View Full Version : Hot Women
Tom McCurdy
Sep1-04, 12:04 AM
This is more of a one am after taco bell question but i thought it might produce interesting results
Is it wrong to like good looking women when you purposly try to engage conversations with good looking women first. and what originally told us that good looking women have the general sterotype that they do today about body size?
sorry if this doesn't make sense
i just had tbell and i am tired
I will try to come back to fix it up later i fi remember
First of all I don't want to marry a blondie-head :D
Second, if it's about the structure of the face and you proposely follow and do good things to these persons because of that, yes then I think it's wrong.
Because it's body-fascism. Although a very common fascism at that.
We're all born differently structurally in the face, and if you prioritize one that's been lucky this way.... it's kinda obvious.
However if you like persons that's clean, I don't think it's wrong(or nearly in the same class). Because that's something almost all of us can do something about.
In principle I try to follow the girls personality and our chemistry to see if I like her or not.
And I think boys has to be more aware that when they look at someone they call 'Hot', they are rather studying Art, and not actually want the girl.
Thirdly, it's funny that we are so attracted to Pythagoras geometrics of 1.66 in the face. It's like we're not attracted to the person but is actually loosing our breath because of some maths. "Ohhh ahhh 1.6634423 4 4545 ohhh ahhh!!!"
Thirdly, it's funny that we are so attracted to Pythagoras geometrics of 1.66 in the face. It's like we're not attracted to the person but is actually loosing our breath because of some maths. "Ohhh ahhh 1.6634423 4 4545 ohhh ahhh!!!"
What is this geometrics of 1.66, you talking about?
Can explain little bit.
It's the geometrics in the face. Often when we speak about perfect faces, it's actually about different triangles to your face. Eg. How your cheek stand to your nose and chin.
You can see the program about it with John Cleese and Elisabeth Hurley "The Human Face" http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/SkinterviewFace.html
http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/hface.htm
I'm not sure if that number is correct, but that doesn't matter.
Also I think the same principle can be used in someone that just got cute eyes too. Not the geometrics I mean, but that people born with some charismatic eyes goes under the same body-fascism principle.
Somehow the american boys on imdb doesn't give the film high score. I bet they don't like what they're been told :p
But the girls give the movie rocket-high scores.
Although it isn't much reviewers.
False Prophet
Sep2-04, 05:50 PM
And I think boys has to be more aware that when they look at someone they call 'Hot', they are rather studying Art, and not actually want the girl.
Are you kidding? I want every "hot" girl I see!
As far as the facial geometry is concerned, when I'm checking out a girl, usually I'm not even paying attention to her face at all. I do notice geometry elsewhere though!
I think people in general are superficial. I think girls are almost just as much as guys.
As far as the facial geometry is concerned, when I'm checking out a girl, usually I'm not even paying attention to her face at all. I do notice geometry elsewhere though!
lol
I think girls are almost just as much as guys.
I've been thinking about that too. At least I think that it's much more than it's being focused on. And that they put too much weight in all those things about girls being attracted to money and strong men.
Averagesupernova
Sep2-04, 09:30 PM
Well some women have NOTHING going for them except looks so are you saying that all of those women deserve to be left out in the cold?
cmon. Who have nothing? :D
Thirdly, it's funny that we are so attracted to Pythagoras geometrics of 1.66 in the face. It's like we're not attracted to the person but is actually loosing our breath because of some maths. "Ohhh ahhh 1.6634423 4 4545 ohhh ahhh!!!"
The 'golden number', phi, is 1.61803398874989, as close as I can generate it (I'm fairly certain that it's irrational, so you can never get it dead on, like pi). The ancient Greeks thought that phi:1 was a beautiful ratio in all things - it was an important feature on architecture.
To find it yourself, run the Fibonacci sequence (write down any two numbers, 'a' and 'b'. add 'a' and 'b' for the third term, 'c'. add 'b' and 'c' for the fourth term 'd', etc. eg. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...). Divide term ten by term nine for an okay approximation. Divide term twenty by term nineteen for a better one.
The really funky thing is, you can put any numbers into the first two terms and it will resolve itself.
I hope that answers any questions. It's not really about triangles, it's about the sizes of different things in proportion to one another; the ratios.
Well some women have NOTHING going for them except looks so are you saying that all of those women deserve to be left out in the cold?
Nothing going for them? Someone stupid & cruel & selfish & humourless & evil?
Yeah, they deserve to be left out in the cold.
Tom McCurdy
Sep6-04, 08:03 PM
I second the left out in the cold
This is of great interest to me, if anyone could post a comprehensive link to a mathematical dunz like me that'd be great.
Hey, hope it helps...I consider myself as a Golden Mean student...
http://www.facialbeauty.org/divineproportion.html
pretty faces are somthing i like to stare at, male or female, but it's the personality i care about when i make the time to be around them obviously. And yes everyone is a fool to be attracted to a pretty face/body but really who can resist, at least in the short run. but really, prettiness wears out.
Thallium
Sep9-04, 11:10 AM
Thirdly, it's funny that we are so attracted to Pythagoras geometrics of 1.66 in the face. It's like we're not attracted to the person but is actually loosing our breath because of some maths. "Ohhh ahhh 1.6634423 4 4545 ohhh ahhh!!!"
:rofl: You are good at making people laugh, pace! Well said! I also pondered this too when my maths teacher told me this. I don't believe in that theory at all. I've been attracted to guys that are so asymmetrical that you couldn't tell the difference between their faces and a potato!
So, geniuses what is the formula for preetyness?
You guys trying to make science out of anything.
:rofl: You are good at making people laugh, pace! Well said! I also pondered this too when my maths teacher told me this. I don't believe in that theory at all. I've been attracted to guys that are so asymmetrical that you couldn't tell the difference between their faces and a potato!
You're welcome! :biggrin:
Actually they say in some studies over here that women more often like asymetrical faces, that they more represent the 'tough man' or something like that. There are some other values too, like big lips. Maybe that was why you were so attracted, he looked like one big lip? :tongue:
Thallium
Sep9-04, 04:02 PM
To me, beauty is not about science. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! And there are many beholders!
Pace! You should have seen Irish men. The average Irish person has a very asymmetrical appearance. Squinty-eyed, slim face with other proportions that make them look like scketches for a painting. Or something like that!! I don't mind big lips, but the shape of a man's lips is never what I first discover! :)
I gotto admit that I get a little scientific like many other men(darn, now I got scientific again!)
Yeah, you're absolutely right, it's in the eye of the beholder too... I don't know what more to say than that I'm afraid :redface:
Beauty is just another optimization. Look at "beautifull face", cost less energy than to look an ugly face.
Beauty = Proportion = Phi.
Numbers are abstract, proportions are divine.
do men not have the "divine proportion"? there are women who make it a sport of eyeballing men with looks and body stature as much as men do the same of women...i don't think this topic has to be limited to just women. :smile:
Thallium
Sep10-04, 11:33 AM
Cut the damn "Phi" away from proportions. Proportions can mean so many things. Irregular or regular.
humanino
Sep10-04, 05:29 PM
Beauty is just another optimization. Look at "beautifull face", cost less energy than to look an ugly face.
Beauty = Proportion = Phi.
Numbers are abstract, proportions are divine.
Jeez Wings ! you must be a worse geek than I am !
Tom McCurdy
Sep10-04, 10:43 PM
Beauty is Nick Wester's Mom
40
and the hottest person you will ever see in your life
amwbonfire
Sep12-04, 05:52 AM
This is a very shallow post. :tongue2:
This is a very shallow post. :tongue2:
Agreed. It only reiterates what is the main priority of most of these forumers, and which for many is their main reason to live. :rolleyes:
pretty faces are somthing i like to stare at, male or female, but it's the personality i care about when i make the time to be around them obviously. And yes everyone is a fool to be attracted to a pretty face/body but really who can resist, at least in the short run. but really, prettiness wears out.
I concur, when I was young, I mean younger! Hehe I found lOOks to be the center of captivation with the other ˝, but now I know the linchpin is “the wits” in all sense of the word. A attractive face along with a turbOO charged body is definitely a plus but not the rule.
Tom McCurdy
Sep18-04, 12:36 AM
I think people get too focused on one detail too decide about a woman
there is no one secret thing that makes a woman great or horrible
its a combination of many different things
Thallium
Sep18-04, 04:52 PM
Agreed. It only reiterates what is the main priority of most of these forumers, and which for many is their main reason to live. :rolleyes:
Be careful Mr. Prejudgemental. Speaking for myself, I joined this discussion because I found it so provoking that some can say that 1,618 makes a person the most sexy little thing in the whole world. What is your excuse for at all bothering to make a little signature here? You like playing the piano? I call these 1,618-supporters shallow.
KaneOris
Sep19-04, 07:52 AM
These are just some thoughts of mine on the matter
It is not wrong to go for the attractive woman first, it is an instinct we have, and only since we have developed society has it ever been frowned upon.
Attraction to a woman is all science, it comes down to the ratio 1:1.67 if you want to know more about that ask in another topic and i'll tell you.
Moonbear
Sep19-04, 09:35 PM
I don't see anything wrong with talking to people you find attractive. The thing is, everyone thinks of something different when they say someone is attractive. Some notice faces, chests, legs, hips, buttocks, hair, smile, eyes, height, muscle build, witty conversation, etc. So, don't worry, those people you don't find attractive will be found attractive by someone else. Afterall, it's hard to be attracted to someone you don't find attractive. :tongue:
cragwolf
Sep19-04, 11:55 PM
It is not wrong to go for the attractive woman first, it is an instinct...
Is this the "it's not wrong if it's instinctual" argument?
Lets face it, when we meet a person, our impression of them would be fully based on their appearance, we don't have sensors or whatever to engage in a brainwave salutation with them to value their personality first.
My point is that we're all affected by going for the pretty girls, thats natural instinct, we can't help it. The people that say that they go by personalities and not looks are just lying to themselves, as I think that we all (subconsciously) by instinct go for the pretty faces and then test their personalities to see if they fit.
KaneOris
Sep20-04, 01:14 AM
cragwolf, im a 15 year old who gets C's in english alright, this isnt a dicussion on the english language
What do you know what is instinct or not?
Secondly, after talking about it and such, the closest I can get is that: One shouldn't go after someone because they fit the 1.6 proportion, but can do it if it's personal physical values.
That would create a lot of opposition I think, because I think there are a lot of people that do go after the 1.6 proportion.
KaneOris
Sep20-04, 07:30 AM
pace, what do you what reality is or not. You just do, You are programmed to go for the healthiest smartest and most secure mates. On the healthiest side of things you go for those that match the 1.67 because the 1.67 ratio fits tells you they are healthy. How does it tell you they are healthy, because thats the way we are told to grow, the correct way to grow is in the 1.67 ratio... Therefore from sight we go for the 1.67 person rather than the 1 - 3.45.
I disagree there Kane, and with you also Grev. Sure, your instincts can sway you since they are your fundamental drive to alleviate straight away a tension/desire which comes directly from a body part of yours. But that doesn't define what you have to do or who you have to be. If you try to stop judging women on their appearance, eventually, you will do it less. Where is the room for right and wrong if you can only act according to your instincts?
I agree that you (and I) would probably go for the prettiest one upon first seeing them. But that doesn't mean that it's a good thing or that there's no way to reduce that "natural" tendancy.
cragwolf
Sep20-04, 10:41 AM
cragwolf, im a 15 year old who gets C's in english alright, this isnt a dicussion on the english language
No excuse. When I was your age, I barely passed English. The point is, just because it's instinctual doesn't make it right. What is instinctual? What is right? Good questions.
Thallium
Sep22-04, 03:52 AM
Oh Mr.Know-how! Kane! Have you measured the proportions of humans that are attractive in this world? I think not. So frankly, you have nothing to say.
Tombow2558
Sep22-04, 07:34 AM
Not know how to say "hot" correctly. The one I love is the hottest.
Err sometimes it depends, ie when I didn't "feel hot" yet in a week, some ladies with graceful smiles passing by are all hot to me.
KaneOris
Sep22-04, 09:23 AM
Cragwolf, the excuse was about spelling instinctual
Thallium, no, but have you personally proved newtons laws? No, does that mean you cant talk physics. Ive seen the results of the expirimentaion work
Leon, "natural tendancy" is just saying instinct
And heres another question, do you believe eating is an instinct? If so how do you know? I believe it is because living things without a concious mind, still know how to eat. Now the word for that is an instinct.
Now they also now how to mate. Now if a cat is walking around its neighbourhoud, and its looking for a mate. Why doesnt it go for the dog? It knows its not the right thing to mate with, but how?... its an instinct.
Now they also know not to mate with another cat that has no legs. Now why wouldnt it want to mate with a cat with no legs... it knows its not at full health. Now in the kingdom of life, what has the best chance of staying alive? A cat with no legs, or a nice healthy cat... Now putting aside things such as luck, its obvious that the Healthy cat has a better chance. Now thats all very good.
But, the Cat thats looking for a mate doesnt pass on by the one with no legs solely for the reason that the cat with no legs is probably going to die soon and wont be able to care and protect for the kittens. Its because the cat knows, instinctively that if the no legs problem is genetic it will pass it on to the cat looking for a mate's offspring.
Ohk so how does this relate to us checking out "hot chicks"?
Well its pretty simple to figure out from here, but just incase ill explain.
An average man is walking down the street.
And he passes a woman that fits the 1:1.67 ratio fairly well. And he see's here as a very good potential mate. And looks her up and down a few times... He knows that woman is a good mate why, she is healthy... how does she know she is healthy just by the ratio? well humans are meant to grow into that ratio. The closer to the ratio the more "perfect" in body form they are. Therefore we go for the healthy woman instinctively.
So:
From observation, We know that human genetics tell us to grow to a certain ratio, which is 1:1.67
We are told instinctively to go for the 1:1.67 woman because, she appears more healthy as she is close to the 1:1.67 proportion.
We want the healthier woman for a better survival and reproducing change of our offspring.
Now this is only talking from a first glance point of view, remember that. There are many reasons why people dont go for the 1:1.67 women.
Sercurity: 1:1.67 woman are saught after more by men so theres a higher chance she will mate with more than 1 person
Intelligence: We also want smart mates
Social: We've created a social world that can overcome our instincts
saviourmachine
Sep22-04, 10:25 AM
Second, if it's about the structure of the face and you proposely follow and do good things to these persons because of that, yes then I think it's wrong. Because it's body-fascism. Although a very common fascism at that. We're all born differently structurally in the face, and if you prioritize one that's been lucky this way.... it's kinda obvious.
However if you like persons that's clean, I don't think it's wrong(or nearly in the same class). Because that's something almost all of us can do something about.
Change
So, it's only okay to love things women can change? If she has the money to do plastic surgery, I'm allowed to love her face? Someones character doesn't change much too. It isn't okay to love someones character?
Subjective
Not everybody appreciates the same characteristics (I love face characteristics more than body forms).
Extra
As beauty is a kind of extra, this doesn't imply that the opposite is something to be ashamed of. Beauty is just one of all the properties a human can possess.
Beauty itself
IMHO it's 'good' to love beauty. Even if it has some Pythagoras geometrics of x.xxxxxxxxxx. Not to appreciate beauty would be silly. It would be like hating 'lust'. Man!
Origin
The origin of this 'discrimination' doesn't have anything to do with its validity. If you say it's good because god said it, or because you're shaped by evolutionary processes. It doesn't 'free' someone from his/her responsability. It's good to have reasons for how to act in real life.
Thallium
Sep24-04, 01:19 PM
Deutschland is Die Dritte Reich. Heil Hitler!
KaneOris
Sep24-04, 08:55 PM
Yeh, um you've obviously got no mates. The THIRD EMPIRE DIED! SO DID HITLER! Dont bring this crap here please
saviourmachine
Sep25-04, 11:09 AM
If you think this is an implication of my thought collection, check your reasoning please. I am not a pure hedonist but basing my morality on 'freedom of choice'. This glorifies the individual, his choices, his feelings. If you become a slave of a country or a person, you're lost in my eyes (you 'used' your freedom to choose to enslave yourself). You're the opposite of whatever I am. Sorry! I can't help you, you've to help yourself.
Thallium
Sep25-04, 01:53 PM
Let's call it an ironic-saracstic interference. I thought it suited the situtation here.
KanOris, 1.67 has nothing to do with being Healthy. Secondly we will never coming to a perfect match to that 1.67 number anyways. All the time when we are getting closer to faces that represent that proportion more, we are used to those faces. Then we will complain the same way and doing the same mistakes by choosing people because they fit to a stupid proportion, when we should rather focus on all the things a livable person can offer us, things that tell us if we are the right match or not. We won't get any futher.
We might as well stop with that nonsense. Better now than later.
I gotto admit I'm not 100% sure of myself here, but this is the side I'm clearly tipping towards.
Change
So, it's only okay to love things women can change? If she has the money to do plastic surgery, I'm allowed to love her face? Someones character doesn't change much too. It isn't okay to love someones character?
Yeah, in general I think we should focus on that which we can change as much as possible. In general: The more lifely it is the more we should value it imo. So we should value the brain, with all it's complexities, feelings and thoughts, more than the empty shell of skin. And even more of those parts of the skin it's more difficult to change.
I think it's okay for someone to value cleanliness, but I would call someone silly if he/she valued that over the general chemistry between two people, if you love her, etc. Saying that someones character doesn't change much, I don't agree with. Or it depends what you mean. We will respond to things much equal through our lives because we're in the society we're in, but from what I learn from school brain is a more livable, complex, and precious part of our body than our skin.
Subjective
Not everybody appreciates the same characteristics (I love face characteristics more than body forms).
That I agree with. So I think each one should find their own balance, and then build it from there.
Extra
As beauty is a kind of extra, this doesn't imply that the opposite is something to be ashamed of. Beauty is just one of all the properties a human can possess.
That I agree with too, and I didn't imply that, if that's what you thought. I have to admit that my relation to pretty faces can go both ways. I can also make distance because I think their just a 'blondie-head'. And that's not a good things either.
Beauty itself
IMHO it's 'good' to love beauty. Even if it has some Pythagoras geometrics of x.xxxxxxxxxx. Not to appreciate beauty would be silly. It would be like hating 'lust'. Man!
I think it's a good thing to love beauty. But why can't you choose a partner for other reasons first, and then love the beauty afterwards? And why can't the beauty be for personal stuff, and not that proportion?
To be honest, I gotto admit I was maybe a bit on the hard side putting away that proportion thing altogether. Going of balance or being extremist is maybe not much convincing. But at the least I think there are so many things that one should prioritate first. I think The more changable it is, the more it mirrors the persons soul. Once it's possible to change, it's about the person, and not something else. But I think you have a more changable time with your brain than eg. your clothers
Origin
The origin of this 'discrimination' doesn't have anything to do with its validity. If you say it's good because god said it, or because you're shaped by evolutionary processes. It doesn't 'free' someone from his/her responsability. It's good to have reasons for how to act in real life.
Huh?
KaneOris
Sep30-04, 06:25 AM
KanOris, 1.67 has nothing to do with being Healthy
lol, sorry about that. But yes it does... it has an awful lot to do with it... just about everything.
If you grow one leg that is the size of a cow, u aint gonna look that great. BECAUSE ITS MEANT TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE. AND IT FITS IN WITH THE 1.67, is it people just dont want to accept it because it takes all the mystery away or cant they understand
Do you have any serious link claiming this Kane?
From what I read that proportion got nothing to do with with health. That proportion is about aesthetics and beauty, that was discovered long time ago. The limbs might be as weird as they will, as long as they aren't completely out of the blue. A leg that's 1.68 doesn't have more chance of being healthy than a 1.70.
I think you have to be very careful of linking physical proportions to healthliness Kane. It is something that has been done in the evilest of societies. From when they measured that a bigger head made you more smarter, to racism, to the Hitler Agenda were where the nordic race where the Good people. I'm not saying that you're evil or anything like that. But I've stood for some wrong things in my life, and it has cost me dearly in the future.
Slimming, charming and not so many moles on her face
saviourmachine
Oct2-04, 08:11 AM
Change or reliability
Yeah, in general I think we should focus on that which we can change as much as possible. In general: The more lifely it is the more we should value it imo. So we should value the brain, with all it's complexities, feelings and thoughts, more than the empty shell of skin. And even more of those parts of the skin it's more difficult to change.Do you really think this applies in the situation I mentioned: "It is okay to love the face of a rich person because she/he has the ability to change it"?
Or is it the other way around? It's okay IMHO to prefer reliability, stability. I rely often* on my ratio because my emotions change faster with my circumstances. My brother doesn't change much, I find him very thrustworthy. If a beautiful face didn't change I would love it even more (do you know "The picture of Dorian Gray" of Oscar Wilde?).
I think it's okay for someone to value cleanliness, but I would call someone silly if he/she valued that over the general chemistry between two people, if you love her, etc.Yes. But is this a matter of change? I think it's easier to get clean, than to have that kind of chemistry.
Intention?
Somewhere I think we ultimately have the same thoughts about it, but I wouldn't say that 'change' is the thing that makes the difference between what can be loved and what only can be appreciated. I think we've to search for another word, something like 'intention' mabye.
A woman may love a kind of nose of particular size and form. My nose isn't like that (e.g. :smile:). But if I can change it or not, that doesn't matter. What matters are the thoughts of that woman. In how much she loves my other 'properties', my 'real self', in short, how the whole picture is of me in her mind.
Besides, a woman doesn't have to love me. She could dislike my face, my manner, my character, almost everything of me, without being 'immoral'. What does matter is how she handles her feelings. That's where intentions comes into play.
Beauty and charity
I see beauty as something that radiates from someone** and can be perceived by others.**
I see charity as something that radiates from someone** and can be percieved by others.**
**People that use their own discriminating filters. You seem to accentuate the 'radiating' part (changeability). I accentuate the 'perceiving' part. The more can be perceived, the better it is IMHO. Beauty exists to be loved, good to be enjoyed.
To love beauty afterwards
I think it's a good thing to love beauty. But why can't you choose a partner for other reasons first, and then love the beauty afterwards? And why can't the beauty be for personal stuff, and not that proportion?Why not all these at the same time? To love beauty afterwards, that doesn't sound okay to me. I don't merely 'accept' beauty, or 'accept' my desires, I enjoy and love them.
* Nevertheless, if I had to choose between 1) enjoying life without thinking, or 2) thinking about life, without enjoying it, I'd take 1) I think.
I second the left out in the cold
I agree. And hopefully not many of you guys don't love women just or almost just because of her beauty.
XMLT
Preator Fenix
Oct17-04, 01:45 PM
This is silly.
What is really the problem with wanting to be with more attractive female???
I think someone has forgotten that we are, before anything else, organic machines created with on sole purpose in mind.
Hummmmmm Im sorry your genetic make up is not appealing to me but THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM. Quite franckly I just want to get laid. Perhaps If I was considring marrying you I MIGTH be a little more forgiving, as I'd have to add in other factors such your communication problems solving skills, as well as weather you'd be a good mother or not,.... but even then appearance will play a LARGE role as I DO NOT want to wake up to some disgusting mesh of flesh in the moring 20yrs from now.
I have a sexual drive and it MUST be satisfied, I can accept that you are not the "hottest" babe but I will be HARD PRESSED to accept a female with half a face melted from acid in a chemical plant accident, no matter how smart funny and loyal she may be.
It is unfair, inconsiderate, and very selfish. But that is our human nature, and to pretend otherwise is silly. There are VERY GOOD reason why we have evolved a sense of attractiveness,... to keep us from reproducing with people born with deformaties or from those who MIGHT REMOTELY be just generally unhealthy, sexual attractivness reinforces our hiearcal social structure by using pretty women as a form of physical currency, not least of which is the instinct of BOREDOM with a female after copulation; males find it nessacery
to satisfy their sexual dirve with as many females as possible also leading to social competition, and we must also consider the sexual drive to mate with younger females as a way of avoiding transimitting genes that have been exposed to the sun's deforming comsic rays for to long with results that age or anything resembling aging is UNIVERSALLY unattractive.
That prefectly normal, caring, compassianate, and loving people get tragcilly left out in the cold, and are hurt in the whole process (will nasty selfish greedy good looking bastards dont ) due to MINOR problems with apperance while sad, is but the inevitable consequance of our nature.
I have high moral standerds (despite what you may assume) and try my dammest to NOT let appearance guide my chocies (point in fact I usually DONT go for the "hot" babe, and perfer the "normal" gal, but that is due to statistical observations of succes more then anything else ),... but alas, it always is a factor. I hate this selfish aspect of myself, and must confront it every day of my life, but THEIR IS NOTHING I CAN DO TO CHANGE MY INSTINCTS. I can only strive to TRY and control them as best I can
So when I am "weak" and cheat on my wife who was horribly scarred in a recent accident, dont go pointing your damm fingers at me. It's easy to "speak" about equality and fairness in our sexual lives, but quite another to live that same experance subjectively.
This is silly.
What is really the problem with wanting to be with more attractive female???
.
I don't mean that Preator. We all value beauty. But what I really hope is that you guys should value her heart and personality as well not just her beauty.
XMLT
saviourmachine
Oct18-04, 10:32 AM
not just her beautyWho did? Do you have any reason to suggest that your discussion partners see '(almost) just' beauty? What I really hope is that your remark is unfounded.
Do you have any serious link claiming this Kane?
From what I read that proportion got nothing to do with with health. That proportion is about aesthetics and beauty, that was discovered long time ago. The limbs might be as weird as they will, as long as they aren't completely out of the blue. A leg that's 1.68 doesn't have more chance of being healthy than a 1.70.
I think you have to be very careful of linking physical proportions to healthliness Kane. It is something that has been done in the evilest of societies. From when they measured that a bigger head made you more smarter, to racism, to the Hitler Agenda were where the nordic race where the Good people. I'm not saying that you're evil or anything like that. But I've stood for some wrong things in my life, and it has cost me dearly in the future.
there has actually been quite a deal of research on body symmetry and health and a clear connection between body symmetry and health have been found... not only that, but symmetry in your partners body also stimulates yourself in certain ways...
it may seem horrible to you, but it's not something you can argue your way out of...
and it has got nothing to do with hitler or anything, and whether or not you have a symmetrical appearence have got absolutely nothing to do with what you can accomplish... it just gives you slightly better cards in terms og health and relationships...
now, i'd like to ask a question on the other hand:
Since you can't automatically dig into peoples heads when you first meet them, you have absolutely no idea of whether they are intelligent or stupid or boring or fascinating...
are you saying we should go and diliberately pick out the ugly girls? that makes no sense! since you have no idea of whether or not this person is of any interest, what is wrong with approaching someone that stimulates you in a positive way with the very first impression?
really?
and yeah, that's really terrible if we all just ignore the ugly girls... luck is, life doesn't work as one sided as stated above... you never know what's gonna happen. but it doesn't change the fact, that some people simply are dealt better cards than others, just like some people are more intelligent than others.. perhaps we shouldn't allow intelligent and ambitious people to get better jobs than most others? we should deliberately pick less intelligent and less ambitious people for the jobs once in a while to avoid "discrimination"...
sorry m8, but the world just don't work like that...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.