If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Emma Watson wears sheer red lace dress to Lancome party. This is relevant to your interests   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 138
    More: Spiffy, Baftas, black leather jacket, Tom Hiddleston, lace, war horse, nail polishes, Lancome, hair products  
•       •       •

25069 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Feb 2012 at 8:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-11 08:37:14 PM  

brokenrecord: Meh. Has the look of a 12 year old boy to me...


Want to know how I know you're Catholic?
 
2012-02-11 08:38:20 PM  
She's an average looking girl. Some of you people obsessed over her need to get out more. Short, strange looking legs, not well endowed, average face, horrible voice. You can do much better, fark.
 
2012-02-11 08:44:28 PM  
I don't get the internet love for her. If any of us were farking/dating/marrying her, you'd get a high-five. That's real life. However, when you put her up against all of Hollywood, she barely gets a farking C-.

Is it because people like her in the movie?
 
2012-02-11 08:46:38 PM  

lecavalier: Is it because people like her in the movie?


It's because they hit puberty whil Harry Potter movies dominated the 12 to 14-year old demographic.
 
2012-02-11 08:47:43 PM  
I hate girls with short hair. Girls with sideburns are a double whammy.

You members of the Jerry Sandusky club can have her.
 
2012-02-11 09:51:19 PM  

TheOriginalEd: man.. lot of latent homosexuality on fark these days.


These days? Well, in a geologic sense, maybe...
 
2012-02-11 10:49:38 PM  
...yep, studman and all his alts are in the house.
 
2012-02-11 10:51:25 PM  

DiamondDave: I hate girls with short hair. Girls with sideburns are a double whammy.

You members of the Jerry Sandusky club can have her.


Yes, because if you think she looks 12, only pedos can be attracted to her. Never mind that SHE'S 21, YOU DOLT!
 
2012-02-11 11:02:09 PM  
I want to make sun tea from her dirty panties.
 
2012-02-11 11:04:34 PM  
There's a lot of projecting going on in this thread.
 
2012-02-11 11:11:40 PM  

DiamondDave: I hate girls with short hair. Girls with sideburns are a double whammy.


More for me!
 
2012-02-12 12:40:54 AM  
GoldSpider: There's a lot of projecting going on in this thread.

So...much...THIS.

She looks lovely.
 
2012-02-12 02:07:40 AM  

browneye: GoldSpider: There's a lot of projecting going on in this thread.

So...much...THIS.

She looks lovely.


Boyish hair cut, poor choice in make up, and pretty understated secondary sexual characteristics. Simply put, it's kinda sad that, wearing a see-through, designer dress and sporting a professionally done hairstyle and make up, she doesn't look more feminine.

Or how about I put it this way: You take 10 females off the street with matching height, weight, age, and cute face, put them in similar wardrobes, and I'd be willing to bet that at least a few would be objectively hotter.

I've seen more feminine looking MEN.
 
2012-02-12 02:12:46 AM  

Lexx: Boyish hair cut,


Meh, I'm not a huge fan of it either, but she can pull it off better than some. Either way, no reason to go studman69 on that at all.
 
2012-02-12 02:31:50 AM  

Lexx: browneye: GoldSpider: There's a lot of projecting going on in this thread.

So...much...THIS.

She looks lovely.

Boyish hair cut, poor choice in make up, and pretty understated secondary sexual characteristics. Simply put, it's kinda sad that, wearing a see-through, designer dress and sporting a professionally done hairstyle and make up, she doesn't look more feminine.

Or how about I put it this way: You take 10 females off the street with matching height, weight, age, and cute face, put them in similar wardrobes, and I'd be willing to bet that at least a few would be objectively hotter.

I've seen more feminine looking MEN.


translation: biatch needs a boob job. (well that's what I was thinking anyways.
 
2012-02-12 08:10:23 AM  

skinink: NeedlesslyCanadian:
I just wish she would have wavy hair again, Can't understand women, the ones with straight hair want perms and the ones with nice curly/wavy hair want it straight.


Women are never satisfied. Seems like you summed it up pretty well, even though you don't understand.
 
2012-02-12 09:01:49 AM  
Are we still beating the "people who like other types of women are dem queers!" drum? Oh, we are. And quite incessantly, I see.

Your "she have short hair = boy = gay = bad" theorem has been thoroughly documented and you will receive all due credit, I assure you. It really is a novel and interesting postulate.

We would all be quite interested if you could further elaborate as to what a tremendously masculine man you are and how only those women you find attractive are those within the manly, straight spectrum. It is just terrifically fascinating.

Since you have such novel, interesting things to say, I'm sure you'll be soon delivering to us your judgment on the issue of the hottest girl on Saved By the Bell. Surely the only topic which could equal "lol emma looks liek a boy" in contemporary insight.
 
2012-02-12 01:46:21 PM  
img215.imageshack.us
wac.2526.edgecastcdn.net
 
2012-02-12 02:19:01 PM  

Lexx: objectively hotter.


You don't know the meaning of 'objective,' do you?

Joon: Are we still beating the "people who like other types of women are dem queers!" drum? Oh, we are. And quite incessantly, I see.


What's really funny about it is that pretty much *everyone* will appeal to *someone*. But *no one* will appeal to *everyone*. That's why we've got so many different kinds of beer and music, after all. If there really was such a thing as a single working standard for anything, then you'd readily see the evidence of that. The model of the 'attractive' woman is a marketing invention with no real basis in reality. Just about everyone pairs off eventually, and it's not because there aren't enough appealing people to go around. It's because the range of appreciation is as broad as the range of all people. That's the way it's always been. You'd think grown-ups would grasp this as obvious, but a surprising number of them apparently don't.

Related, the other major factor in the beauty myth is that you're better off somehow if you can bring yourself closer to whatever popular ideal is current for the time you're living in. (And anyone with any education should be aware that that changes greatly over time. Fashion designers of only a hundred years ago would find our emaciated twigs sick-looking and repellent.) This is true insofar as it comports to how shallow the observer is. There are plenty of men who will judge a woman on minutiae of her looks; those men are not worth having, though. So in fact, the harder you work to meet popular standards, the more likely you are to end up dating a jerk. What women need to grasp and embrace is the *reality* that *someone* out there -- a lot of people, actually -- will like you for who you are without all that superficial nonsense, and those people are more worth your while. If what you want is happiness, then stop reading those trashy glossies. They're only trying to sell you stuff, on the myth that you *need* to have or do something to achieve happiness, when in fact the opposite is closer to the truth.

There's good news for men in this, too: The women you find yourself attracted to -- *all* of them -- *will not* appeal to *all* other men. No matter what your preferences are, someone else disagrees with them, for their own reasons (good or bad), meaning that you're never actually competing with all other men. In fact, you're really only competing with yourself much of the time: On some level, most women who are worth actually knowing can sense how well centred you are, and can tell when men are trying too hard to be someone they're not. Shallow men and shallow women readily hook up, but it rarely works out well for either of them, because the whole deal is based on fakery. (The exception to this, of course, is when that's mutually understood and accepted.) Less-shallow people tend to have more luck, because their entire dating experience veers closer to who they really are, and that's the only factor that actually matters in the long run.

When it comes to dating, then, you're almost always better off just being yourself, no matter how well it comports -- or doesn't -- to currently popular ideals. If you're in a relationship with someone, they're going to find out who you really are sooner or later. If they're not going to like that person, then why waste all that time and energy trying to make something work that can't? Since everyone will appeal to someone, no matter who they are, don't worry about popular ideals; they are fake, and only only represent one narrow range of appreciation out of the much broader range that actually exists.

Finally, the beauty myth completely ignores one factor that's actually much more important to many people: personality. Your face might open a door, but if your mouth reveals you to be someone who's unappealing to someone else, that door's just going to slam shut on you again. If you're trying to appeal to currently popular standards of physical attraction, that's only useful towards connecting with people who 1) are in the narrow range of people specifically attracted to that model, and 2) place a higher priority on style than substance. Which is perfectly valid, if that's what you're after. If you look around, a lot of people are doing the same thing, targeting different kinds of people. But how you project yourself is only the start of it; actually connecting depends on how appealing you are beyond looks, and a successful relationship depends entirely on who you really are. So if what you want is a successful relationship, then your odds are best if you go in presenting yourself as who you really are. And there are few men worth knowing whose preference is 'neurotically obsessed with prevailing beauty standards'.
 
2012-02-12 03:25:47 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Lexx: objectively hotter.

You don't know the meaning of 'objective,' do you?

Joon: Are we still beating the "people who like other types of women are dem queers!" drum? Oh, we are. And quite incessantly, I see.

What's really funny about it is that pretty much *everyone* will appeal to *someone*. But *no one* will appeal to *everyone*. That's why we've got so many different kinds of beer and music, after all. If there really was such a thing as a single working standard for anything, then you'd readily see the evidence of that. The model of the 'attractive' woman is a marketing invention with no real basis in reality. Just about everyone pairs off eventually, and it's not because there aren't enough appealing people to go around. It's because the range of appreciation is as broad as the range of all people. That's the way it's always been. You'd think grown-ups would grasp this as obvious, but a surprising number of them apparently don't.

Related, the other major factor in the beauty myth is that you're better off somehow if you can bring yourself closer to whatever popular ideal is current for the time you're living in. (And anyone with any education should be aware that that changes greatly over time. Fashion designers of only a hundred years ago would find our emaciated twigs sick-looking and repellent.) This is true insofar as it comports to how shallow the observer is. There are plenty of men who will judge a woman on minutiae of her looks; those men are not worth having, though. So in fact, the harder you work to meet popular standards, the more likely you are to end up dating a jerk. What women need to grasp and embrace is the *reality* that *someone* out there -- a lot of people, actually -- will like you for who you are without all that superficial nonsense, and those people are more worth your while. If what you want is happiness, then stop reading those trashy glossies. They're only trying to sell you stuff, on the myth that you *need* to have or do so ...


Believe it or not, there are measurements of female beauty that seem to transcend race, culture, and era. Waist to hip ratio's one of them. Strong secondary sexual characteristics are another.

She's got neither. She's a Western Caucasian adult female who has the physical characteristics of a Western Caucasian adolescent female.

Yes, I just called you all pedos.
 
2012-02-12 03:28:52 PM  

Lexx: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Lexx: objectively hotter.

You don't know the meaning of 'objective,' do you?

Joon: Are we still beating the "people who like other types of women are dem queers!" drum? Oh, we are. And quite incessantly, I see.

What's really funny about it is that pretty much *everyone* will appeal to *someone*. But *no one* will appeal to *everyone*. That's why we've got so many different kinds of beer and music, after all. If there really was such a thing as a single working standard for anything, then you'd readily see the evidence of that. The model of the 'attractive' woman is a marketing invention with no real basis in reality. Just about everyone pairs off eventually, and it's not because there aren't enough appealing people to go around. It's because the range of appreciation is as broad as the range of all people. That's the way it's always been. You'd think grown-ups would grasp this as obvious, but a surprising number of them apparently don't.

Related, the other major factor in the beauty myth is that you're better off somehow if you can bring yourself closer to whatever popular ideal is current for the time you're living in. (And anyone with any education should be aware that that changes greatly over time. Fashion designers of only a hundred years ago would find our emaciated twigs sick-looking and repellent.) This is true insofar as it comports to how shallow the observer is. There are plenty of men who will judge a woman on minutiae of her looks; those men are not worth having, though. So in fact, the harder you work to meet popular standards, the more likely you are to end up dating a jerk. What women need to grasp and embrace is the *reality* that *someone* out there -- a lot of people, actually -- will like you for who you are without all that superficial nonsense, and those people are more worth your while. If what you want is happiness, then stop reading those trashy glossies. They're only trying to sell you stuff, on the myth that you *n ...


Also, by using the term "beauty myth" in a conversation about a celebrity wearing a see-through outfit, you disqualified yourself from contributing. This isn't the proper forum for your "inner value trumps outer appearance and anyone who has strong preferences for the latter is worthless and so are his opinions" circular argument.
 
2012-02-12 04:43:25 PM  

Lexx: Also, by using the term "beauty myth" in a conversation about a celebrity wearing a see-through outfit, you disqualified yourself from contributing. This isn't the proper forum for your "inner value trumps outer appearance and anyone who has strong preferences for the latter is worthless and so are his opinions" circular argument.


Insidious put-downs do not an argument make. I've read a fair chunk of the literature on this, and even edited a magazine on it. If you have the background to hold forth on the subject, then put forward your thesis. If you must rely on denigration to do it, then you do not have an argument. So I think I'm probably correct in presuming that you're trying to substitute bluster for substance, for lack of the latter.

What I can tell you is that the handful of dubiously based articles supporting what you've said in your tart reply don't, in themselves, constitute any real evidence of your thesis, even if they were confident assessments in their own right, which they may or may not be. It's likely possible to show that some popular 'standards' are more common than others, but that doesn't suggest a theory of any prevailing trends. (And no, those don't mean the same thing: The former refers to statistical subsets, the latter to whole-set patterns that express consistently across related subsets.) Put shortly, even if it's true that 'more' men ostensibly 'prefer' certain apparently quantifiable patterns, that does not rationally suggest that most or all do, unless you can gather a sufficiently large subject pool to cancel out otherwise non-excludable statistical variances. Subject selection is equally critical, along with a dozen other factors typically ignored in 'surveys' because it's a lot of hard work, which is why findings are really only relevant if they come out of real scientific studies.

One particularly valid question to ask is: If these objective standards exist, then why do they seem to change over time? Are you suggesting that humans are evolving that quickly? Or is it more likely that cultural attitudes change over time? True enough, a large number of people do seem to grab onto whatever 'objective' standard is popular for their time. But the differences between those standards, and the rapidity of their change over historically short periods, is a very strong argument against the existence of any truly objective standards. In order to press the case for objective beauty, you must demonstrate that consistent patterns of preference transcend history. You will find that they do not. In actuality, beauty 'standards' are a cultural product, likely with little or no 'objective' basis in human psychology.

The articles I've seen on Fark related to what you're saying appear to be the product of more informal surveys, and thus their 'findings' are at best dubious. Plenty of essentially identical articles on other subjects are readily dismissed by most Farkers as absurd, and rightly so. The only reason anyone gives any weight to equally baseless claims of the sort you refer to is that the concepts involved are important to a lot of people, and the articles play on people's insecurities and uncertainties about themselves and their place in the dating world. That's of course the entire foundation of the bazillion-dollar beauty industry, the notion that there are objective standards people should strive for -- when in fact they have only the thinnest basis in any reality. Which is not to say that they're completely baseless. They absolutely are not. *Some* people really do share those preferences. But not everyone, and probably not even most people. More to the point, trying to make yourself into someone you're not is certain to add a lot of cost and stress to your life, while ensuring no real long-term benefits.

If you happen to be among the Western males who prefer currently popular beauty standards, then good for you. But to argue that there's anything objective about it is simply asinine.
 
2012-02-12 06:26:10 PM  
It doesn't matter how wonderful an octogenarian's personality is, there is no way I'll ever find her sexually attractive. When it comes to standards of human beauty, the term objective would only apply in the sense that it's shared by the humans who make up the bulge in the bell curve. Without getting into tedious minutiae, the number one thing required for a man to find a woman attractive is youth. The correlation between youth, attractiveness, and fertility is no coincidence.
 
2012-02-12 07:27:49 PM  

Repo Man: It doesn't matter how wonderful an octogenarian's personality is, there is no way I'll ever find her sexually attractive. When it comes to standards of human beauty, the term objective would only apply in the sense that it's shared by the humans who make up the bulge in the bell curve. Without getting into tedious minutiae, the number one thing required for a man to find a woman attractive is youth. The correlation between youth, attractiveness, and fertility is no coincidence.


You might feel differently when you're in your '80s. And you shouldn't assume you won't. Right now, it's impossible for you to know.

And I believe you're overgeneralising in your valuation of youth. I'm sure it's obvious to you right now, but I think you over-reach in assuming that it's the same for others, or that it will be for you when you're older.
 
2012-02-12 08:08:20 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Repo Man: It doesn't matter how wonderful an octogenarian's personality is, there is no way I'll ever find her sexually attractive. When it comes to standards of human beauty, the term objective would only apply in the sense that it's shared by the humans who make up the bulge in the bell curve. Without getting into tedious minutiae, the number one thing required for a man to find a woman attractive is youth. The correlation between youth, attractiveness, and fertility is no coincidence.

You might feel differently when you're in your '80s. And you shouldn't assume you won't. Right now, it's impossible for you to know.

And I believe you're overgeneralising in your valuation of youth. I'm sure it's obvious to you right now, but I think you over-reach in assuming that it's the same for others, or that it will be for you when you're older.


I'm 46. The number of women that near my own age that I find physically attractive is very small. I completely understand why so many men leave their wives for younger women, even though it's a terrible thing to do. When I was young, I used to wonder if my tastes in women would age as I did. I haven't seen even the slightest hint of it, and I think I'm old enough now that if it were going to happen, it would have begun by this point.

Attraction seems to work (on average, there are outliers of both sexes) quite differently for men and women. Many, if not most, women can grow to be sexually attracted to a man because they like his personality, even if his appearance does nothing for them. This doesn't seem to be true for most men. Speaking for myself, I can generally know just about the first time I see a woman whether or not I could ever be physically attracted to her. If she's too old, or too overweight, there will never be a sexual attraction; she might as well be a man. I'll freely admit that I don't really understand how sexual attraction works with women, but I do understand that it's very different than the way it works for me.

When a woman tells a man that he's being too picky, she means that he should try going out with the person in question, because she assumes that attraction works the same way for men as it does for women, and that it might grow over time. When a man tells another man he's too picky, he means that the man he's talking too either isn't good looking enough to get the woman he has set his sights on, or that he's not wealthy enough. Funny because it's true. (new window)

I once read an interview where Simon LeBon was asked why rock stars date super models. "It's a bit like asking why dogs lick their balls isn't it?" he replied. "Because they can." Wealthy and successful movie and music stars can, and by far do, have young and beautiful women as companions. They are in a position to hold out for what they really want, which is the same thing men all over the world want.

None of this has anything to do with human happiness. Mating strategies have been selected for because they work, not because they make us happy.

Also funny and relevant, 48-Year-Old Man Actually Very Open To Dating 25-Year-Olds
 
2012-02-12 08:26:22 PM  

Repo Man: They are in a position to hold out for what they really want, which is the same thing men all over the world want.

None of this has anything to do with human happiness. Mating strategies have been selected for because they work, not because they make us happy.


Your reply makes me sad, and I still say you're overgeneralising. I refuse to believe you're right, because I've personally seen too much evidence to the contrary. Maybe it's the different circles we move in. But it sounds to me like not everyone is evolving at the same rate.
 
2012-02-12 08:47:13 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Repo Man: They are in a position to hold out for what they really want, which is the same thing men all over the world want.

None of this has anything to do with human happiness. Mating strategies have been selected for because they work, not because they make us happy.

Your reply makes me sad, and I still say you're overgeneralising. I refuse to believe you're right, because I've personally seen too much evidence to the contrary. Maybe it's the different circles we move in. But it sounds to me like not everyone is evolving at the same rate.


It's a very sad business. Think of all of the people out there who long for companionship, sex, a family, and are too ugly. People who have survived fires, only to be left looking like something from a horror movie. Humans are shallow; I think many women condemn men as shallow for being so hung up on appearance, but the difference between the sexes on that is a matter of degree. Do you think you could fall in romantic love with a guy who resembled the elephant man? It's an extreme example, but that's to make the point. I think the less physically attractive people are often more interesting, and because they've had a rougher time in life, are in general more compassionate than pretty people. Pretty people can often get away with being very poor humans just because they are pretty. As they age, and lose their looks (an unavoidable consequence of aging), the slice of humble pie that life hands them might serve to make them more compassionate. And whose to say that any of us would behave any better were we in their place? Physical beauty gives you power, and the temptation to abuse it, just like any other power, is strong. None of this negates the fact that I'm very attracted to young women with clear skin, curvy bodies, etc. etc. I refuse to feel guilty about it, because it's something that I have no control over.
 
2012-02-12 09:02:18 PM  

Repo Man: I refuse to feel guilty about it, because it's something that I have no control over.


Suggesting you have 'no control' is surrendering your humanity. I know it's easier to do that, but it's not worthy of respect. Unfortunately, I think your attitude is not uncommon. But I don't believe it's as common as you seem to believe. Just because *you* 'can't' (or won't) step up to yourself doesn't mean that others are like that. It may just be the people you know. I can tell you that attitudes like that are UN-common among the people *I* know, and they're human beings no less than you are. It occurs to me that your generlisations are your way of absolving yourself of responsibility; after all, if 'everyone' was like you, then you'd have no reason to feel there was anything amiss, and no incentive to do anything about it if it was.

But we're getting into more subjective territory at this point. It's between you and you to make those evaluations and choices, and not for me to judge. I only mean to say that I do not accept your broader theses, and even less your rationalisations for them.
 
2012-02-12 09:19:31 PM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Repo Man: I refuse to feel guilty about it, because it's something that I have no control over.

Suggesting you have 'no control' is surrendering your humanity. I know it's easier to do that, but it's not worthy of respect. Unfortunately, I think your attitude is not uncommon. But I don't believe it's as common as you seem to believe. Just because *you* 'can't' (or won't) step up to yourself doesn't mean that others are like that. It may just be the people you know. I can tell you that attitudes like that are UN-common among the people *I* know, and they're human beings no less than you are. It occurs to me that your generlisations are your way of absolving yourself of responsibility; after all, if 'everyone' was like you, then you'd have no reason to feel there was anything amiss, and no incentive to do anything about it if it was.

But we're getting into more subjective territory at this point. It's between you and you to make those evaluations and choices, and not for me to judge. I only mean to say that I do not accept your broader theses, and even less your rationalisations for them.


Do you believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women?

I could have a relationship with a woman I wasn't attracted to I suppose. Dark rooms, Viagra, fantasizing about women I'm actually attracted to while having sex. Seems like living a lie to me.
 
2012-02-12 09:50:10 PM  

Repo Man: Do you believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women?

I could have a relationship with a woman I wasn't attracted to I suppose. Dark rooms, Viagra, fantasizing about women I'm actually attracted to while having sex. Seems like living a lie to me.


First of all, I've argued before in these forums that clinical studies don't support the popular cultural paradigms of 'gay' and 'straight' as distinct personal traits. They appear rather to be largely cultural constructs, reinforced by the human habit of reification.* (*In linguistics and related fields, the tendency to define things by appositive rather than affirmative qualities: e.g.,, a 'valley' is a non-mountain, and a 'mountain' is a non-plain; 'black' people are non-whites, 'gay' people are non-straights, and so on. Thought to be an evolved component of ancient survival extincts, it has the psychological effect of making things seem much more different or disparate than they really for. For example, the real physiology of human 'race' is more variant and continuous than popular racial categories imply, and apples and oranges have much more in common than in difference.) There appears instead to be a fluid continuum of human attraction, including both affectional and sexual responce (of similarly varying coexistence), so that the majority of people are not definitively 'gay' or 'straight' as culturally defined.

That makes it hard for me to answer your question, since I sense that it's predicated on a significantly different understanding of the concept of 'gay man'.

Second, it would obviously depend a great deal upon the specific woman. Were you to ask the same of a straight man, he would be equally reluctant to answer without further qualification. As you already know from your own life experience, and as you've laboured to explain above, your own attractions are not to 'women' but only to *certain* women. That's how it is for everyone else, too. It's therefore meaningless to even ask if an unspecified 'gay man' could be attracted to an unspecified 'woman'. As I've also said in here many times before, attraction is between individuals, not types. There will therefore be a broad range of answers, depending on the individuals involved.

Third, you still seem unable or unwilling to confront your own issues, and that is your right. But your persistence in discussing it suggests to me that you're not entirely happy or comfortable with it yourself, or haven't fully come to terms with it. After all, I'm a complete stranger online. What possible difference could it make to your world if I understand or agree? Rationally, none. Nor do I believe that you honestly care what I think about it, nor do I believe you should. I therefore suspect that you're really only using this forum as a proxy to have this conversation with yourself, even if you don't realise it. That then suggests that this is turning into a talk therapy session, and I don't have the most basic training or qualification for that. If that's what you're after, seek a qualified professional, not a stranger in an online discussion forum.
 
2012-02-12 10:22:37 PM  
I'm having this discussion in order to confront what I consider to be some very wrong headed ideas about sexual attraction. In much the same way I would when confronted with a young Earth creationist, global warming denier etc. The idea that human standards of beauty are completely arbitrary is completely wrong IMO. No doubt, I'm not convincing you, but you aren't the only one reading this.

Sure, there have been recent studies talking about "fluid sexuality", and they've had one thing in common; this seems to be something that exists almost exclusively in females. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that what attracts women to men is very different than what attracts men to women. You can testimonial after testimonial from gay men who say they knew they were gay from early childhood. As Dan Savage said "Being gay (or straight) isn't something you do, it's something you are."

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, spent over a decade tracking sexual identity changes in a group of 100 women for her book "Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire." She wrote, "Women's sexuality is fundamentally more fluid than men's, permitting greater variability in its development and expression over the life course." Based on her research, she describes three main ways that sexual fluidity is expressed: "nonexclusivity in attractions" (i.e., the capacity to find all genders sexually attractive), "changes in attractions" (i.e., suddenly becoming romantically involved with a woman after a lifetime dating men) and the capacity to become attracted to 'the person and not the gender'" (i.e., a partner's sex is irrelevant).
Is Gay a Choice? The Science Behind Actress Cynthia Nixon's Controversial Remarks (new window)

I'd agree that I'm not happy about it. Being intensely attracted to an unintelligent woman who has a very pretty face and a nice ass is a sure recipe for misery. I think it would be a much better world if looks didn't matter, and we only went by mental compatibility when it came to choosing a mate. For that matter, I can look at the way gays are, and see that there are some very real advantages over heterosexuality. Of course, in some places and circumstances, the advantages of being hetero (such as not being jailed or executed for your sexuality) probably make many gays wish that they were straight. Wishing doesn't make it so. We all have the biological baggage of human nature to deal with.
 
2012-02-13 12:35:58 AM  

Repo Man: I'm having this discussion


You've got issues I'm not qualified to help you with. Good night.
 
2012-02-13 01:34:36 AM  

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Repo Man: I'm having this discussion

You've got issues I'm not qualified to help you with. Good night.


What a strange person.

Whatever. Suggested reading: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (new window)
 
2012-02-13 08:08:15 AM  

Repo Man: I'm having this discussion in order to confront what I consider to be some very wrong headed ideas about sexual attraction. In much the same way I would when confronted with a young Earth creationist, global warming denier etc. The idea that human standards of beauty are completely arbitrary is completely wrong IMO. No doubt, I'm not convincing you, but you aren't the only one reading this.

Sure, there have been recent studies talking about "fluid sexuality", and they've had one thing in common; this seems to be something that exists almost exclusively in females. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that what attracts women to men is very different than what attracts men to women. You can testimonial after testimonial from gay men who say they knew they were gay from early childhood. As Dan Savage said "Being gay (or straight) isn't something you do, it's something you are."

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, spent over a decade tracking sexual identity changes in a group of 100 women for her book "Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire." She wrote, "Women's sexuality is fundamentally more fluid than men's, permitting greater variability in its development and expression over the life course." Based on her research, she describes three main ways that sexual fluidity is expressed: "nonexclusivity in attractions" (i.e., the capacity to find all genders sexually attractive), "changes in attractions" (i.e., suddenly becoming romantically involved with a woman after a lifetime dating men) and the capacity to become attracted to 'the person and not the gender'" (i.e., a partner's sex is irrelevant).
Is Gay a Choice? The Science Behind Actress Cynthia Nixon's Controversial Remarks (new window)

I'd agree that I'm not happy about it. Being intensely attracted to an unintelligent woman who has a very pretty face and a nice ass is a sure recipe for misery. I think it would be a much better world if looks didn't matter, ...


I think she's just unhappy that what attracts men to women starts (and often ends) at reproductive fitness, and the visual indicators of.

While the blue eyed blonde with perfect skin, great breasts, a wicked sway to her hips, and a high pitched voice may be a terrible person, our dominant sense (sight) is screaming at us that they're perfect to mate with.

We might aspire to sophistication and subscribe to the Maslow hierarchy of needs, but we're really just animals.
 
2012-02-13 09:11:40 AM  
I wonder if she accuses everyone who disagrees with her dogma of having issues?
 
2012-02-13 11:35:36 AM  
Although I wouldn't describe the pixie cut as boyish, I do think that it's really, really unflattering on her.

I'm also forced to wonder if that's actually the whole point. Is she perhaps trying to make a clean break from the image of Hermione from her Harry Potter days, both to avert typecasting and to shake off the creepos who hounded her with sites counting down to her 18th birthday?
 
2012-02-13 11:44:03 AM  
Anus Gapeus!
 
2012-02-13 11:56:43 AM  

Maechyll: Anus Gapeus!


You owe me a new keyboard dammit. I really need to remember not to read fark comments while drinking coffee.
 
Displayed 38 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report