn things from the privacy of his computer which he'd never have been able to learn 20 years ago outside of a biologist convention.
I've learned more in individual weekends than in 4 years of High school.
Great topic. Generalizations are just that.
Generalizations are a problem if applied literally in all situations; the purpose of them is a starting point to go from - just like how I compared it to the concrete foundation for a skyscraper.
If you don't use it as a starting point though, then you're left with nothing to go on other than 'trial and error'. The problem is when people are just afraid to take a stand on anything out of fear of 'overgeneralizing'.
For example, if a person wanted to improve their diet but had no knowledge of nutrition - they would need someone to provide them a general reference point. If people only told them "everyone is different, just eat whatever you want" then they'd have nothing to go on if they wanted to self improve. So a person might "generalize" by saying don't eat too much junk food - sure that might offend someone who likes eating junk food all the time (even if it's unhealthy) but it's a necessary step in the right direction for people who actually want to improve - rather than just "do whatever they want" without any concern for the results.
Sure the opposite extreme - where a person is so OCD about never eating junk food that they stress themselves (and others) out about it isn't good either, but if anything I think the former is the problem - I just use the failed auditions on American Idol who got up on stage and embarassed themselves; must likely they never had anyone tell them how to actually sing well - they just had friends and family constantly tell them "they were great" instead of telling them how to actually be great, and the result wasn't pretty.
matt72582
03-14-15, 01:56 PM
In school, I remember Columbus discovered America, that's not said much anymore --- but... that's only based on the 12 young adults I've asked.
I agree a generalization as a start is fine... I think one has to really think deep, but also hear as many different opinions as possible. There might be things people say we never considered, thus allowing ourselves to wonder how we feel, adn dissect. I also like conversations on message boards, as people face to face tend (generalization, ha) to not say what's on there minds as much.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 01:59 PM
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=20480&stc=1&d=1426352341
matt72582
03-14-15, 02:04 PM
What I hate most about PC is that sometimes it's so counterproductive. People doing the right things for the wrong reasons to feel good for ten minutes - feeding their neuroses.
In the 60's, "black" was a bad word to use, Negro was used (never today) and most groups (not individuals) later asked to be called African-Americans. And to bring up satire, I remember reading how Robert Kennedy was pressured in the race-relations, so he talked to Dick Gregory and Lena Horne to find out how the average black person lived :)
Now it's back to black.... What a waste of time. As if this is going to solve problems. It's nice to be respectful, but altering the system is more beneficial. Speaking of Dick Gregory, he used to say "I'm black, but I'm an individual too" and then changed that. I rather be classified as a fan of Stanley Kubrick than a white male (no one is white, and I'm pretty tan)..
I agree with most of the feminine mystique, but I saw it becoming a marketing tool and a political weapon. In fact, last year I went to visit an old sociology professor, and sat in the same class I took 14 years ago to see what changed. In 2000, he referred to himself as a Socialist, and in that class, he said he was a liberal, believed in slow change. I guess I'm somewhere in between.
After class in his office we usually would sit for hours and talk. He had a shirt that read, "This is what a feminist looks like" and I said, "What's wrong with being a humanist? and didn't say anything, just looked at me, knowing he probably believe it, but might have felt pressured, since other faculty wore it. If he didn't he might think he was anti-woman.
Speaking of generalizations, I took his first class at the age of 18. As he walked in, he was a real big guy, white hair and beard, and spoke with a Southern accent, and thought to myself, "probably another conservative" and I was wrong.
What I hate most about PC is that sometimes it's so counterproductive. People doing the right things for the wrong reasons to feel good for ten minutes - feeding their neuroses.
In the 60's, "black" was a bad word to use, Negro was used (never today) and most groups (not individuals) later asked to be called African-Americans. And to bring up satire, I remember reading how Robert Kennedy was pressured in the race-relations, so he talked to Dick Gregory and Lena Horne to find out how the average black person lived :)
Now it's back to black.... What a waste of time. As if this is going to solve problems. It's nice to be respectful, but altering the system is more beneficial. Speaking of Dick Gregory, he used to say "I'm black, but I'm an individual too" and then changed that. I rather be classified as a fan of Stanley Kubrick than a white male (no one is white, and I'm pretty tan)..
I agree with most of the feminine mystique, but I saw it becoming a marketing tool and a political weapon. In fact, last year I went to visit an old sociology professor, and sat in the same class I took 14 years ago to see what changed. In 2000, he referred to himself as a Socialist, and in that class, he said he was a liberal, believed in slow change. I guess I'm somewhere in between.
After class in his office we usually would sit for hours and talk. He had a shirt that read, "This is what a feminist looks like" and I said, "What's wrong with being a humanist? and didn't say anything, just looked at me, knowing he probably believe it, but might have felt pressured, since other faculty wore it. If he didn't he might think he was anti-woman.
Speaking of generalizations, I took his first class at the age of 18. As he walked in, he was a real big guy, white hair and beard, and spoke with a Southern accent, and thought to myself, "probably another conservative" and I was wrong.
The problem with PCism and prudery is that it focuses mainly on the "words" used - but according to science human communication is 90% body language and voice, only 10% actual words - in other words "how its said", rather than "what is said". Language is a much more recent evolutionary invention than body language anyway - the latter is truly the universal language.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 02:10 PM
Jeremy Clarkson said something quite cutting about Health And Safety and PC Gone Mad in Top Gear.
There was a new, cutting edge car that was developed, can't remember what it was... but it was halted in its production because of H&S and PC. Something to do with emissions and power, or something.
He said that I in the millions of years of Human evolution, Human productiveness, Human endeavours etc... this is the first time we have ever gone backwards.
All because of PC.
matt72582
03-14-15, 02:10 PM
It has little content or meaning. It's probably for people who don't want to commit to real change by getting into the trenches, so they spend their time saying what's offensive or not to make them feel worthy, as if they helped the "cause" of humanity. I think action isn't revered as much, since so much communication nowadays is text, phone, internet, etc.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 02:16 PM
The problem with PCism and prudery is that it focuses mainly on the "words" used - but according to science human communication is 90% body language and voice, only 10% actual words - in other words "how its said", rather than "what is said". Language is a much more recent evolutionary invention than body language anyway - the latter is truly the universal language.
So your original statement that political porrectness is making us "unsexy" is basically bullsh*t then right?
You're saying body language is what makes people attractive and now you're saying political correctness is about words instead of body language (the most important part of communication).
Logically, attractiveness now has, according to your way of thinking, nothing to do anymore with political correctness or vice-versa, which makes the premise of this thread completely invalid.
Wouldn't you agree?
By the way, I'm not a defender of pure political correctness. I'm just pointing out that it was "attacked" in a very poor way in this thread.
So your original statement that political porrectness is making us "unsexy" is basically bullsh*t then right?
You're saying body language is what makes people attractive and now you're saying political correctness is about words instead of body language (the most important part of communication).
Logically, attractiveness now has, according to your way of thinking, nothing to do anymore with political correctness or vice-versa, which makes the premise of this thread completely invalid.
Wouldn't you agree?
Valid point I was making about that is that becoming too easily offended over things (which is what I consider a PC mindset to be) increases cortisol, too much of which lowers testosterone (which helps promote dominant male behavior).
So the OP was satirical and not meant to be taken seriously - but it had a valid point - it wasn't something I just pulled out of my ass.
christine
03-14-15, 02:27 PM
Why do you think you speak for 'women' when the majority of women would agree you're just putting a burr up your bum for no reason?
I'm sure your very lovely turn of phrase would be very attractive amongst the majority of 'women' of whom you know so much.
I'm sure your very lovely turn of phrase would be very attractive amongst the majority of 'women' of whom you know so much.
I thought I was pretty genteel about it - but anyway it sounds like you came here to comment just because you were "annoyed" by an unrelated opinion I had in the 50 Shades of Grey thread - but out of the millions of women who watched the film, the majority of them did not have as negative an opinion on the film as you do - so why you think your personal annoyances speaks for "all women" is beyond me, and strikes me as pretentious. Plenty of women (like the other ones in this thread) would find that you're the one being too easily bothered by others' views than the other way around.
You even put 'women' in quotes as though suggesting that any woman who disagrees with you 'isn't a real woman' - aka a No True Scotsman fallacy.
matt72582
03-14-15, 02:34 PM
When they told women to join a group to become an individual, well, need I say more. That's conformity... It rids their individuality.
"Women who demand their equality renounce their superiority" - Bertrand Russell
When they told women to join a group to become an individual, well, need I say more. That's conformity... It rids their individuality.
"Women who demand their equality renounce their superiority" - Bertrand Russell
I'm not big on political groups based off of a simple trait such as sex, race, sexuality, etc rather than personal accomplishements - I think it leads to xenophobia and hive-mind like mentalities and just creates further division.
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 03:55 PM
Pan just means Bisexual that includes no preference to Race.
That's not actually true. Bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, whereas those who identify as pansexual often subscribe to the idea that people aren't just male or female.
That's not actually true. Bisexuals are attracted to both men and women, whereas those who identify as pansexual often subscribe to the idea that people aren't just male or female.
Terms used in the "LGBT" community pretty much exclusively don't hold meaning in discussions about actual science.
Plus the idea that people aren't just male/female isn't biologically correct. According to science the people you describe are bisexual. So bringing up a neologism like that in a scientific discussion doesn't work.
I'm also just curious how you'd argue someone that homosexuality is normal, if you 'don't trust the APA' - since without psychology we'd probably still consider it an "abomination unto God' like Islamic countries do.
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 04:12 PM
I'm talking about sexual identity, not what you define as "science."
I'm talking about sexual identity, not what you define as "science."
It's what is defined as science, not what "I" defined. Why do you use a computer if you take science for granted so much and view it as so flaky? You wouldn't even have one if it wasn't for science.
A person can call themselves whatever they want, but the actual scientific definition is the same thing - there wasn't any point in listing 'pansexuals' as separate from 'bisexuals' in a scientific discussion, since by the definition of the term they're the both 'bisexual'.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 04:16 PM
Plus the idea that people aren't just male/female isn't biologically correct. According to science the people you describe are bisexual. So bringing up a neologism like that in a scientific discussion doesn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Don't tell us that what you say is science, by the way, because I'm pretty sure you don't have a single piece of evidence which demonstrates that you can talk with even the slightest bit of intellectual authority about "science".
Even if I agree with the conclusion that follows it, the phrase "according to science" gives me hives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
You're pointing out very unusual biological deviance and portraying them as rules, when rather they're very rare exceptions which result from developmental abnormalities.
If I said that "humans have 2 arms and 2 legs", would you say "that's wrong" and post an article about someone born with no legs? That's absurd.
"Some people" are born with genetic deviance causing them to develop sex-contradictory body parts, sure (this is part of what causes transexuality, and homosexual brains also develop closer to that of the opposite sex.).
However saying that "male/female" does not exist is biologically incorrect, and makes no sense. It exists and is well-defined in every species, other than a few species in the animal kingdom which reproduce asexually.
Don't tell us that what you say is science
It's what scientists say is science - you're free to learn about it, nothing's stopping you.
, by the way, because I'm pretty sure you don't have a single piece of evidence which demonstrates that you can talk with even the slightest bit of intellectual authority about science.
I know how to read and learn about it and I'm not too lazy to do so, that gives me all the authority I need.
By your standard anyone who's never directed or produced a Hollywood film themselves has "no authority" to talk about movies. Nonsense.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 04:43 PM
You're pointing out very unusual biological deviance and portraying them as rules, when rather they're very rare exceptions which result from developmental abnormalities.
That would be like posting an article about a person "born with no arms" in response to me stating that "humans have 2 arms and 2 legs" - that's just absurd.
"Research in the late 20th century indicates a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal—if relatively rare—forms of human biology. Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."
Keep the bolded part in mind. ;)
However saying that "male/female" does not exist is biologically incorrect, and makes no sense. It exists and is well-defined in every species, other than a few species in the animal kingdom which reproduce asexually.
Noone said that male/female does not exist. There simply are other possibilities too. That's biologically undeniable and if you do wish to deny it, you are factually completely wrong.
It's what scientists say is science - you're free to learn about it, nothing's stopping you.
I know how to read and learn about it and I'm not too lazy to do so, that gives me all the authority I need.
I'll recopy the bolded part:
"Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."
Would you say Milton Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Diamond) is a scientist?
I assume your answer is "yes", because he is.
Well, you are either saying the exact opposite of what he says on purpose or you don't know how to "read and learn" or you are simply too lazy. Either way, you're contradicting yourself and you lose all your credibility.
By your standard anyone who's never directed or produced a Hollywood film themselves has "no authority" to talk about movies. Nonsense.
No. I'm saying someone who actually studied science or made films/studied cinema has way more authority to talk about science/movies than someone who has not.
From what I've read from you, you're not even on high school level when it comes to science (and spelling), so telling other people that what you say is science, comes across as profoundly ridiculous.
Even if I agree with the conclusion that follows it, the phrase "according to science" gives me hives.
You could just replace it with "according to history" - and a scenario in which someone was arguing that George Washington never existed, and demanding that I provide detailed research 'proving' his existence or my personal credentials as a historian.
"Research in the late 20th century indicates a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal—if relatively rare—forms of human biology. Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."
Keep the bolded part in mind. ;)
I'm not concerned with the particular term such as 'normal/abnormal' - however it's not a typical condition or one frequent enough to automatically require mentioning in a basic discussion of sexes.
In the case of people born with both sex organs however - doctors usually end up having to remove one set of genitals (typically the one which matches the overall body the least).
And In the case though of a person such as a transgender though, it'd be hard to argue that that would be a desirable condition - it would be much better if they were born with their body and brain matching than having to go through extensive surgery just to harmonize it, right?
Noone said that male/female does not exist. There simply are other possibilities too. That's biologically undeniable and if you do wish to deny it, you are factually completely wrong.
Miss Vicky said that pansexuals "don't see the world in terms of sexes" - I'm stating that from a biological perspective that view doesn't have validity. The fetal development is what determines the sex.
I'm not sure what 'other possibilities' you're suggesting anyway - unless you're implying that most or everyone are actually 'intersex', but that's not a supported statistic. You're welcome to whatever theory you want though.
I'll recopy the bolded part:
"Milton Diamond, one of the most outspoken experts on matters affecting intersex people, stresses the importance of care in the selection of language related to such people."
Would you say Milton Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Diamond) is a scientist?
I assume your answer is "yes", because he is.
You're derailing it onto a tangent regarding whether 'abnormality' is the best term to use.
Well, you are either saying the exact opposite of what he says on purpose or you don't know how to "read and learn" or you are simply too lazy. Either way, you're contradicting yourself and you lose all your credibility.
This is a red herring and splitting hairs. Again I was simply stating that intersex is not a typical enough condition to merit automatic conclusion in a discussing about sexes.
Just like if I was discussing the human eye and describing how humans use their eyes to see - I wouldn't have to obligatorily state "well except for people born with no eyes" in order for my statement to be "correct".
No. I'm saying someone who actually studied science or made films/studied cinema has way more authority to talk about science/movies than someone who has not.
And yet you're talking about it...
From what I've read from you, you're not even on high school level when it comes to science (and spelling),
But since you're on a grade school level, that gives me authority over you correct? ;)
so telling other people that what you say is science, comes across as profoundly ridiculous.
I'm not if you're seriously using 'intersex people' as a rebuttal to the simple statement that sexes exist. If 'pansexuals' have some theory that 'everyone is actually intersex' or whatever point Miss Vicky was trying to make, that's not a scientifically supported theory.
At this point I don't even know what you're trying to argue - to me it sounds like you just have a politically correct mindset and think that no discussion of sexes should occur at all without obligatorily mentioning "homosexuals, transexuals, intersexuals", etc.
I also don't know what your "alternative theory" is, unless it's that everyone is actually intersex.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 05:12 PM
Miss Vicky said that pansexuals "don't see the world in terms of sexes" - I'm stating that from a biological perspective that view doesn't have validity.
Of course it has. "Pan" simply means "all" in Greek, so, opposed to bisexuals (bi means two), they also feel sexually attracted to people who are biologically not man or woman.
What's so hard to understand about this?
This is a red herring and splitting hairs. Again I was simply stating that intersex is not a typical enough condition to merit automatic conclusion in a discussing about sexes.
It's important to people who say they're pansexual, as some of them might have relationships with people that are intersex. You said Miss Vicky was factually wrong, while she was not, so it's most certainly not a red herring. Every respectful scientist in the world would say I am right about this.
Just like if I was discussing the human eye and describing how humans use their eyes to see - I wouldn't have to obligatorily state "well except for people born with no eyes" in order for my statement to be "correct".
You were the one saying that it's biologically incorrect to say there is anything else besides men and women, because you opposed to Miss Vicky using and defending the term "pansexuals". I factually corrected you, because she was 100% right.
I think I won't bother discussing anything with you anymore, because even when it's proven that you're completely wrong about something, you still won't recognize it. That's extremely ironic and disappointing for someone who dares implying that he's a science enthusiast
I was referring to the ridiculously over-the-top comparisons you make when people disagree with you. Like for example, just now, when bluedeed sarcastically disagreed with the idea that human success was relatively democratic, and you immediately asked him about Mein Kampf. You seriously don't see the problem with that?
The "Mein Kampf" reference was in response to his incomprehensible post mentioning "white privilege" in a thread which had nothing to do with race.
I love the "whether you realize this consciously or not" escape hatch, which allows you to believe absolutely anything you want without the possibility of being contradicted.
But hey, if them's the rules, then here's my speculation about your deep down mental state: I think you don't make friends easily, are currently (and usually) single, and you have antisocial tendencies. And I think it's easier to pretend everyone here hates arguing (despite ample evidence to the contrary) than it is to confront these things.
I could spend some spare time going over your posts one by one to prove an attention bias and I think I could make a solid case, but I don't feel like doing that. But as a few examples, as far as I know you never responded to posters like Frightened Inmate or Bluedeeds for posting annoying comments in the thread without actually contributing to it (which would be an infraction on a lot of forms since it was just trolling and derailment), yet still found time to talk about my 'arguing' style and speculation about my personal life. Even if everything you said was 100% true, the bias is revealed by what you choose to focus on so exclusively.
I was giving you credit when I said "whether you realize it or not" because I don't think you're pre-meditately being biased - but I do think you're a little fixated on certain posters, me included. The fact that you bring up arguments from other threads here in between arguing the points made in this thread leads me to think that.
Of course it has. "Pan" simply means "all" in Greek, so, opposed to bisexuals (bi means two), they also feel sexually attracted to people who are biologically not man or woman.
Intersex people typically still "mostly" resemble one sex or the other; as I mentioned before, usually a treatment for people born with multiple sets of gentials is to remove the genitals which least resemble the rest of their body.
Intersex is also a somewhat loosely defined term, and while recognized as a condition is not recognized as a "separate sex" altogether.
The biological attraction is still based on the sexual characteristics the person finds attractive, not "because they're intersex". So yes bisexual is the correct medical and scientific term.
If you're talking about having an "exclusive" preference for intersex or transgendered people, that's not a recognized sexuality.
What's so hard to understand about this?
It's not a scientifically recognized term, the scientific term would still be bisexual. It's a neolgism used exclusively by members of the LGBT community.
What's so hard to understand about this? Just like there are hundreds of words for "water" in hundreds of languages, the correct chemistry term is "H2O". So arguing that there's a difference between "H2O" and "water" in a discussion on chemistry is completely redundant.
It's important to people who say they're pansexual, as some of them might have relationships with people that are intersex. You said Miss Vicky was factually wrong, while she was not, so it's most certainly not a red herring. Every respectful scientist in the world would say I am right about this.
You misinterpreted my statement as saying that "intersex people do not exist" which was not the case - Miss Vicky's statement was ambiguous, and was along the lines of stating that "sexes do not really exist at all" - but that is not correct. Why's this so complicated?
You were the one saying that it's biologically incorrect to say there is anything else besides men and women, because you opposed to Miss Vicky using and defending the term "pansexuals". I factually corrected you, because she was 100% right.
Incorrect - I apparently read Miss Vicky's statement as stating that "sexes don't really exist" (there are some fringe theories suggesting this) - I'm completely aware that intersex people exist - at the same time they don't exist in significant enough amount to merit automatic conclusion in a discussion on sexes.
I think I won't bother discussing anything with you anymore, because even when it's proven that you're completely wrong about something, you still won't recognize it. That's extremely ironic and disappointing for someone who dares implying that he's a science enthusiast
You misquoted me which is why you felt I was wrong - I was not denying that "intersex people exist at all".
In fact I had already mentioned transgender and other people born with characteristics of both sexes in this thread. So I don't know why you're arguing this tangent in such an OCD fashion here.
You should be more concerned with Miss Vicky mentioning "pansexuals" as a separate medically recognized sexuality from "bisexual" when it is not recognized as different in the scientific community - it's a neologism exclusive to LGBT individuals.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
03-14-15, 05:40 PM
I could spend some spare time going over your posts one by one to prove an attention bias and I think I could make a solid case, but I don't feel like doing that. But as a few examples, as far as I know you never responded to posters like Frightened Inmate or Bluedeeds for posting annoying comments in the thread without actually contributing to it (which would be an infraction on a lot of forms since it was just trolling and derailment), yet still found time to talk about my 'arguing' style and speculation about my personal life. Even if everything you said was 100% true, the bias is revealed by what you choose to focus on so exclusively.
stop acting like i ruined your thread, i made one ****ing post. then i realized that arguing with you was pointless because you are hopelessly delusional and seemingly incapable of empathy. i'm done with this thread, so feel free to continue bashing me.http://www.nohomers.net/images/smilies/cookie.gif
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 05:41 PM
It's what is defined as science, not what "I" defined. Why do you use a computer if you take science for granted so much and view it as so flaky? You wouldn't even have one if it wasn't for science.
The type of science that invents and improves machines is wholly different than the "science" of psychology (which is little more than theory supported by research) and I'm not taking anything for granted. I'm not even saying that there isn't value to the work of psychologists. I'm saying simply that psychologists have been wrong before about human sexuality and attraction, there's no reason to believe they couldn't be wrong again.
There wasn't any point in listing 'pansexuals' as separate from 'bisexuals' in a scientific discussion, since by the definition of the term they're the both 'bisexual'.
This is a scientific discussion? Really? I've yet to see any actual science presented in your posts. All I see is theory and opinion.
Miss Vicky said that pansexuals "don't see the world in terms of sexes"
No, I didn't. I said that people who identify as pansexual - or at least those I've spoken to on the matter - recognize more genders than just biological males and biological females and are attracted to all. Not being pansexual myself, I don't claim to have a full understanding of it, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize it as being something separate from bisexuality.
The "Mein Kampf" reference was in response to his incomprehensible post mentioning "white privilege" in a thread which had nothing to do with race.
...in other words, you have no idea what the phrase "white privilege" means. Maybe you should ask what people mean instead of immediately assuming they're Nazis.
I could spend some spare time going over your posts one by one to prove an attention bias and I think I could make a solid case, but I don't feel like doing that. But as a few examples, as far as I know you never responded to posters like Frightened Inmate or Bluedeeds for posting annoying comments in the thread without actually contributing to it (which would be an infraction on a lot of forms since it was just trolling and derailment), yet still found time to talk about my 'arguing' style and speculation about my personal life. Even if everything you said was 100% true, the bias is revealed by what you choose to focus on so exclusively.
I was giving you credit when I said "whether you realize it or not" because I don't think you're pre-meditately being biased - but I do think you're a little fixated on certain posters, me included. The fact that you bring up arguments from other threads here in between arguing the points made in this thread leads me to think that.
So? I don't deny that I've paid more attention to your posts. I do this because you stir up a lot of trouble and I know you're disproportionately likely to say something I strongly disagree with. Not only does this not conflict with the idea that your method of argumentation is antisocial--it's actually the explanation for it.
There's also an asymmetry, because a lot of the derision you've received is a response, not an instigation.
The type of science that invents and improves machines is wholly different than than the "science" of psychology (which is little more than theory supported by research) and I'm not taking anything for granted. I'm not even saying that there isn't value to the work of psychologists. I'm saying simply that psychologists have been wrong before about human sexuality and attraction, there's no reason to believe they couldn't be wrong again.
Quoted for truth. People need to stop using "science" to refer to physical and social sciences interchangeably.
stop acting like i ruined your thread, i made one ****ing post.
And this was the first time, and the first thread you've done this in? Right... :) I don't plan on messing with you any further - just wanted to you to get a message that you can't show up and make personal attacks and walk away, because it seems like you're used to doing that
then i realized that arguing with you was pointless because you are hopelessly delusional and seemingly incapable of empathy. i'm done with this thread, so feel free to continue bashing me.http://www.nohomers.net/images/smilies/cookie.gif
Sounds like a Freudian slip there - as bitter as you are I'm surprised empathy's in your vocabulary - so this sounds more like a Jimmy Swaggart-esque it attempt to cover up a self-conscious lack of it to me.
Every time 90sAce compares something someone says to some completely unrelated group or person he doesn't like, do a shot.
this sounds more like a Jimmy Swaggart-esque it attempt to cover up a self-conscious lack of it to me.
Drink!
Frightened Inmate No. 2
03-14-15, 05:49 PM
And this was the first time, and the first thread you've done this in? Right... :) I don't plan on messing with you any further - just wanted to you to get a message that you can't show up and make personal attacks and walk away, because it seems like you're used to doing that
I don't think you're pre-meditately being biased - but I do think you're a little fixated on certain posters, me included. The fact that you bring up arguments from other threads here in between arguing the points made in this thread leads me to think that.
.
The type of science that invents and improves machines is wholly different than the "science" of psychology (which is little more than theory supported by research) and I'm not taking anything for granted. I'm not even saying that there isn't value to the work of psychologists. I'm saying simply that psychologists have been wrong before about human sexuality and attraction, there's no reason to believe they couldn't be wrong again.
I've mentioned biology, not just psychology. I agree that biology is a 'harder' science than psychology.
Still just stating that "we could be wrong" without providing a theory or evidence to the contrary is kind of a cop out.
This is a scientific discussion? Really? I've yet to see any actual science presented in your posts. All I see is theory and opinion.
I've used a lot of references to biology and science to back it up.
No, I didn't. I said that people who identify as pansexual - or at least those I've spoken to on the matter - recognize more genders than just biological males and biological females and are attracted to all. Not being pansexual myself, I don't claim to have a full understanding of it, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize it as being something separate from bisexuality.
As far as I'm aware of there's no recognized biological difference - that's more of just a personal or metaphorical description.
Cobpyth
03-14-15, 05:50 PM
You misinterpreted my statement as saying that "intersex people do not exist" which was not the case - Miss Vicky's statement was ambiguous, and was along the lines of stating that "sexes do not really exist at all" - but that is not correct. Why's this so complicated?
I misinterpreted your statement? This is exactly what you wrote:
Plus the idea that people aren't just male/female isn't biologically correct.
I think there's a problem with your formulation, rather than my interpretation, wouldn't you agree?
You should be more concerned with Miss Vicky mentioning "pansexuals" as a separate medically recognized sexuality from "bisexual" when it is not recognized as different in the scientific community - it's a neologism exclusive to LGBT individuals.
Scientists already use the term extensively and frankly, a real thinker doesn't care about what's "recognized" or not. They care about what makes sense.
Anyway, I'm off watching a film. You can't seem to handle a discussion without talking in circles and you certainly don't seem to be able to admit that you are just plain wrong on practically everything you're saying, even when I confronted you with the opinions and thoughts of one of the most important scientists on the subject a couple of posts ago.
It's actually painful to see you trying to defend your positions, even when people clearly indicate they're factually wrong or simply inconsistent.
Have a good night! :)
I misinterpreted your statement? This is exactly what you wrote:
I think there's a problem with your formulation, rather than my interpretation, wouldn't you agree?
Okay you win on that. My wording threw you off.
I had interpreted Miss Vicky's statement as suggesting that "sexes don't really exist" and was trying to refute. My wording caused me to be interpreted as saying intersex people don't exist.
Scientists already use the term extensively and frankly, a real thinker doesn't care about what's "recognized" or not. They care about what makes sense.
Anyway, I'm off watching a film. You can't seem to handle a discussion without talking in circles and you certainly don't seem to be able to admit that you are just plain wrong on practically everything you're saying, even when I confronted you with the opinions and thoughts of one of the most important scientists on the subject a couple of posts ago.
It's actually painful to see you trying to defend your positions, even when people clearly indicate they're factually wrong or simply inconsistent.
Have a good night! :)
I'm not 100% up to date on all of the scientific terminology - I'm aware though that intersexuality isn't recognized as a "seperate sex" altogether, and most intersex individuals do identify with one sex or the other. They typically also physically resemble on or the other, with the exception of the atypical genital or chromosomal development.
.
You win
...in other words, you have no idea what the phrase "white privilege" means. Maybe you should ask what people mean instead of immediately assuming they're Nazis.
Why should someone bother giving a serious response to a couple of 'spam worthy' posts and an random out of left field about "white privilege" in a thread which doesn't have anything to do with race? This proves my point. Heck if I was a mod I'd be much more concerned about members like Bluewhatever making angry, simplistic posts in response to detailed ones. What has someone who's first post in this thread was a single word which made no sense ("BANNED") done to earn any consideration?
So? I don't deny that I've paid more attention to your posts. I do this because you stir up a lot of trouble and I know you're disproportionately likely to say something I strongly disagree with. Not only does this not conflict with the idea that your method of argumentation is antisocial--it's actually the explanation for it.
There's also an asymmetry, because a lot of the derision you've received is a response, not an instigation.
This is where your problem lies - your focus is on the idea that "the posts stir up trouble" rather than the content of the posts themselves. Essentially then if the posts were identical but no one was disagreeing with them you wouldn't have a problem with them, right?
You could just replace it with "according to history" - and a scenario in which someone was arguing that George Washington never existed, and demanding that I provide detailed research 'proving' his existence or my personal credentials as a historian.
At least history is static. Science isn't. But, specifically, my problem is that "science says" is usually used to support an argument or claim that goes far beyond what the actual science suggests, which is usually far more muted and full of caveats.
Scientific facts shouldn't give a "rise" out of anyone - this isn't "Answers in Genesis" of course.
Drink!
But apparently some think that science is too politically incorrect to state in public - much like a fan of Kent Hovind apparently thinks science is "anti-Christian" c'este la vie
Drink!
If you're going to derail the thread and make fun of science a la Answers in Genesis...
Drink! Hey why is the forum spinning.
The fringe of the PC movement really aren't a far-cry from nuts like Kent Hovind who don't want evolution taught in schools because it's supposedly "anti-Christian".
Drink!
Wait, I don't feel so good.
Wow am I on MovieForum or "Answers in Genesis" forum... sometimes it's hard to tell
Please don't make me drink. This isn't fun any more.
Not sure if you've been reading Mein Kampf too much or what
Maybe if you post on Stormfront people will pay you more heed, Hermann.
Seriously, please stop.
this really is sounding like Answers in Genesis now.
*dies of alcohol poisoning*
Why should someone bother giving a serious response to a couple of 'spam worthy' posts and an random out of left field about "white privilege" in a thread which doesn't have anything to do with race?
Nobody said you have to give a serious response. Just not giving one where you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing with you would suffice. You weren't criticized for failing to respond substantively, you were criticized for always jumping from "you disagreed with me" to comparing someone to a Nazi/Jihadist/Creationist/Something Else You Think Is Bad.
This is where your problem lies - your focus is on the idea that "the posts stir up trouble" rather than the content of the posts themselves. Essentially then if the posts were identical but no one was disagreeing with them you wouldn't have a problem with them, right?
Oh, I'd have a problem with them either way. But as a mod it's my job to pay particular attention to any discussion where people are more likely to cross the line. Your threads are like that, so I naturally watch them a bit closer. It'd be completely irrational (and wildly inefficient) for me to spend equal amounts of time reading all users and threads regardless of topic or source.
Nobody said you have to give a serious response. Just not giving one where you call someone a Nazi for disagreeing with you would suffice.
"White privilege" was a complete non-sequiter - I didn't even see that as a disagreement so much as a case of Tourette syndrome.
Oh wait that's an analogy... dammit.
You weren't criticized for failing to respond substantively, you were criticized for always jumping from "you disagreed with me" to comparing someone to a Nazi/Jihadist/Creationist/Something Else You Think Is Bad.
I already mentioned the reason for the 'comparisons' earlier in this thread - it's done to draw analogies to trains of thought which I think are similar, not to literally suggests that the two are equal (ex. that a religious person is "just as bad" as a Jihadist').
Oh, I'd have a problem with them either way. But as a mod it's my job to pay particular attention to any discussion where people are more likely to cross the line. Your threads are like that, so I naturally watch them a bit closer. It'd be completely irrational (and wildly inefficient) for me to spend equal amounts of time reading all users and threads regardless of topic or source.
That's very convenient - at the same time you just took the time to describe in detail the posts I was responding to so you were very aware of them, but haven't as far as I know paid any attention to the individuals in question - rather you seem to use "the thread was controversial" as a cop-out for members who make posts like that - despite plenty of people having enough impulse control not to just post one-sentence ad homs just because they don't like the thread.
I had a feeling that people like FI would 'get offended' but didn't find the topic or subject matter objectively offensive, so I had no problem with it. If your standard of 'controversial' is just determined by who finds it controversial, then that's way too subjective. I've got plenty of good analogies I could use on that.
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 07:08 PM
I've mentioned biology, not just psychology. I agree that biology is a 'harder' science than psychology... Still just stating that "we could be wrong" without providing a theory or evidence to the contrary is kind of a cop out.
I was speaking specifically about psychology when I said "they were wrong before." Your ridiculous, horribly misguided rant about how I must "take science for granted" because I'm using a computer is completely and obviously fallacious.
Again, the American Psychological Association recognized homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973 when they declassified it - thus admitting that they were wrong. As you said, they currently recognize fetishism as paraphilia, but there's no reason to believe that won't change as well.
There seems to be a correlation between the change in attitudes and beliefs among psychologists and the changing attitudes and beliefs of society at large, with each likely influencing the other. As social attitudes about sex and attraction continue to change, it seems likely that what are only social classifications now will be recognized as "scientific" classifications in the future.
"Evolution is a bunch of hooey - there's no way monkeys could just turn into man - plus if monkeys evolved into man, why are monkeys still here?"
I never once made any statement or implied anything against the theory of evolution. Not. One. Time. As to your suggestion that I'm getting my "Answers from Genesis," you couldn't be further from the truth.
You know this is what you sound like, right? Apparently you know more than hundreds of scientists who've devoted their life to studying humans and animals; science is bunk just because "everyone seems different to me"?
I never said it was "bunk." I said "science" is wrong sometimes. Sciences like biology and (especially psychology) are not exact and what is held to be "truth" in those areas of study is constantly changing. In psychology, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. Biology changes, too. Things that were once held to be true are recognized as false now. New species are recognized all the time, many of which were previously misidentified as known species. As I said, "scientists" have been wrong about their classification of things before. They'll be wrong again.
I was speaking specifically about psychology when I said "they were wrong before." Your ridiculous, horribly misguided rant about how I must "take science for granted" because I'm using a computer is completely and obviously fallacious.
Again, the American Psychological Association recognized homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973 when they declassified it - thus admitting that they were wrong.
I explained eariler that this wasn't some opinion "invented" by the APA - prior to modern psychology this was the 'default' opinion because Western cultures were influenced a lot by religious attitudes which were anti-homosexuality.
You're blaming the APA exclusively, even though they were simply mirroring the consensus of the day and age with nothing else to go on at the time.
As you said, they currently recognize fetishism as paraphilia, but there's no reason to believe that won't change as well.
"Fetishism/paraphilias" include things like necrophilia, pedophilia, zoophilia, sadism, etc - do you seriously believe that something like pedophilia will be considered a normal attraction?
There seems to be a correlation between the change in attitudes and beliefs among psychologists and the changing attitudes and beliefs of society at large, with each likely influencing the other. As social attitudes about sex and attraction continue to change, it seems likely that what are only social classifications now will be recognized as "scientific" classifications in the future.
That's not something which is verifiable - you're basically just asserting that science is "biased" or agenda driven. Even if no one is perfectly unbiased, I'd say that science is as close to 100% unbiased as it's possible to get.
I never once made any statement or implied anything against the theory of evolution. Not. One. Time. As to your suggestion that I'm getting my "Answers from Genesis," you couldn't be further from the truth.
I never said it was "bunk." I said "science" is wrong sometimes. Sciences like biology and (especially psychology) are not exact and what is held to be "truth" in those areas of study is constantly changing. In psychology, homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. Biology changes, too. Things that were once held to be true are recognized as false now. New species are recognized all the time, many of which were previously misidentified as known species. As I said, "scientists" have been wrong about their classification of things before. They'll be wrong again.
Again that's really a cop-out. You're criticizing scientists for having been wrong without offering any substantiated counter-theory with evidence to back it up - it's an "argument from igorance" fallacy.
Miss Vicky
03-14-15, 07:26 PM
I explained eariler that this wasn't some opinion "invented" by the APA - prior to modern psychology this was the 'default' opinion because Western cultures were influenced a lot by religious attitudes which were anti-homosexuality.
You're blaming the APA exclusively, even though they were simply mirroring the consensus of the day and age with nothing else to go on at the time.
That's not something which is verifiable - you're basically just asserting that science is "biased" or agenda driven. Even if no one is perfectly unbiased, I'd say that science is as close to 100% unbiased as it's possible to get.
:laugh:
:laugh:
Pointed missed - the mirroring of consensus was due to their having not been opportunity for many modern studies into homosexuality, so all they had to go on was outdated information.
The 'agenda driven' nature I was talking about would be actually ignoring verifiable facts.in favor of an agenda - which is definitely not the case - prior to that there was no verifiable information to go on; once the APA had this information the opinion changed.
So yes, what you are doing is the same thing that groups like "Answers in Genesis" do - suggesting broadly that "science has been wrong before", and therefore any fringe opinion is equally valid.
Plus the information on homosexuality isn't 100% psychological anyway, there is biological evidence showing a different brain structure, as well as evidence of it existing in other animals.
christine
03-14-15, 07:31 PM
That's not something which is verifiable - you're basically just asserting that science is "biased" or agenda driven. Even if no one is perfectly unbiased, I'd say that science is as close to 100% unbiased as it's possible to get.
Is that the satire mentioned in the title?
Is that the satire mentioned in the title?
What science do you think is biased and what is your case for it?
Stating "it's biased!", "it's been wrong before!", etc doesn't have any validity - you need to make a case for it being so.
Not to mention, popular opinion on homosexuality changed quite awhile after the APA stopped recognizing it as a disorder - they declassified it in 1973 - but gay marriage wasn't legal in any state until 2004. In fact DOMA was signed into law as late as 1996 - by President Clinton nonetheless.
So it definitely seems like popular opinion change followed the APA's change in stance, not the other way around.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:17 PM
Even if I agree with the conclusion that follows it, the phrase "according to science" gives me hives.
That's because you prefer the phrase, "According to God."
Daniel M
03-14-15, 11:40 PM
... Metrosexual simply means Closet Homosexual. Like Boybands and those "men" you see on TOWIE.
Sigh. It's posts like this that gives reason for the term 'metrosexual' to exist, and it's a shame that people have to justify decisions such as what they where and the way they act to conform to what is expected of them from society in relation to their sexuality. How does being comfortable in the way you act in any way dictate your sexuality?
And then you seem to be drawing a link between how 'manly' someone is and how heterosexual they are. So if a man doesn't act like a 'man', he's a closet homosexual? Really. It's these old conventional stereotypes of what to expect from genres that generate labels and prevent people the freedom of being treated equally regardless of sexuality. Why does a man have to act like an old fashioned macho, gentleman male, why can't they dress like and act like what the enjoy without comments like "they're not a man" or they're a "closet homosexual"?
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:45 PM
Not at all... but Dude who has more interest in his hair than 99.999999% of women is not a man,
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:46 PM
And then you seem to be drawing a link between how 'manly' someone is and how heterosexual they are. So if a man doesn't act like a 'man', he's a closet homosexual? Really. It's these old conventional stereotypes of what to expect from genres that generate labels and prevent people the freedom of being treated equally regardless of sexuality. Why does a man have to act like an old fashioned macho, gentleman male, why can't they dress like and act like what the enjoy without comments like "they're not a man" or they're a "closet homosexual"?
I celebrate and worship aggressive hypermasculinity, but sometimes... sometimes certain men who worship it, too, and try to act it, are secretly a little homosexual themselves.
I can tell the difference between someone who is a real man and who is a girly man trying to act tough.
Citizen Rules
03-14-15, 11:46 PM
I never heard the term 'Metrosexual' before...and I have no idea what this thread is about, as I have not posted here for a couple weeks, nor have I read it.
I do know that being macho is usually the inverse of being a gentlemen. I strive to be a gentlemen.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:48 PM
Not at all... but Dude who has more interest in his hair than 99.999999% of women is not a man,
It depends on how else they act in other areas. Of course you are going to knock men who excessively groom themselves, but many macho men take care of themselves and I see nothing wrong with that. It's better to take care of yourself than to not take care of yourself. Though, I'm not completely against having little care about such matters.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:49 PM
I never heard the term 'Metrosexual' before...
Wow. You have a great internet connection there on Mars.
Daniel M
03-14-15, 11:51 PM
Not at all... but Dude who has more interest in his hair than 99.999999% of women is not a man,
Quite the opposite I would say, interest in hair and interesting/unconventional clothing and appearance choices show confidence and edginess that a lot of young women another days find very attractive. I still don't see how they way you act dictates your gender and its a shape these conventional gender conventions are leading to silly insults and the need for people to justify their decisions to feel acceptable.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:52 PM
Here's Metrosexual in a nutshell:
Man who spends more time in the bathroom than a woman.
Spends more time on his hair per minute than a woman,
Freaks out more than a woman does, when he realises he's going bald.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:53 PM
I'd rather stab myself in the face with a mirror... than worry about what's going on in it.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:54 PM
Quite the opposite I would say, interest in hair and interesting/unconventional clothing and appearance choices show confidence and edginess that a lot of young women another days find very attractive. I still don't see how they way you act dictates your gender and its a shape these conventional gender conventions are leading to silly insults and the need for people to justify their decisions to feel acceptable.
How you act shouldn't dictate your gender. You're free to perform "male" or "female" -- or whatever -- any way you please.
Though, be ready to take on criticism if you don't please other people's ideas of "male" or "female." People everywhere are going to judge you. No matter what, you are always doing something wrong to somebody, and something right to someone else.
Daniel M
03-14-15, 11:55 PM
Here's Metrosexual in a nutshell:
Man who spends more time in the bathroom than a woman.
Spends more time on his hair per minute than a woman,
Freaks out more than a woman does, when he realises he's going bald.
Why should we expectations for a person based on their sexuality. I would say this is very sexist. You are expecting a man to act one way and a woman to act another. These are stereotypes that we should be moving beyond, gender should not dictate any of those three actions. A man or woman should feel comfortable and normal doing any of those.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:55 PM
I'd rather stab myself in the face with a mirror... than worry about what's going on in it.
Ohhhhh.... don't stab your beautiful face. I care about what's in your mirror.
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:56 PM
Feminine and Masculine are a biological thing.
Metrosexual is a word for feminine males.
Sexy Celebrity
03-14-15, 11:57 PM
Man who spends more time in the bathroom than a woman.
Spends more time on his hair per minute than a woman,
Freaks out more than a woman does, when he realises he's going bald.
Didn't you say you used to have LONG hair (like a woman's) and now you're bald?
The Rodent
03-14-15, 11:58 PM
Why should we expectations for a person based on their sexuality. I would say this is very sexist. You are expecting a man to act one way and a woman to act another. These are stereotypes that we should be moving beyond, gender should not dictate any of those three actions. A man or woman should feel comfortable and normal doing any of those.
Completely the opposite.
Man is male, masculine.
Female is female, feminine. You either are, or you aren't.
Metrosexual is men pretending to be men.
Citizen Rules
03-14-15, 11:58 PM
Here's Metrosexual in a nutshell:
Man who spends more time in the bathroom than a woman.
Spends more time on his hair per minute than a woman,
Freaks out more than a woman does, when he realises he's going bald.
Thanks...I see nothing indicative in that definition that would denote one's sexuality. It speaks more to one's vanity. Vanity exist outside of a persons sexual identification.
Though I think women would freak out more about going bald, then most men. Knock on wood I have all my hair.:D
Daniel M
03-14-15, 11:59 PM
You're just repeating yourself without responding to any of the arguments that I've made here.
So is it biological for a woman to spend more time on her hair and in the bathroom than a man?
No it is not, it is a sexist stereotype/expectation built over a period of time that needs to be ignored and advanced beyond in a time where people of both genders should feel comfortable and unrestricted to the way they want to act.
The Rodent
03-15-15, 12:00 AM
Metrosexual Is a man acting feminine, but pretending to be masculine, but pr3etending to feminine, but pretending to be masculine...
Metro = Confused.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 12:01 AM
Though I think women would freak out more about going bald, then most men. Knock on wood I have all my hair.:D
Bald women are not considered womanly, unless you're a conehead.
http://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=20482&stc=1&d=1426388458
Daniel M
03-15-15, 12:02 AM
Completely the opposite.
Man is male, masculine.
Female is female, feminine. You either are, or you aren't.
Metrosexual is men pretending to be men.
No, gender is what you choose to identify yourself as based on what you feel comfortable with, but for the majority of people it is how they are born.
'Masculinity' and 'Femininity' are completely different, they are largely sexist stereotypes that have been built up over a period of time. People have created rules and expectations demanding the people of each gender act a different way. You've stated that it should be expected a woman spends more time on her hair and in the bathroom than a male, but why? Because society she says so, "Oh silly women, spending so much time on their hair!". As I keep repeating, people should do what they want and feel comfortable in, constraints like this only hold them back and lead to problems in them feeling accepted and succeeding in certain things. What your born or identify as should 100% not dictate in any way the way you choose to act.
Miss Vicky
03-15-15, 12:02 AM
Thanks...I see nothing indicative in that definition that would denote one's sexuality.
That's because it has nothing to do with sexuality. As you said, it's just a slang term for very vain males.
As an aside, it feels very strange to me to be in agreement with Daniel M on anything other than the awesomeness of Con Air. :laugh:
The Rodent
03-15-15, 12:03 AM
Men should be hairy arseholed beer drinking armwrestling thugs who play rugby.
Not bothered with their hair after they've played a few rounds of Football.
Daniel M
03-15-15, 12:03 AM
Metrosexual = Someone who dresses how they want but unfairly feels the need to justify their decisions as they go against what is expected a sexist/homophobic society.
Citizen Rules
03-15-15, 12:05 AM
So is it biological for a woman to spend more time on her hair and in the bathroom than a man?In most mammalians species it's the male that is all 'prettied up' and the female is drab. Only in humans does the female spend more time (usually) on appearances.
At one time men of wealthy means wore powered wings, face powder and frilly lace. But I guarantee that George Washington was a real man.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 12:08 AM
No it is not, it is a sexist stereotype/expectation built over a period of time that needs to be ignored and advanced beyond in a time where people of both genders should feel comfortable and unrestricted to the way they want to act.
It shouldn't be totally ignored and forgotten, though.
I believe in beauty and I do think there are natural appealing looks to people on what is male and what is female. I do not find neutered looking, emasculated men in certain ways beautiful. Men who try to look like strange looking women or something. No, no, no. I prefer hot guys who have a real masculine look. I would NEVER want such a thing to go away. Nor do I think "sexist stereotypes" of women should go away. There is absolutely power and beauty and class to extreme types of femininity. This is why there are gay men who work as hairdressers and stylists, and gay men who do drag and stuff, because they celebrate and worship and help women try to look their best.
Frankly, I think women who let their looks go to Hell and don't take care of their femininity are not that fascinating. I think everyone should be allowed to do what they want, but not everyone is gonna love your choices. Want to be a beautiful woman? Maybe you'll be a supermodel, maybe you'll get hot boyfriends. Want to be an ugly woman and dress like a man? Maybe you'll be spending your Friday nights at home.
Miss Vicky
03-15-15, 12:09 AM
In most mammalians species it's the male that is all 'prettied up' and the female is drab. Only in humans does the female spend more time (usually) on appearances.
Not sure I agree with this. Male mammals tend to be larger and more physically impressive in terms of strength, but not necessarily "prettier."
It is true that many male birds, fish, and insects/arachnids are far more colorful than the females of their species and often have elaborate courtship displays.
Daniel M
03-15-15, 12:10 AM
It shouldn't be totally ignored and forgotten, though.
I believe in beauty and I do think there are natural appealing looks to people on what is male and what is female. I do not find neutered looking, emasculated men in certain ways beautiful. Men who try to look like strange looking women or something. No, no, no. I prefer hot guys who have a real masculine look. I would NEVER want such a thing to go away. Nor do I think "sexist stereotypes" of women should go away. There is absolutely power and beauty and class to extreme types of femininity. This is why there are gay men who work as hairdressers and stylists, and gay men who do drag and stuff, because they celebrate and worship and help women try to look their best.
Frankly, I think women who let their looks go to Hell and don't take care of their femininity are not that fascinating. I think everyone should be allowed to do what they want, but not everyone is gonna love your choices. Want to be a beautiful woman? Maybe you'll be a supermodel, maybe you'll get hot boyfriends. Want to be an ugly woman and dress like a man? Maybe you'll be spending your Friday nights at home.
There is nothing wrong with having personal expectations and preferences in terms of how you find attractive. But its when people start stating things as facts and rules for how people in general should act in society that it becomes a problem, people should have the freedom to live how they like without the fear of being treated any differently because its 'against the norm'.
Citizen Rules
03-15-15, 12:11 AM
Not sure I agree with this. Male mammals tend to be larger and more physically impressive in terms of strength, but not necessarily "prettier." It is true that many male birds, fish, and insects/arachnids are far more colorful than the females of their species and often have elaborate courtship displays. Yah, I see your point, I should say some mammals. But many bird and fish species the male is much more prettier.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 12:15 AM
Not sure I agree with this. Male mammals tend to be larger and more physically impressive in terms of strength, but not necessarily "prettier."
It is true that many male birds, fish, and insects/arachnids are far more colorful than the females of their species and often have elaborate courtship displays.
I honestly think men are naturally the more attractive animals in the human species. I think men are naturally more prettier and they have to do the whole courtship display rituals, too. They do say that males in other species are naturally prettier and I think it's true in the case of humans, too. I'm not saying this because I'm gay -- I honestly believe it's the truth. I just think that's how nature is. I think that's why makeup is a woman's thing -- I think makeup is there to make women more beautiful and appealing to men. Men don't need makeup. Men can go out and look sexy without it.
Men should be hairy arseholed beer drinking armwrestling thugs who play rugby.
No thanks.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 12:20 AM
Men should be hairy arseholed beer drinking armwrestling thugs who play rugby.
They should. I absolutely wouldn't mind living in a world where that's all there is.
There is nothing wrong with having personal expectations and preferences in terms of how you find attractive. But its when people start stating things as facts and rules for how people in general should act in society that it becomes a problem, people should have the freedom to live how they like without the fear of being treated any differently because its 'against the norm'.
I agree that the idea that society should 'dictate' what roles, professions, etc that people should be in is outdated.
On the flip side though I'm just saying that there are some biological things at work here that people should be aware of. For example people like Presidents and CEOs do actually learn about things such as body language, etc in detail because they need to be socially persuasive - and these are skills which are helpful to others in the real world too. However the average person really has no clue about this (other than what they just learned through mirroring others) or even any clue that 'you can learn it'.
Why should we expectations for a person based on their sexuality. I would say this is very sexist. You are expecting a man to act one way and a woman to act another. These are stereotypes that we should be moving beyond, gender should not dictate any of those three actions. A man or woman should feel comfortable and normal doing any of those.
Difference between "expectations" - as in society expecting 'women to stay in the kitchen', and awareness of behavioral preferences that exist in biology (e.x. behavioral slants exist in both sexes in every species). Since the sexes have different brain structures there are certain ways in which they drift naturally, and different needs (ex. men need a healthy testosterone level to be their healthiest). The main difference I'd say which is effective in the real world is interaction style; as far though as societies dictating certain careers for men/women like it used to, I agree that this is rather collectivist and not good.
Not at all... but Dude who has more interest in his hair than 99.999999% of women is not a man,
Don't totally agree with that - there's a reason women would find this:
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/tankist276/tankist2761304/tankist276130400042/18878898-the-very-muscular-handsome-sexy-guy-in-black-suit-indoor.jpg
More attractive than this:
http://caloriesproper.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fat-guy-playing-on-computer.jpg
As long as a guy doesn't look like Boy George or something then putting effort into his appearance is definitely better because it shows more 'status' and confidence, than a guy who looks like a total slob - if a guy doesn't look like he even cares about his appearance or body, then a woman can't expect him to take care of her.
Same reason that showing up at a job interview in cutoff shorts and a beer stained Family Guy T-shirt would be a bad idea - how's an employer going to expect someone to manage their job if they look like they're too lazy even to spend 5 minutes dressing?
In most mammalians species it's the male that is all 'prettied up' and the female is drab. Only in humans does the female spend more time (usually) on appearances.
At one time men of wealthy means wore powered wings, face powder and frilly lace. But I guarantee that George Washington was a real man.
There was actually a period in 16-17th century Europe where men outdressed the average woman, but it didn't catch on.
I think that back in the day men dressing 'flamboyantly' was more important because it showed wealth or status; nowadays I think it's fallen out of favor because men show status more with possessions such as cars and money, or with developing their physique.
I think this is the same reason that the male is the more 'beautiful' in lots of other animals; it's his way of 'impressing' the woman - I think peacocks are one of the best examples of this difference.
Sigh. It's posts like this that gives reason for the term 'metrosexual' to exist, and it's a shame that people have to justify decisions such as what they where and the way they act to conform to what is expected of them from society in relation to their sexuality. How does being comfortable in the way you act in any way dictate your sexuality?
And then you seem to be drawing a link between how 'manly' someone is and how heterosexual they are. So if a man doesn't act like a 'man', he's a closet homosexual? Really. It's these old conventional stereotypes of what to expect from genres that generate labels and prevent people the freedom of being treated equally regardless of sexuality. Why does a man have to act like an old fashioned macho, gentleman male, why can't they dress like and act like what the enjoy without comments like "they're not a man" or they're a "closet homosexual"?
Well people don't just 'dress and act in certain ways' for no reason - it's actually all a communication style, and even things such as certain body language has biological effects (ex. strong body language raises testosterone for example). People shouldn't do things "just to please society", but they should understand what the things and their effects actually are, and what the reason for doing them is. Because a lot of these things aren't socially conditioned, they have a biological route.
If rodent's extreme however is that if a guy doesn't look like a caveman, that he must be a closet homosexual then that's pretty adolescent though - and that doesn't seem to fly in the real world. As long as a guy doesn't look like he just got back from a gay pride rally, then taking care of his looks is definitely a benefit, not only in social situations but careers as well.
That's because you prefer the phrase, "According to God."
Fun fact: this phrase has yet to appear in any of my 40,000 posts.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 11:11 AM
Fun fact: this phrase has yet to appear in any of my 40,000 posts.
That is fun. It doesn't need to be in them, though.
Sexy Celebrity
03-15-15, 11:12 AM
40,000 posts? Whew! That's too many.
'Masculinity' and 'Femininity' are completely different, they are largely sexist stereotypes that have been built up over a period of time.
An important distinction: masculinity and femininity are words that describe behavioral tendencies and traits. They are not sexist concepts. What would be sexist is the expectation that all people of a given gender hew closely to these tendencies and/or chastising them for failing to do so. But there's nothing wrong with them as descriptive terms. They correlate pretty strongly to testosterone levels and, as a general rule, the traits associated with either seem to do a good job of counterbalancing the pitfalls of the other.
'Masculinity' and 'Femininity' are completely different, they are largely sexist stereotypes that have been built up over a period of time.
I'm amazed at how often this myth gets repeated despite it being science denial nearly on par with denying evolution altogether.
The biological and behavioral differences (in all species) are pretty basic science and very well established - what you're saying is just a myth it's tantamount to saying that tigers, chimpanzees, etc are only 'wild' because of some social conditioning, and that if they were raised around people from birth they'd be just as docile as a housecat - but this is known to be untrue due to the way their genetics developed.
The only part of what you're saying with a grain of truth to it is that societies have tried to 'force' people into certain roles- nevertheless behavioral differences exist due to genetics, independent from any social conditioning (much like the difference between a tiger and a housecat)- even at as young as 8 months old, many of these differences are apparent.
Nostromo87
03-15-15, 04:00 PM
oh dear, vomit disaster thread! :sick:
can't believe i actually read the whole thing. Then again, maybe the thread is profound. Some Africans believe in a trickster deity called Bumba. Apparently Bumba was lonely and sick for millions of years, then one day Bumba felt so horribly awful that he vomited, and out came the sun and stars and planets and life!
http://oi61.tinypic.com/34snhnl.jpg
maybe 90sAce's thread is keeping the tradition alive!
http://oi58.tinypic.com/vr6lhl.jpg
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.