PDA

View Full Version : Armor designs for females?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Princess
2017-08-18, 10:23 AM
If you are going back before written history, sure. With no records, all we have are oral histories passed down through generations eventually written... which is not reliable at all.
What we do have:
Written documents detailing the practices of native americans from the spanish, french, english an portuguese. These seem to indicate young relationships.
Written documentation from the Roman Empire.
Written documentation from Arab nations.
Written documentation from Asian empires.
Written documentation from people who traveled the world.
Written documentation of people who worked in the slave trade.
Now sure, we can completely disregard all of that, and draw whatever conclusions we want. But I call bull****.

Oh it definitely happened historically. But considering it a broad norm is an extreme conclusion that goes beyond the reliability of some of that evidence. There's also a well known historical tendency for people to write about things that stood out to them, and often describe them incorrectly. There's far more ancient gossip about orgies, human sacrifice, and witchcraft than actual evidence for them in most of the world. Child marriage could have been exaggerated due to taboo, or it could have been seen as so normal it wasn't worth talking about in other parts of the world. My point is that there's room for doubt as to what its actual extent was. Consider contemporary rumors and popular mythology about inbred, deformed people in some parts of the world when those stories largely don't check out.

2D8HP
2017-08-18, 10:30 AM
Oh it definitely happened historically. But....


The world is big and old, so pretty much all "some" statements are true, but often have little relationship with arguments about what is "common", and "normal".

Calthropstu
2017-08-18, 11:38 AM
The world is big and old, so pretty much all "some" statements are true, but often have little relationship with arguments about what is "common", and "normal".

To be fair, you may be corect, but I AM backed up by numerous publishings and many online articles. So unless someone can find something that refutes that information, I think I'll go with the experts that I have read, and the online articles from reputable sources. The information I came up with states it was the norm.
No one here has posted anything that refutes it.

2D8HP
2017-08-18, 11:47 AM
....anything that refutes it.


It's just that I can't descetn any context.

Once in a century?

A million times in year?

pres_man
2017-08-18, 11:58 AM
And if you don't believe that piece of art is sexist... explain how. Explain how it does not paint women differently from men, in a way that is in line with sexist ideas.

You and I probably have very different metrics as to what is considered sexist, so it is doubtful that I could address your ideas of what is sexist, I can only address my own.

ROLE
By what do I see in the image that doesn't strike me as "sexist". The women in the image were active, sure their role in the image was defensive, providing protection to the main character, but there roles were not passive. There were providing a critical role, as evidence by the several arrows embedded in their shields.

CLOTHING
Their clothing while ridiculous in out-of-setting sense, are no MORE ridiculous than the male main character's clothing. Yes, they have silly chain things whose only function apparently is to protect their nipples, but the male character isn't even wearing that much protection. In-setting, this is common dress for the main character, the main character survives, so within the setting the outfits are reasonable. Again, people don't have to like the art direction, that is fine, they can think it is ridiculous, that is fine, but when considering if it is "sexist" one has to see if all women are being treated in a way that they are inferior to men, this doesn't show that.

POSING
One woman is facing forward, the other has their body facing more backwards. The three protagonists all have their faces directly in roughly towards the reader, so that the reader can empathize with them. The foes, all men because men are both disposable and evil, not facing towards the reader, but instead towards all three protagonists. Again, male and female protagonists are being treated in a similar fashion.

BODY STYLE
Yes, the male main character appears to be more muscular than the female support characters. Neither of the female support characters appear to be "unfit" though. I'd like to address that with a reference to secondary sexual differences between males and females.

Females
In females, breasts are a manifestation of higher levels of estrogen; estrogen also widens the pelvis and increases the amount of body fat in hips, thighs, buttocks, and breasts. Estrogen also induces growth of the uterus, proliferation of the endometrium, and menses.

Enlargement of breasts and erection of nipples.
Growth of body hair, most prominently underarm and pubic hair
Greater development of thigh muscles behind the femur, rather than in front of it
Widening of hips; lower waist to hip ratio than adult males
Smaller hands and feet than male adults
Elbows that hyperextend 5-8° more than male adults
Face is more rounded, with softer features
Smaller waist
Upper arms approximately 2 cm longer, on average, for a given height
Changed distribution in weight and fat; more subcutaneous fat and fat deposits, mainly around the buttocks, thighs, and hips
Labia minora, the inner lips of the vulva, may grow more prominent and undergo changes in color with the increased stimulation related with higher levels of estrogen.

Males

A beard is a human male secondary sexual characteristic
In males, testosterone directly increases size and mass of muscles, vocal cords, and bones, deepening the voice, and changing the shape of the face and skeleton. Converted into DHT in the skin, it accelerates growth of androgen-responsive facial and body hair but may slow and eventually stop the growth of head hair. Taller stature is largely a result of later puberty and slower epiphyseal fusion.

Growth of body hair, including underarm, abdominal, chest hair and pubic hair. Loss of scalp hair due to androgenic alopecia can also occur.
Greater mass of thigh muscles in front of the femur, rather than behind it as is typical in mature females
Growth of facial hair
Enlargement of larynx (Adam's apple) and deepening of voice
Increased stature; adult males are taller than adult females, on average
Heavier skull and bone structure
Increased muscle mass and strength
Larger hands, feet and nose than females and prepubescent males
Larger bodies
Face is square, with more angular features
Small waist, but wider than females
Broadening of shoulders and chest; shoulders wider than hips
Increased secretions of oil and sweat glands
Coarsening or rigidity of skin texture due to less subcutaneous fat
Higher waist-to-hip ratio than prepubescent or adult females or prepubescent males, on average
Lower body fat percentage than prepubescent or adult females or prepubescent males, on average
Enlargement of the penis

I have bolded which secondary sexual characteristics I think it makes sense for artists to want emphasize. The ones I didn't bold, generally were either too minute to really show up (but artists still might take them into account) or perhaps a bit too explicit such as enlargement of sexual organs and nipples. Now hair is an interesting one.
Certainly beards are show and emphasized to reinforce a male character, but rarely for the main character. Generally males and females aren't usually draw with a lot of body hair (underarm, chest, stomach, or back) especially if they are characters the reader is suppose to identify with or empathize with. On the other side of the coin bald might be accepted, but balding is not. You'll notice the women look like their entire bodies (other than their heads) have been waxed, but so has the male main character as well. So hair is a weird issue for both sexes, I don't see it as "sexist". Now if you want to say that it is more acceptable in everyday life for men to walk around looking like a grey-back, but women have to be shaved (legs and pits), I would agree with that. But most of those are put on women by other women or by themselves. A hairy chest might turn a man off, but that is about it when the clothes come off, IMHO of course.

So getting back to the picture, the females appear to be emphasized to be female and the male is emphasized to be male. I see nothing wrong with not wanting the females to be ambiguous as to whether they are actually mature females. More heavily armored with realistic armor hiding all of the secondary sexual characteristics or not as emphasized secondary sexual characteristics, e.g. higher amount of muscle, reduced breast size, etc., can create a confusion to the view and they might be confused with males or immature females.

Now sure, if you have lots of time, you don't have to depend on such a crude method of emphasizing the characters are in fact mature females and males, but with a cover the goal is to catch someone's attempting in an instant. So again, I don't see this as sexist to get the reader to think, "Tough guy has a couple of bad ass women with him, while he rides over some a-holes," if the artist depends on emphasis of secondary sexual characteristics.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-18, 04:00 PM
So I'm at GenCon, and while walking through the artists section, I noticed that the art that would be most relevent to this discussion, that appeared to depict female characters in various states of undress and for pure asthetic appeal... the artists were about 50% women.

So, does it mattet if the artist is herself a woman? Does it matter if the artist is or is not attracted to women?

Or like the author... is the artist "dead"?

2D8HP
2017-08-18, 04:11 PM
Okay, let's look at some D&D art with a mix of women and men over the years!

For the earliest (1974)"NSFW" art (which I think was mostly traced from comic books) "Google": "art by gygax and arneson Blog of Holding" if you really want to see early D&D art without buying the books your dang selves.

The first good drawing (in my NSHO) of a women (on horseback holding a spear) in a D&D book, was on page 33 of the 1975 Blackmoor supplement (please tell me how to share it with you).

After that starting in 1978:https://panzerleader.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1e-races.jpg?w=245&h=300


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uK1_voHccFg/VZ3Vwbeu8QI/AAAAAAAAEdA/la5lsXwulUg/s1600/PHB%2Bart.png


https://i1.wp.com/blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/originalguys-1.png

https://2warpstoneptune.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/dd-rg-1980.jpg?w=584&h=762

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlpyYUzJjFPOmgJBCROLAKWImQws2iJ cB8un1x7B5ppxgKe6CiLw


http://www.therobotsvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/morganironwolf.jpg


http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/dnd/isa/graphics/art_bargle.jpg


https://i1.wp.com/www.acrosstheboardgames.net/wp-content/uploads/elmorebanner.jpg?zoom=4&fit=800%2C600


https://i0.wp.com/dnd.zongheng.com/template_resource/default/d&d/dnd-party.jpg


https://i1.wp.com/www.acrosstheboardgames.net/wp-content/uploads/horsley_banner.jpg?zoom=4&fit=800%2C600


http://www.tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ameiko.png


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/merisiel.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/fighter.jpg?resize=1000%2C1511&type=vertical

https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bard1-Copy.jpg?resize=599%2C800&type=vertical

https://i1.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/rogue.jpg?resize=646%2C800&type=vertical


Okay, my observations are:

The 1e Magic-User women, shows much less skin than the 3e women Wizard.

The Pathfinder Bard shows more skin than the 5e Bard.

I can't tell if the 5e Rogue is a man or a women (each time I look I change my mind)

While the Pathfinder Rogue has a "boob" window, it doesn't seem that gratuitous to me, and while a bit silly, mostly seems to be there to indicate that the character is a women.

The 2e art looks the silliest to me.

And the 5e Fighter man, and the Pathfinder Rogue women just look the most the most AWESOME, and would be the characters I would most want to play.

What do you think?

How do they rate on the awesome, silly, and/or sexist scales? Nod for Greyview!

Floret
2017-08-18, 04:16 PM
At least 3% of girls are married before 15 in the middle east. News articles abound of marriages at very young ages. One cleric in the Middle East a few months ago was arrested for trying to marry, and consummate, a 5 year old... clear violation of both religious and civil laws. (Easily verified with a quick google search)
3% may not seem like much, but it's about 3x as common as seeing a police officer in the US.

In India, the statistics are far far worse. A quick look at wikipedia, which cites UNICEF data, fully 1/5 of girls in India are married between 13 and 16. And a good 3-6% are married by age 13. Since India comprises a massive portion of the world's population, that number is HUGE. So yeah, that's kind of a thing.
And to think that is a recent thing is rather silly. It is easy enough to trace these practices to the start of the British Empire when they first took control of India at the very least. A quick search of child marriage history mentions Imperial China, England, middle ages Europe, India, ancient Israel, Persia... in fact, it looks like child marriage was not just common it was the NORM. For both genders.

So your (and others) arguments are hardly valid. I know this subject quite well.

However, I once again point to the longer life expectancy as making such young marriages a necessity. Being a grandparent at 30 would be expected when you wouldn't be living past 40. Nature may not understand that (seeing as how puberty still happens around 12) but most of society certainly does. So I again point to the disparity of nature and society.

I would not call 3% the norm. I would even hesistate to call 20% the norm - it might be the language barrier, but for me, "norm" implies "most often done this way". This is not the case, and none of your sources have proven that.
Also, there are sources that suggest that people became grandparents around the time they died (at a frequency great enough to seep into early German language). If you won't be living past 40, the most important part is that your children are able to go on on their own, not that they already have kids, this is a rather weak argument - especially in the face of most marriages (outside of nobility) actually coming about in the people's 20s; technical minimal age and exceptions notwithstanding.
...But I agree, the topic is incredibly uncomfortable, and I am somewhat sorry for bringing it up - there were just things being said that I really wasn't comfortable letting stand without commentary; but that commentary has been served quite extensively now.


Let's tie all of this back to the original topic though... if we look at the history of women warriors, there really aren't that many examples. The above is why... with most women being married off at very young ages, few had the luxury of weapons training.
In fact, having women fight is genetically suicidal. Wipe out 90% of any male mammillian population, and the remaining 10% can easily take up the slack. Do the same to females and the next generation will be immensely diminished. So sending women to war makes little sense. And I think on some level this was understood. (No quotes here, this is my own personal theory)
So women and armor is largely fantasy anyways. A quick look at female fighters in history confirms this. For example, some women fought in the Trojan war, but had to crossdress as men to do so.
There are many mentions of female commanders in history, but it is always listing as leading men. We can assume some women were mixed in, but the numbers of women is far less than 1%.
Ever watch the Disney movie Mulan? The book that movie is based off of was far far darker... with Mulan being executed by her father for bringing dishonor to the family.
And in China, we can look to Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War. To prove his skill as a general, he was ordered to train 140 women. This shows that women were thought to be far more difficult to train for battle than men (I personally disagree, women make perfectly fine soldiers in the modern era though probably not in those days where strength to wield a weapon was a necessity)
Looking through articles right now, I can easily infer the rate at which women participated in combat was very very small, and most who did used the exact same equipment as their male counterparts. But women commanders on the other hand, would want to flaunt their gender. So looking for actual depictions of actual female commanders would be the easiest way to settle historical debate on that subject.

Edit: I found such a depiction. On wikipedia there is a picture of a statue erected depicting Fu Hao, and she is depicted as having armor that did, in fact, depict her breasts.

Your numbers work as an argument if there ever were that large of numbers of people going to war - generally, cultures went way below 45% of their population for the number of warriors. (It is possibly that by the point the risk of exctinction was thusly minimised, gender roles were possibly already established enough to continue the tradition of "women not in combat" without the reason for it persisting) Most traditions have a basis to them, but by turning it into tradition, generally overemphasise the reason and overrepresent the importance or prevalence of the fact the tradition is based on - and make it also less likely to change cultural behaviour once the reason for the tradition has been diminished in importance, or wholly eradicated.

Noone is arguing that women made up huge numbers of fighters historically. At most, we are arguing that this should be rather irrelevant for representing fantastical cultures; even those based on those historical periods.
And, looking at historical depictions often made generations after the fact seems like a rather bad way to settle any debate. (It also seems rather plausible to me that the rarity of the event made people overemphasise that fact in retellings and passing it on). For example with the specific example you cite: Fu Hao lived, according to wikipedia, about 1300-1200 B.C. Now, I have found no age of that statue, sadly, but it seems highly unlikely that statue, with its current state, is anywhere near that old; and can serve as anything more than an artists' impression; least of all proof of her historical appearance or gear.
Besides, what debate would we settle with that, exactly?


You and I probably have very different metrics as to what is considered sexist, so it is doubtful that I could address your ideas of what is sexist, I can only address my own.

Of course. Maybe in my comments, I can clarify why I think of it as sexist.


ROLE
By what do I see in the image that doesn't strike me as "sexist". The women in the image were active, sure their role in the image was defensive, providing protection to the main character, but there roles were not passive. There were providing a critical role, as evidence by the several arrows embedded in their shields.

I have no objection here. In fact, the fact that they were defending didn't even occur to me.


CLOTHING
Their clothing while ridiculous in out-of-setting sense, are no MORE ridiculous than the male main character's clothing. Yes, they have silly chain things whose only function apparently is to protect their nipples, but the male character isn't even wearing that much protection. In-setting, this is common dress for the main character, the main character survives, so within the setting the outfits are reasonable. Again, people don't have to like the art direction, that is fine, they can think it is ridiculous, that is fine, but when considering if it is "sexist" one has to see if all women are being treated in a way that they are inferior to men, this doesn't show that.

This is where we disagree. Have you read my talk with LiquorBox about trying to achieve an at least partially objective understanding of what constitutes sexualised clothing? I will try to apply the results of that (still somewhat ongoing) discussion:
1. Is this practical? No, of course, but both male and female outfits are somewhat ridiculous (Points could be made for the bra-constructed being some points up in ridiculousness from a basic, simple loincloth (and never, ever being able to hold up there with that construction); and a string being way less comfortable than a piece of fur hanging over your bits and butt though...)
2. Do they show skin? Yes, but everyone can be argued to be visibly muscular, so no clear points from me there. Skin itself is not a reason.
3. Do the outfits pronounce sexual characteristics* (Most importantly Butt, Vaginal area/Bulge, (possibly pecs?)/Breast)? For the man, no. The outfit covers most of the parts relevant, his muscles are simply there, and not really emphasised (Least of all his pecs). For the women? We see a string, putting emphases on the (uncovered) buttcheeks that, even though not directly visible on the man, visibly covered by fur in his case. Point one. We don't see the vaginal area anywhere to judge that one; but the breasts? We have cups, enclosing them, covering the nipples, while still showing most of it. ...That is an impressive amount of focussing.
So... here is where it falls somewhat apart: While the man's outfit covers, but glosses over his sexual characteristics; the women's outfits emphasise theirs.

*I use the term in this regard not as "what are the general differences" but as "what parts are usually focussed on the most when thinking about sex with a person" if that makes any sense? ...I mean, the description still isn't quite right, but I think one can understand what I am getting at?


POSING
One woman is facing forward, the other has their body facing more backwards. The three protagonists all have their faces directly in roughly towards the reader, so that the reader can empathize with them. The foes, all men because men are both disposable and evil, not facing towards the reader, but instead towards all three protagonists. Again, male and female protagonists are being treated in a similar fashion.

The left woman (From viewers perspective) and the man, no objection. The right one is sporting an example of a butts-and-boobs pose, and while not an extreme example, even posing yourself like that is... impractical, and uncomfortable. But maybe the artist just wasn't versed enough in female anatomy to realise that breast would not be pointing that way; and instead be mostly covered by her upper body, taking the rest of her pose into account.
I am curious how you manage to gather that the two visible foes are supposed to be men? I see the back of an armored head; and a rather unclear face. Maybe the one in the background could be taken to have a mustache? Really not sure.


BODY STYLE
Yes, the male main character appears to be more muscular than the female support characters. Neither of the female support characters appear to be "unfit" though. I'd like to address that with a reference to secondary sexual differences between males and females.

Females
In females, breasts are a manifestation of higher levels of estrogen; estrogen also widens the pelvis and increases the amount of body fat in hips, thighs, buttocks, and breasts. Estrogen also induces growth of the uterus, proliferation of the endometrium, and menses.

Enlargement of breasts and erection of nipples.
Growth of body hair, most prominently underarm and pubic hair
Greater development of thigh muscles behind the femur, rather than in front of it
Widening of hips; lower waist to hip ratio than adult males
Smaller hands and feet than male adults
Elbows that hyperextend 5-8° more than male adults
Face is more rounded, with softer features
Smaller waist
Upper arms approximately 2 cm longer, on average, for a given height
Changed distribution in weight and fat; more subcutaneous fat and fat deposits, mainly around the buttocks, thighs, and hips
Labia minora, the inner lips of the vulva, may grow more prominent and undergo changes in color with the increased stimulation related with higher levels of estrogen.

Males

A beard is a human male secondary sexual characteristic
In males, testosterone directly increases size and mass of muscles, vocal cords, and bones, deepening the voice, and changing the shape of the face and skeleton. Converted into DHT in the skin, it accelerates growth of androgen-responsive facial and body hair but may slow and eventually stop the growth of head hair. Taller stature is largely a result of later puberty and slower epiphyseal fusion.

Growth of body hair, including underarm, abdominal, chest hair and pubic hair. Loss of scalp hair due to androgenic alopecia can also occur.
Greater mass of thigh muscles in front of the femur, rather than behind it as is typical in mature females
Growth of facial hair
Enlargement of larynx (Adam's apple) and deepening of voice
Increased stature; adult males are taller than adult females, on average
Heavier skull and bone structure
Increased muscle mass and strength
Larger hands, feet and nose than females and prepubescent males
Larger bodies
Face is square, with more angular features
Small waist, but wider than females
Broadening of shoulders and chest; shoulders wider than hips
Increased secretions of oil and sweat glands
Coarsening or rigidity of skin texture due to less subcutaneous fat
Higher waist-to-hip ratio than prepubescent or adult females or prepubescent males, on average
Lower body fat percentage than prepubescent or adult females or prepubescent males, on average
Enlargement of the penis

I have bolded which secondary sexual characteristics I think it makes sense for artists to want emphasize. The ones I didn't bold, generally were either too minute to really show up (but artists still might take them into account) or perhaps a bit too explicit such as enlargement of sexual organs and nipples. Now hair is an interesting one.
Certainly beards are show and emphasized to reinforce a male character, but rarely for the main character. Generally males and females aren't usually draw with a lot of body hair (underarm, chest, stomach, or back) especially if they are characters the reader is suppose to identify with or empathize with. On the other side of the coin bald might be accepted, but balding is not. You'll notice the women look like their entire bodies (other than their heads) have been waxed, but so has the male main character as well. So hair is a weird issue for both sexes, I don't see it as "sexist". Now if you want to say that it is more acceptable in everyday life for men to walk around looking like a grey-back, but women have to be shaved (legs and pits), I would agree with that. But most of those are put on women by other women or by themselves. A hairy chest might turn a man off, but that is about it when the clothes come off, IMHO of course.

I think the only bolding I really disagree with are the muscle distribution around the femurs - really, I have never noticed until this day that there is a difference; and I highly suspect most people wouldn't look at femurs at a way to identify an androgynous character as male or female. I am also somewhat stumped as to how heavier skull and bone structure would be really visible, let alone an important attribute in drawings? Maybe that one is about sitting in between two other points you marked as important.


1st sidenote: While these kinds of lists are, of course, based on measurements and science, most of the points on them are differences in average; where both parts of the population have rather significant overlap that mostly trumps the difference in average. Not that you are contradicting it; but I have too often seen people take these kinds of lists to wrong conclusions to leave this comment off :smallwink:

2nd sidenote: (not only to you but to many people) Is it really a normal part of the language to refer to "females" and "males" when taking about humans? I mean, this is really likely to be a translation thing because the literal translations are exclusively used for animals in German, but it sounds... weird. Really, really weird o.o

3rd sidenote: Regarding facial hair... I think we stand in the middle of a cultural development in that regard. When I was a kid, it was the absolute norm for men to shave, so much that I rarely saw a beard. While going through puberty, hipster movements started wearing beards amongst young people, which older generations partially adopted (At least anecdotally). In the last 5-10 years, beards have become a rather widespread norm around here, and men without them are the minority. From what I can tell, this is starting to be reflected in media - and in main characters.

4th sidenote: Yes, beauty standards are partially enforced by women just like men; but by all reactions I have had over my life*, and experience I have heard from other women, men do their fair share of enforcement of those. (Maybe they do it less often, but if they do, more strongly, I think) Anecdotally, women that are into women tend to be way more relaxed on that front than men who are.
*My experience as a woman too lazy to shave her legs; and too lazy for makeup beyond Cosplay and, rarely, nailpolish.


So getting back to the picture, the females appear to be emphasized to be female and the male is emphasized to be male. I see nothing wrong with not wanting the females to be ambiguous as to whether they are actually mature females. More heavily armored with realistic armor hiding all of the secondary sexual characteristics or not as emphasized secondary sexual characteristics, e.g. higher amount of muscle, reduced breast size, etc., can create a confusion to the view and they might be confused with males or immature females.

Now sure, if you have lots of time, you don't have to depend on such a crude method of emphasizing the characters are in fact mature females and males, but with a cover the goal is to catch someone's attempting in an instant. So again, I don't see this as sexist to get the reader to think, "Tough guy has a couple of bad ass women with him, while he rides over some a-holes," if the artist depends on emphasis of secondary sexual characteristics.

I reject the notion that, for women to be unambiguously portrayed as women, their breasts have to be in this kind of thing, and their buttcheeks showing. Most of the time, facial features and noticable breast are well enough for that.
I mean, it might be the most concise argument in favour of boobplate I have heard to date (Not that It makes me accept it; or think it adds much of value, but it is an angle I hadn't conciously considered); armor tends to (due to the nature of "layers of clothes" making breasts less visible) make breasts less visible - of course, differently for different types of armor; and certain breast sizes aren't gonna be stopped. But on the other hand, even a woman who's breasts vanish completely under the armor can be rather unambiguously portrayed as female (though it might indeed require somewhat more effort on facial features).

@Max_Killjoy: It's... difficult. I never fully believed in what the death of the author claimed (Really, the whole foundation of that theory was mostly quasi-esoteric ramblings and "Because I say so", I had the misfortune of having to read that); but I think "What does this work tell us (factoring in who the author is)" is a much more productive question than "what does the author wanna say". In so far, I'd say figuring in the authors person and potential biases is important; but women did grow up in the same society men did, with the same general biases, even though their perspective might be a bit different due to standing at a different point of the dynamic. And I think while the message a piece of media conveis can certainly be influenced by knowing who the author is, it can and should be viewed on its own as well; and be viewed in regards to the message it sends - authorial person and intent are only ever a (small) part of that.
This isn't even based in my perspective of gender theory; this is purely my perspective on media and literature theory.
(And, seriously, "Le mort d'auteur" is a pretty bull**** text.)

@2D8HP: I'd have thought the 5E bard is a man? The rogue is definitely a woman, though. There are noticable breasts, she just has a rather harsh face.
I find the Pathfinder rogues cleavage somewhat unnecessary - she'd be rather clearly female even without that; but her outfit doesn't look like it's gonna do much when the blades come at it anyways, so it kinda falls under "clothes"; where this is less problematic (due to being less idiotic). As for the bard, yes she shows more skin than the 5e one, but I really wouldn't call her sexualised, not with what parts of skin are exposed (Arms, mostly. Not showing off muscles, but a tattoo, a secondary reason is visible :smallwink:)
From the collection of images, I'd side-eye the PF rogue; the 4e... ranger more heavily; and Mialee (3e magic user) even moreso. From the rather selective selection you gave, the 2nd edition is... somewhat strange, and sexualised; though in regards to sillyness of depiction, the 1981 box takes the cake (Breasts do not work like that, ever).

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 04:41 PM
I also said I am bisexual and have a boyfriend
Missed that.

But I generally find adoption a very sensible route - too many children grow up without parents already; why not take the free slots for "caring for a child" we have and fill them with those, rather than with new ones?
(Also, I think I take offense to queerness being described as "biological exuberance", but will give you the benefit of the doubt of that getting added in translation.)

I'm all for adoption, though of course many parents understandably and admirably want to continue their genetic line, and many adopted children seek out their biological parents to find that genetic connection (diseases, temperament, backstory, etc.), so there is a discontinuity in adoption that has a real psychological effect. But, anyway, I'm all for adoption, so we agree there.

(1. Let's not truck in being offended. Being offended is akin to being unwilling to explain yourself or defend your position rationally. I am a very reasonable debater with some strong views. I respect you enough to presume you can debate without leaning on your capacity for offense.)

(2. I consider kissing a kind of perversion, since the mouth is made to eat and talk and sing, but humans are adaptable creatures and so kissing, at least in our culture, has become adapted into being part of sexuality. So, anyone who kisses someone with romantic intent is expressing “biological exuberance.”)


...Why? Why does increase virginity sexual desirability; or desirability for being the one to reproduce with?

Well, let's consider the virgin in terms of other sorts of women. There is a virgin/mother/crone trichotomy. So there virgins are preferred marriage material to a mother (who presumably is already married, and may be approaching menopause anyway), and crones who are definitionally past fertility. So, all else being equal, if Sir Aglioni seeks a wife, he is best served with finding an eligible maiden rather than a mother or a grandmother.

There is also the component of sexual relationship that is best served by virginity, both in the man and the women. Men traditionally, in America and probably much of the West, at least, have their promiscuity tolerated as “wild oats,” for the obvious reason that men can't get pregnant—the opposite case being the main reason why promiscuous girls are frowned upon. Virginity on the marriage night is archetypally ideal, it increases the excitement of the proceedings and helps bond the two together into a single marital unit.

Virginity also guarantees against the husband being cuckolded, so he and his wife can continue their genetic line together, without outside interference.


Please lay out the line of logic behind this statement. (Also, if you want, I'd be interested in how one can see virginity in drawings of sexy armor, but that is another point)

I see virginity in every drawn D&D fantasy art woman I see, simply because they're usually intended to be smoking hot and generally don't have matronly fat or an older face. There are young mothers of course who lack both things, and of course it's harder to tell when a woman is heavily armoured. So that's how I tell, and the ones who are ambiguous get the benefit of the doubt since it's unlikely the artist was painting a mother or grandmother.


And I am doubtful how "people see features of themselves or their partner in their children" is any proof of... anthing, other than that they realise features can get passed down genetically and like to find patterns. See, for most people, choosing a mate comes way, way before the question of possible offspring arises. They pick mates they want to hang out with, and spend their life with

Yes, but there is a subconscious and the subconscious contributes to conscious decisions and experiences. Why is orange my favourite colour? Unless I dump the principle of sufficient reason, I have to conclude I like orange because of a past childhood experience with orange. So with mating, there is an impulse relating to one's instincts, that is a voice at the table of your mind when you pick your mate, whether you know it or not.


(Though even that often comes as a decision after being with the other for a while).
Seriously. Do you look at people and think "Oh, she's hot" or do you think "We'd have great babies together"? If the latter, then I hate to tell you you are by far in the minority. People don't think that much about these things.

I think it's subconscious, and not necessarily an absolute consideration. Thinking, “she's hot” for a grab-bag of psychological reasons unrelated to fertility can overcome the subconscious fertility impulse, just as people can engage in forms of carnality originating in, but defeating, the drive to reproduce.


Sure. Culturally implanted instincts, by generations of marketters and cultural beauty standards. If you have another reasoning, please outline to me the natural source of the desire of painted nails.
And, if you can, also how there can be a natural pattern that makes men*biologically or naturally*more attracted to women with nailpolish.

Or black teeth? Both American women artificially making their teeth white, and Japanese women artificially making their teeth black, are doing the same thing. Consider the human body in terms of a Platonic form. Does this mean there is a Platonic form for the right ear, and for the kidney, and so forth? No, it means that there is a divine form encompassing the entire human form (male and female being alterations from the divine hermaphrodite, presumably), such that “ear” and “kidney” are contained within the form. So with “feminine beauty”. There are many possible, and practiced, ways of attaining to female beauty, and these particulars are idiosyncratic to their respective cultures, but the overall “Platonic form” of feminine beauty remains and perpetually produces traditional and sometimes new formulations.


1. Alright, "pedophilia" might not technically have been the correct term. It is commonly used for any attraction to underage women; or women not fully adult enough to consent; at least that is what I intended to say.


It's a touchy subject. My point was that what constitutes “underage” is also cultural, though hovering around the 13-18 age of sexual maturity. I said “15” to throw a dart near the middle of that range.


2. Marriagable age in Germany is 18; though there are technically exceptions in very rare cases. But, beyond that: Something being legal is not the same as something being moral. Age of consent in some parts of the world is 12. Is that an argument that everyone should lower it to that?

Ah, that's a better question. I think there should be a “marriageability card,” that one needs to have brainscans and testing to obtain, such that different young people who mature at different rates will end up getting the card at different times. I think this would be more sensible than having a single blanket age wherein anyone is presumed sexually competent.


3. I am highly dubious of the claim that most women have reached the end of puberty at 15. My experience says otherwise. 15 years old look a lot differently from 20 year olds, even today; and the body has not fully reached maturity at 15; even though age of puberty onset has advanced.

I think this depends on diet. I've read that Scandinavian girls in days past didn't reach menarche until their 18th birthday, and some children today reach it prior to becoming teenagers. Hormones in the cow's milk, I'm guessing, which causes problems for parents and children alike.

I'll bet there are plenty of 15-year-olds who look 20, but even if there aren't, they are still good looking and within the fertile range. If ethno-genetic or dietary differences bump this up to 16 or 17, no matter.


4.Even beyond that, as Calthropstu points out: Physical maturity has little to do with mental maturity. And there has been little proof mental maturity has gone down in "at what age is it reached" as much as physical.

Yes, I agree. Hence my card suggestion above. But in terms of heroic fiction, rough and tumble D&D-esque fantasy escapades, 15 is not an incomprehensible age for a girl to be mature enough to be married. Again, I'm speaking not in terms of universal recommendations for our world, just that archetypically the 15, or 16-17, or thereabouts, range for marriageability, is pretty solid.


5. I am highly doubtful of the claim that the classical virign of the tales is typically, or on average or whatever, 15.

Make her 18 if you like. It's all in the same ballpark.


6. Marriagable age, incidentally, was not way below 15 in the past. Or... sometimes it was, but the marriage wasn't consummated until way later. Most marriages in older times took place in people's 20s; and the ones that didn't were political ties by noble houses. To top that off, they were usually between people of similar age - 15 year old wanting*each other*is not something I wanted to call a problem.

Well, historically speaking (not religiously or politically) Muhammad is said to have consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 9 years old, and Muhammad is said to be the ideal role model for Muslims. I'll bet there were a few what we would consider underage consummations in Islam over the past 1400 years. Reprehensible but there you have it.


7. Saying that the ideal age of beauty for women is 15, and it is perfectly natural to find girls at this age arousing just reeks of justifications for interactions with them on that basis, I'm sorry. The claim normalises an attraction that it is highly, highly questionable in ethics if ever acted upon (because of emotional maturity even moreso than any theoretical physical one) - a normalisation that can very well lead to rationalisations. Taking it as the*most natural*even moreso.

(I mean, it depends on the age gap, of course. An 18 year old and a 15 year old are a very different question to a 25 year old and a 15 year old.)

It normalises what is normal, meaning attraction. It does not normalise the fact that human romantic interaction is a complex thing fraught with perilous potential for psychic harm, and that society, culture, and families need to regulate it, without detracting from the individuals (men or women) needing to regulate themselves. It's normal for men, to the degree they are beasts, to want a harem of women at their disposal. This doesn't mean that such things are good, nor that men should not be expected to curtail their desires for such things, to the degree that those desires are prominent in them. Humans are not animals and the recogition of their desires, whether those desires are good or bad, helps better regulate society for the good.


Men don't think "fertile". Men mostly don't think at all about all boobs they encounter.
If*they are experiencing attraction, men mostly think "boobies", in my experience. They do not think about anything related to procreation.
(For that matter, most women I know think "boobies", but I might just know too many non-straight people.)

Consciously no, subconsciously yes. It's their nature.


Alright, so you are arguing that (young, attractive) women are, for the exact same behaviour (wearing revealing clothing at a beach) fundamentally driven by different desires and reasons than*all other people?
And your logic for that is that other people judge the result differently?

No, I'm arguing that they experience it differently to the degree they are aware they are being noticed.

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.
Yes, of course; and all nudists actually want people to ogle them, and the reasons they give for just not liking clothes are a sham. Every person that, first thing fter coming home, takes of their pants is actually doing that for other people. There are numerous reasons for people to wear revealing, or no clothes; and most of them have little to do with looking sexy; especially at a beach. If you argue that women who wear bikinis cannot possibly do this just for themselves; the same has to apply to the overweight 50-year old man in his speedo.

And ...No. You are fooling yourself into thinking human behaviour is in any way so focussed on eliciting reactions from other people; and sexual reactions at that.

Nudists join nudist colonies in part so people won't ogle them, but accept their appearance as normal. That's part of the appeal.

Speedo man is either unaware of the effect he has on other people, or doesn't care, or relishes it.


Culture that normalises objectification of women by leering, staring men, and excuses them for that behaviour by claiming it is all about "appreciation of feminine beauty" places mens sense of satisfaction over safety of women. The freedom of one person ends where it takes the freedom of others. If you normalize behaviour that routinely takes the freedom of women to be safe, just to satisfy the freedom of men to stare, you are overstepping lots of lines.

That*is something I'd call sick.
(I am not talking about seeing people, and thinking to yourself "huh, pretty/cute/hot", or even sneaking in a second look. I am talking about staring, and leering; what you described as "lustful gazes".)

Are lustful gazes human? Or bestial? When we mark that fine line, we can accept one and condemn the other. So, I essentially agree with what you are saying.


Yeah, no. Men and women do not constitute mysteries, and neither do sexual encounters. Being nice, open and willing to communicate is pretty much all it needs. Perhaps a certain willingness to care for personal hygene and appearance, and treating other people as people first and foremost, and as potential sexual partners a distant second or third (Though I'd sum that up under "being nice").
Sure, there are details that make it more complicated, but those details really, really pale in comparison and can nearly always be beaten by the tool of "honest and open communication".

From The Porn Myth (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/), by Naomi Wolf

“I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”

“When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.

“She must feel, I thought, so hot.

“Compare that steaminess with a conversation I had at Northwestern, after I had talked about the effect of porn on relationships. “Why have sex right away?” a boy with tousled hair and Bambi eyes was explaining. “Things are always a little tense and uncomfortable when you just start seeing someone,” he said. “I prefer to have sex right away just to get it over with. You know it’s going to happen anyway, and it gets rid of the tension.”

““Isn’t the tension kind of fun?” I asked. “Doesn’t that also get rid of the mystery?”

““Mystery?” He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sex has no mystery.”


So? Try your best to encourage what you find healthy, and discourage what you find unhealthy. Make sure to not enforce things by law that do not need to be enforced by law.
There is reason to defend a person's rights to their positions, but if a position itself is being discussed and attacked, there is no need to defend that. If a person holds beliefs worth holding, they should be able to defend them themselves. This isn't squashing instincts, this is requiring people to stand by their opinions and actions; and not defending those because they are opinions. Not every opinion is worthwhile to hold. It is not up to me, or you, or lawmakers to decide which those are, but acting as if opinions are precious and may never be discussed, called out or scratched is ridiculous and puts them on more of a pedestal than they deserve.

I mostly agree, but some forms of speech need controlling (as you must agree). I disagree with corporate America's “right” to free speech, for example, and think marketting needs a lot of hammering down to counter its pernicious effects (like makeup ads). But, you make a good point that individuals should not hold opinions they can't defend.


They had wood didn't they? The Zulus had shields. They could have built an approximation of samurai armour if they wanted. They never felt the need to develop these things.
Samurai armor wasn't made of wood, and there is about as much evidence of wooden armor being in use historically as of leather armor - that is, not very much; not in large quantities, or outside of small tribes in Northern America, really.
(Wood, due to its inflexibility, makes rather poor armor anyways, and in the rare cases it existed was an add-on to leather or cloth in something like brigantines. For purposes of functional protection, you need it at a thickness that gets really uncomfortable to wear in large bits. Also, due to other factors really can't be worn on skin (Like pretty much all armor), which makes the lack of cloth production relevant again. Trust me, armor doesn't work properly without clothes under it.)
"Not feeling the need for something" is a rather poor understanding of how some technological advances are necessary to make others feasible; and a poor understanding of how technological process generally comes about. (Hint: Similar to evolution, in the sense of people discovering things relatively randomly, and then applying and spreading them; leaving the groundwork for other tech. Before you can get to armor, you first need other things.)

Why couldn't the Africans have made a version of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_armour#Laminar_armour_of_native_peoples_of _Alaska_and_Siberia)?


”Who knows what they mean" is cutting a bit short; the fact that we have examples of depictions of obese women, but not of non-obese ones does require more than just a quick glance and being discarded. But up into the middle ages, being overweight was seen as a symbol of status; you were rich, could afford this - "you have a fat wife", iirc, being a compliment in ancient China.
Whether or not those were the beauty standard par excellence is debatable, sure; but I said "treated differently", not "standard par excellence". A wider standard of beauty, or multiple ones, still satisfy my claims.

The Old Testament describes a wife in glowing terms of being a hard worker, that doesn't mean the instinctive choice isn't a pretty one.


Alright. That is... a lot to unpack here.
I think I might start with "Retaining tradition in the face of culture-wreckers who are chipping away at it". Because... what? Culture, like language, is a thing of flux. It is not an entity worth preserving for its own rights, things worth preserving have to provide some value to achieve that worth. "Status quo is status quo" is not an argument for preserving it.

Take flags. Flags have meaning that has accrued across centuries. Should the American flag be replaced because cultures change, or should it be retained because it represents a continuity of the Republic and the lives of many people who died or were wounded to defend it. The flag has a value.

So with architecture. It improves our lives to have capitol buildings and monuments that are beautiful and do not change. Again they convey permanence, stability, heritage, rationality, and meaning. They may be added to, covered in vines, but never destroyed, damaged, or defaced.


"A time when the stability of tradition is badly needed"... By whom? Do you have any proof? Extrapolate, please, because this isn't logical.
The fact that you think sexism will never be fully eradicated is irrelevant for the question whether or not that is a good thing. You seem to think it is. I do not, and am somewhat appaled at the suggestion.

Consider what Jordan Peterson has to say (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBuOQL1VYY).

Sexism as in recognition and reasonable accommodation of human sexual difference will never disappear this side of a mind-bending tyranny, but sexism in terms of bigotry against the opposite sex can and should.


Human sexual dichotomy is not what you think it is. And, especially psychologically, not as big as you think it is. Humans aren't two distinct categories; they might be two categories, but with gigantic amounts of overlap far outclassing the difference.

Indeed, humans' primary definition is that they are respectively made in the image of the creative potency of the Universe. Of course we have massive things in common, and these commonalities are often obscured by devastatingly bad cultural forms, and also by our instincts. But progressing through instinct romantically to human connection is just about the best thing in the world. We would be lesser if we scraped away those differences into a wastebin, and instead strove towards total androgyny. That might work for some people, but for the whole species to do that is a mistake.


And finally... "Relevant trope to our world, that will become even more relevant as things spiral into the second century of industrialised catastophe"... Is this just conspiracy theory, certainty that you know the future, or... what is this? Because it really doesn't resemble any facts I know. And I don't know how keeping the trope that women are weak and have to be rescued by men helps anything against the problems the world faces today, or might in the future. Because those aren't dragons (or even robbers or evil cults) kidnapping virgins, and no hero can save a damsel from large-scale, structural, societal inequalities and problems.

The structural conditions referenced in the Peterson video above, as identified by Nietzsche, have in no way been ameliorated and indeed if anything have been exacerbated by many decades of increasing weirdness, nihilism, pornographically violent and sexual shocks to our psychic system, and the creeping return, mutation, and spread of a certain Nineteenth Century Bad Idea.

Women and men ultimately rescue each other. In archetypal terms the virgin grants the hero strength and courage, and the hero grants the virgin freedom, life, and children. In modern terms women are getting creamed by social forces at work especially in Europe (which since it gets political from there you can explore on your own). To overcome this requires men and women to end the sex war, to end the war on tradition, to understand each other on a human level (humans as made in the image of Universal creative potency), to protect, preserve, and utilise their traditional, not just the local flags and statues, costumes and songs, but the real meat of this matter, the universal physical principles which comprises the only form of world culture worth spit. Without this, we are facing world war. It's inevitable if we won't retain our identity as humans.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-18, 05:18 PM
It's "in men's nature" to "subconsciously" think of nothing but fertility when encountering "boobies", and men never have other considerations in mind when... appreciating then.

And kissing is a "perversion"... because it's not what the mouth was "made for".

Right.... bio-fatalism I guess.

However, regardless of what bio-essentialists and bio-fatalists and the stranger adherents of evo-psych might preach... we are in fact thinking beings, with things going on in our minds that aren't about instinct. As hard as it might be to accept, some of us have other things in our heads, and might even appreciate the physical form for reasons other than simple reproduction.

We're far more complicated and nuanced than that, and unlike most creatures we're capable of making actual choices.

People who adamantly don't want children, right to their core, actually exist. They're not lying to themselves or repressing their nature or some crap, so no one even bother with that insulting and arrogant line of "argument".

People who absolutely feel that way still do fall in love, and want relationships.

"Ace" people really exist. Some of them, if I'm getting the term right, are romantic ace, and fall deeply in love without any sexual desires attached.

Evo-psych in its most hardcore form, utterly dismisses these people, tries to explain away their choices and feelings either via some cockamamie just-so story, or by insisting that they're all effectively delusionals who don't know what they really want... or just considers them deviants.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-18, 05:26 PM
@ Floret -- I don't put real stock in "the death of the author", I think the context of a work's creation has value in as part of the puzzle of understanding that work. Intent and outcome both matter.

~~~~

On the subject of historiography, historians love written documents. For much of human history, most of what was written about was the "elite", and the "odd".

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 06:41 PM
That may be what is being sold, and some women buy because of some weird advertising/marketing/cultural conditioning, and maybe I'm projecting, but I really don't think that the majority of adult men find "adolescent slim" bodies all that attractive.

If those hips are attached to a body with some definitely grown-up breasts, the type of breasts typical of D&D-esque fantasy art, I think most men are willing to overlook the hips, if they need overlooking.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 06:46 PM
Really Donnadogsoth?

It just looked to me likeAmazon just did a short synopsis of your post.

I must have mis-read you.

Please detail how you differ.

Quotes of when I said men can't control their sexual impulses and where I said that women are nothing but fodder for the male gaze, please. Please.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 06:50 PM
Ummm... you are wrong. VERY VERY WRONG.
Until 1908, the lowest legal marriage age in the United states was 7.
During the days of Christopher Columbus, native brides were shipped to Portugal. In his memiors, requests for virgin brides (typically ranging between 8 and 12) was so high he could not keep up with demand.
Hell, even the bible mentions virgin untouched brides going so far back as the days of Moses (though it does not mention age)
The Koran, the holy book of Islam, openly states the legal marriage age should be 9.
In India, child brides are STILL a common thing, going down to 11 years old. This has been a tradition for thousands of years.
It was actually the British who started the trend of raising the legal marriage age. This is a very recent development, less than 200 years. Up until then, the marriage age average was very very low.

Edit: To be fair, however, there IS the fact that life expectancy was also much lower so it does kind of make sense.

Thanks for the elucidation, Calthropstu, through you might want to make it clear that I didn't say what you quoted as me having said, that was Floret, in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22300552&postcount=1205).

Alberic Strein
2017-08-18, 06:52 PM
Why, for all that is holy, am I jumping into this thread?

Anyway.

So I'm at GenCon, and while walking through the artists section, I noticed that the art that would be most relevent to this discussion, that appeared to depict female characters in various states of undress and for pure asthetic appeal... the artists were about 50% women.

So, does it mattet if the artist is herself a woman? Does it matter if the artist is or is not attracted to women?

Or like the author... is the artist "dead"?
That's an interesting point to me. I have gone on record saying that some of the most blatantly sexualizing players I have ever met were women. I've had players go off the rails for as long as I have been at a table, but the one time I ever, ever met a player who went "I strip to meet the necromancer and then I sit. Legs spread." it was a woman playing a seductive sorceress.

Give that woman a pen, ask her to draw female fantasy characters, and she will draw very sexualized provocative women. Guaranteed. And she will probably push that sexualization way further than I ever would, even though I am quite comfortable with the sexualization of my characters.

So yeah, if women like sexualized characters, if men like sexualized characters, then ahoy we go, I say let them have their fun, all their fun. [At this point I tried to make my argument more colorful by naming one of my favorite artists, promptly forgot his name and spent at least one full hour trying to find him again, in vain, so my apologies if the rest of the post seems utterly disconnected from the first part.]

But let's not forget that art is also a commodity. I have seen in recent years the boom of video making, and how many content creators feel compelled to follow trends, to the point where they get completely alienated from fanbase they get with their content.

So on top of artists of either genders liking boobs, there may be some unneeded expectations that fantasy art needs to be fetishy.

So yeah, again, which part of the creation process is inspiration and which part is blindly following the assumed expectations of the audience?

Also, while I am nowhere near calling myself an artist or anything, I once picked up a pen and tried my hand at drawing. There was, at least in my case, and added layer to drawing women. If I wanted to draw women I needed to make them recognizable as such, which meant a certain degree of sexualization. Which may play a part for quite a number of actual artists.

warty goblin
2017-08-18, 06:57 PM
(2. I consider kissing a kind of perversion, since the mouth is made to eat and talk and sing, but humans are adaptable creatures and so kissing, at least in our culture, has become adapted into being part of sexuality. So, anyone who kisses someone with romantic intent is expressing “biological exuberance.”)

Um, OK.


Well, let's consider the virgin in terms of other sorts of women. There is a virgin/mother/crone trichotomy. So there virgins are preferred marriage material to a mother (who presumably is already married, and may be approaching menopause anyway), and crones who are definitionally past fertility. So, all else being equal, if Sir Aglioni seeks a wife, he is best served with finding an eligible maiden rather than a mother or a grandmother.

There are also women who are neither virgins nor mothers. Given the relatively low per-intercourse probability of children, this is basically a feature of the species since day one. And since we've invented birth control, fortunately this can be a feature a for more or less as long as one likes.


There is also the component of sexual relationship that is best served by virginity, both in the man and the women. Men traditionally, in America and probably much of the West, at least, have their promiscuity tolerated as “wild oats,” for the obvious reason that men can't get pregnant—the opposite case being the main reason why promiscuous girls are frowned upon. Virginity on the marriage night is archetypally ideal, it increases the excitement of the proceedings and helps bond the two together into a single marital unit.
I mean I suppose the retrospectively hilarious sequence of failures that occurred the first times I attempted to have sex could possibly bond two people. Acute humiliation sometimes can have that effect. If it's all the same to everybody else though, I'd rather avoid that on my wedding night.



Virginity also guarantees against the husband being cuckolded, so he and his wife can continue their genetic line together, without outside interference.
About once. Assuming she's never ridden a horse, or done any number of other completely typical and mundane physical activities.


I see virginity in every drawn D&D fantasy art woman I see, simply because they're usually intended to be smoking hot and generally don't have matronly fat or an older face. There are young mothers of course who lack both things, and of course it's harder to tell when a woman is heavily armoured. So that's how I tell, and the ones who are

That tells you she's young and, to your mind, hot. Backwards inference about how much sex she's had with whom does not generally follow.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 07:06 PM
http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/dnd/isa/graphics/art_bargle.jpg

What do you think?

How do they rate on the awesome, silly, and/or sexist scales?

I'm partial to the Red Box rules Cleric. Pretty and practical at the same time.

Overall I see nothing wrong with these characters. The ones who have been made out to be very...womanly...seem so, methinks, in order to emphasis that women play these games too, and why not be a sexy one all else being equal? None of the women are put in subservient roles, they all look like team players. The only one who looked radically unarmoured that wasn't a magic-user looked like an elf, judging by her looks and slung bow.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 07:12 PM
It's "in men's nature" to "subconsciously" think of nothing but fertility when encountering "boobies", and men never have other considerations in mind when... appreciating then.

And kissing is a "perversion"... because it's not what the mouth was "made for".

Right.... bio-fatalism I guess.

However, regardless of what bio-essentialists and bio-fatalists and the stranger adherents of evo-psych might preach... we are in fact thinking beings, with things going on in our minds that aren't about instinct. As hard as it might be to accept, some of us have other things in our heads, and might even appreciate the physical form for reasons other than simple reproduction.

We're far more complicated and nuanced than that, and unlike most creatures we're capable of making actual choices.

People who adamantly don't want children, right to their core, actually exist. They're not lying to themselves or repressing their nature or some crap, so no one even bother with that insulting and arrogant line of "argument".

People who absolutely feel that way still do fall in love, and want relationships.

"Ace" people really exist. Some of them, if I'm getting the term right, are romantic ace, and fall deeply in love without any sexual desires attached.

Evo-psych in its most hardcore form, utterly dismisses these people, tries to explain away their choices and feelings either via some cockamamie just-so story, or by insisting that they're all effectively delusionals who don't know what they really want... or just considers them deviants.

Some turtles are born albinos, too. Are they psychologically repressing their species' natural colours??

Humans can indeed be bigger than their biological heritage, cf. the history of fine art.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-18, 07:25 PM
There are also women who are neither virgins nor mothers. Given the relatively low per-intercourse probability of children, this is basically a feature of the species since day one. And since we've invented birth control, fortunately this can be a feature a for more or less as long as one likes.

I'm talking in terms of the perennial societies prior to modernity, including the Medievaloid settings common to D&D. There married women will tend to hit the 1 in 4 button per month sooner or later and become pregnant. Women who know how to avoid pregnancy and have sex with men are probably prostitutes. I don't know of any women in D&D-esque fantasy art that I could identify as prostitutes, but I suppose it's possible. And, of course, with magic anything's possible.

pres_man
2017-08-18, 09:32 PM
I am curious how you manage to gather that the two visible foes are supposed to be men? I see the back of an armored head; and a rather unclear face. Maybe the one in the background could be taken to have a mustache? Really not sure.

Ah ha! So we see a problem with non-sexual emphasizing drawing, how do you determine if a character is male or female if their secondary sexual characteristics are not showing. But, I am sure you know the answer to your question, 99.9% of antagonist physical combatants who are disposable (that is they are not really characters, but merely pawns to be killed) in these genres are male. When a physical antagonist is female, she is often unique (if she is killed it is often important to the plot) and the fact that she is female is emphasized so that her uniqueness can be magnified.


2nd sidenote: (not only to you but to many people) Is it really a normal part of the language to refer to "females" and "males" when taking about humans? I mean, this is really likely to be a translation thing because the literal translations are exclusively used for animals in German, but it sounds... weird. Really, really weird o.o

Since I was specifically talking about biological differences, I wanted to avoid gender. When I was a young pup, sex (female/male) and gender (woman/man/etc) were interchangeable in common discourse. With greater awareness of differences in gender, it is important to try to be clear.

hamishspence
2017-08-19, 02:47 AM
Women who know how to avoid pregnancy and have sex with men are probably prostitutes.

This sounds to me ahistorical - crude methods of contraception have been used for thousands of years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control

this "probably" sounds to me an unwarranted assumption.

Floret
2017-08-19, 05:42 AM
I'm all for adoption, though of course many parents understandably and admirably want to continue their genetic line, and many adopted children seek out their biological parents to find that genetic connection (diseases, temperament, backstory, etc.), so there is a discontinuity in adoption that has a real psychological effect. But, anyway, I'm all for adoption, so we agree there.

(1. Let's not truck in being offended. Being offended is akin to being unwilling to explain yourself or defend your position rationally. I am a very reasonable debater with some strong views. I respect you enough to presume you can debate without leaning on your capacity for offense.)

(2. I consider kissing a kind of perversion, since the mouth is made to eat and talk and sing, but humans are adaptable creatures and so kissing, at least in our culture, has become adapted into being part of sexuality. So, anyone who kisses someone with romantic intent is expressing “biological exuberance.”)

Understandable? Yeah, sure. Admirable? Why? What is there to be admired? Following natural urges? Bringing more humans into the world when there are ones there already that might need the help?
(1. Voicing to be offended is offering up the information that "hey, what you did hurt me". It is not an argument in itself, but it might well be a reason to reflect.)
(2. Interesting you say that, because (If we accept the conceit that any body part is actually "made for" anything) the mouth is definitely made for kissing. The act releases hormones that make people happy, helps with bonding, and is one of the best ways to figure out (biological) compatability (Indirectly, of course, but in the same vein that a persons smell does). Almost all human cultures do it, and many animals engage in rather similar behaviour.)


Well, let's consider the virgin in terms of other sorts of women. There is a virgin/mother/crone trichotomy. So there virgins are preferred marriage material to a mother (who presumably is already married, and may be approaching menopause anyway), and crones who are definitionally past fertility. So, all else being equal, if Sir Aglioni seeks a wife, he is best served with finding an eligible maiden rather than a mother or a grandmother.

There is also the component of sexual relationship that is best served by virginity, both in the man and the women. Men traditionally, in America and probably much of the West, at least, have their promiscuity tolerated as “wild oats,” for the obvious reason that men can't get pregnant—the opposite case being the main reason why promiscuous girls are frowned upon. Virginity on the marriage night is archetypally ideal, it increases the excitement of the proceedings and helps bond the two together into a single marital unit.

Virginity also guarantees against the husband being cuckolded, so he and his wife can continue their genetic line together, without outside interference.


1. This trichotomy does not line up with reality. I am aware of the archetypes (Though some of it might be due to "young woman" being mistranslated as "virgin" into english. German, for example, has one letter of difference between the two; Hebrew and Old Greek have similar issues of less clear differenciation (Or even more issues; and then sometimes it is a literal child instead of just a virgin)), but you cannot divide reality that neatly. In fact, quite a significant portion of women fall into the "young, non-virgin woman without children" category; possibly more than into the "virgin" category, at least in western civilization.
2. Yeah, no. Virginity until marriage night is an utterly destructive concept to hold in any high esteem and to tie moral excpectations to. Any person should be free to do as they like, of course, and if you wanna wait until marriage to loose your virginity, that choice should be up to you - but for that to be an informed decision (The best kinds of decisions, especially about life-forming things), society must be honest about the drawbacks that can have (Lack of sexual compatability being found out too late; lack of knowlege about ones body, needs and desires, resulting in unsatisfactory situations) and not romanticise one (potentially very problematic) option, because that can sway opinions in unhealthy ways and apply pressure to conform to things you don't actually want.
3. As has already been said: No it doesn't. That a person you are married to is the first you do it with does nothing to stop you from doing it with other people in the future. The only thing that actually stops it is being honest with one another; a concept not hurt in any way by non-virginity (or even nonmonogamy).


I see virginity in every drawn D&D fantasy art woman I see, simply because they're usually intended to be smoking hot and generally don't have matronly fat or an older face. There are young mothers of course who lack both things, and of course it's harder to tell when a woman is heavily armoured. So that's how I tell, and the ones who are ambiguous get the benefit of the doubt since it's unlikely the artist was painting a mother or grandmother.

Alright, so "virgin" for you is synonymous with an age group. That has... little to no relation to what the word actually means, but alright. By equating virginity with attractiveness, you are assuming your conclusion (A rather easily disproven one in little relation to facts, at that.)
(If we take that classification, I am a virgin. ...I think there are several people that would be rather unlikely to believe that.)


Yes, but there is a subconscious and the subconscious contributes to conscious decisions and experiences. Why is orange my favourite colour? Unless I dump the principle of sufficient reason, I have to conclude I like orange because of a past childhood experience with orange. So with mating, there is an impulse relating to one's instincts, that is a voice at the table of your mind when you pick your mate, whether you know it or not.

I think it's subconscious, and not necessarily an absolute consideration. Thinking, “she's hot” for a grab-bag of psychological reasons unrelated to fertility can overcome the subconscious fertility impulse, just as people can engage in forms of carnality originating in, but defeating, the drive to reproduce.

Okay, subconcious impulses. Is this basically "you have a sexdrive because evolution"? Or is there another argument you want to make?
Because sex is something most humans consider fun because of evolution, sure. It is necessary for continuation of the species that intercourse happens. But because continuation of the species isn't really enough of a reason for living beings to engage in it, species in which the act triggers happyness responses (or where not doing it creates unhappiness) have more kids. Evolution actively has to trick us into having kids.
There is no drive to reproduce in humans (Okay, there is some, but that is not all there is to it), if there were an innate drive for that, sex wouldn't be fun. There is a drive to get those sweet, sweet happyness hormones - that might require actions that incidentally lead to children as a sideeffect.


Or black teeth? Both American women artificially making their teeth white, and Japanese women artificially making their teeth black, are doing the same thing. Consider the human body in terms of a Platonic form. Does this mean there is a Platonic form for the right ear, and for the kidney, and so forth? No, it means that there is a divine form encompassing the entire human form (male and female being alterations from the divine hermaphrodite, presumably), such that “ear” and “kidney” are contained within the form. So with “feminine beauty”. There are many possible, and practiced, ways of attaining to female beauty, and these particulars are idiosyncratic to their respective cultures, but the overall “Platonic form” of feminine beauty remains and perpetually produces traditional and sometimes new formulations.

No, not black teeth. I asked about nailpolish, and quite intentionally. Do not change the subject to something you are able to argue (Beyond the fact that you haven't actually argued anything, only sidestepped the question) Surrender the point if you aren't able to defend it, but don't try to weasel around it. You said anything makeup companies do is relating to already-present impulses. So I ask again: What already-present, natural impulse can there be in a person that explains nailpolish? Not any other cosmetica, specifically nailpolish.

I will not go into anything related to the "divine form". I disagree, and heavily disagree with using arguments steeped this deeply in belief systems (especially ones not based on reason, but pure belief, such as this one), as they need a shared framework to be arguments that is very likely to be not universally shared - so if you want your arguments to have any power beyond your belief system, you need to come back to universally shared value frameworks, and leave religion out of this.
I will stop commenting more on this to avoid violating the forum rules.


Ah, that's a better question. I think there should be a “marriageability card,” that one needs to have brainscans and testing to obtain, such that different young people who mature at different rates will end up getting the card at different times. I think this would be more sensible than having a single blanket age wherein anyone is presumed sexually competent.

That is a surprisingly logic, though impractical idea (Also, if anything, I'd make the test to be taken when people want to marry. No reason to hand out cards before that; telling couples "best wait some more" isn't that bad a thing. Parents do it all the time.).


Make her 18 if you like. It's all in the same ballpark.

It's really, really not.
(The rest of the discussion on marriage has been cut in the expressed interest from multiple people of this topic ending)


No, I'm arguing that they experience it differently to the degree they are aware they are being noticed.

Yes, young, attractive women going to the beach have a different experience. But, remember: This string of discussion started with you claiming that women dressing revealingly at the beach was an example of them "intentionally displaying their fertility".
Do you retract that statement, in the face of the conclusion that it is only their experience that is different, not their intentions?


It normalises what is normal, meaning attraction. It does not normalise the fact that human romantic interaction is a complex thing fraught with perilous potential for psychic harm, and that society, culture, and families need to regulate it, without detracting from the individuals (men or women) needing to regulate themselves. It's normal for men, to the degree they are beasts, to want a harem of women at their disposal. This doesn't mean that such things are good, nor that men should not be expected to curtail their desires for such things, to the degree that those desires are prominent in them. Humans are not animals and the recogition of their desires, whether those desires are good or bad, helps better regulate society for the good.

Are lustful gazes human? Or bestial? When we mark that fine line, we can accept one and condemn the other. So, I essentially agree with what you are saying.

It is not natural, or normal, for men to want a harem of women at their disposal. Some men may want that. But it isn't something shared by everyone; not something fundamental to "the nature" of men. There is no secret beast in every man that tries to take over their actions* - there are only desires, that are fundamentally human, as part of their nature as animals. Because... humans are animals, just animals with self control and the ability to reflect on their actions and how those influence others. (Incidentally, this is not to say there aren't other animals with the same ability)

And I have marked the line - at the point the men staring starts diminishing the comfort of life and sense of safety of women.
Not because of any difference between humans "human" and "bestial" nature*, but because of the consequences the actions of some humans have on others, that are to the detriment of overall societal happiness. And, yes, the conclusion might, in face of a culture still steeped in patriarchy and the things some people refer to as rapeculture; be to err on the side of caution.
All of the above naturally applies to women and the reversed dynamics as well.

(*This sounds like it would be more at home in a discussion about WoD vampires than about humans...)


From The Porn Myth (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/), by Naomi Wolf

“I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”

“When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.

“She must feel, I thought, so hot.

“Compare that steaminess with a conversation I had at Northwestern, after I had talked about the effect of porn on relationships. “Why have sex right away?” a boy with tousled hair and Bambi eyes was explaining. “Things are always a little tense and uncomfortable when you just start seeing someone,” he said. “I prefer to have sex right away just to get it over with. You know it’s going to happen anyway, and it gets rid of the tension.”

““Isn’t the tension kind of fun?” I asked. “Doesn’t that also get rid of the mystery?”

““Mystery?” He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sex has no mystery.”

And? What is that supposed to tell us? People make life decisions? People value different things? People get off on different things and need different things from their relationships? Some people need exclusivity in theirs? What... what point exactly do you think you are making by quoting this?

I agree with that kid, incidentally. Sex has no mystery to it, and I hardly see how the act and our society would profit from pretending that it has.
(Beyond that, the fact that some men might get off better if they don't see any bit of skin or hair on women other than their wives is a) something the couple might wanna take a look at, and b) not sufficient reason to require everyone in a society to wear headscarves)


I mostly agree, but some forms of speech need controlling (as you must agree). I disagree with corporate America's “right” to free speech, for example, and think marketting needs a lot of hammering down to counter its pernicious effects (like makeup ads). But, you make a good point that individuals should not hold opinions they can't defend.

Oh, absolutely. I won't list examples, as Forum rules forbid discussion of Real-life politics, but me being German and what I have said about my identity and opinions I think might provide solid ground for guessing.
(Incidentally, no, censorship of sexualised female characters is not one of the things I feel need restricting. Just... just to make sure noone takes my statements out of context in that regard, despite me repeatedly saying the opposite.)


Why couldn't the Africans have made a version of this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_armour#Laminar_armour_of_native_peoples_of _Alaska_and_Siberia)?

I don't know enough about the cultures involved to answer that. Lack of climate-appropriate clothing to wear underneath would be my first guess. Leather is generally uncomfortable to wear on naked skin, fur somewhat warm for the climate. Cloth of course existed, but I didn't find evidence of it in central African regions (As in, not along the more coastal regions).


The Old Testament describes a wife in glowing terms of being a hard worker, that doesn't mean the instinctive choice isn't a pretty one.

I don't know what you want to say with this. You cite a random source seemingly contradicting your claim, and then say that isn't relevant. What of it? How is that an argument against beauty standards being broader in certain cultures than they are in ours today?


Take flags. Flags have meaning that has accrued across centuries. Should the American flag be replaced because cultures change, or should it be retained because it represents a continuity of the Republic and the lives of many people who died or were wounded to defend it. The flag has a value.

So with architecture. It improves our lives to have capitol buildings and monuments that are beautiful and do not change. Again they convey permanence, stability, heritage, rationality, and meaning. They may be added to, covered in vines, but never destroyed, damaged, or defaced.

Yeah, no, I won't take flags. Or architecture. Because, as I said, "Culture [...] is not an entity worth preserving for its own rights, things worth preserving have to provide some value to achieve that worth." You have explained where you see the worth in two things. That is not an argument that contradicts mine; nor one for all of culture having that worth.
(Incidentally, images of stability are one thing, but to argue statues or buildings have never any right to be destroyed, damaged or defaced is arguing both against air, pollution, birds and the progress of cultural values that might be in conflict with the heritage that the statues represent. There was good reason for Germany to rename streets and tear down statues after World War II.)


Consider what Jordan Peterson has to say (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBuOQL1VYY).

Sexism as in recognition and reasonable accommodation of human sexual difference will never disappear this side of a mind-bending tyranny, but sexism in terms of bigotry against the opposite sex can and should.

It would be necessary, for that argument to hold, to prove the fundamental human sexual difference. And I am not saying "difference in degrees, averages or leanings". Yes, men have typically more testosterone, which leads to more agressive behaviour and better ability to build up muscle. But that doesn't mean there aren't agressive women, or strong women, suited to the same activities (If maybe in lesser percentages than men).
Humanity is a spectrum; both men and women are spectrums in all of those regards - spectrums with significant overlap, at that. For there to be any reasonable argument in favour of "recognition of sexual difference" there would first need to be proof that this is fundamental, and not just a matter of degrees.

Restricting women to looking pretty and sexy in Fantasy art, incidentally, is part of the latter: Bigotry against one gender, not recognition of any difference.


Indeed, humans' primary definition is that they are respectively made in the image of the creative potency of the Universe. Of course we have massive things in common, and these commonalities are often obscured by devastatingly bad cultural forms, and also by our instincts. But progressing through instinct romantically to human connection is just about the best thing in the world. We would be lesser if we scraped away those differences into a wastebin, and instead strove towards total androgyny. That might work for some people, but for the whole species to do that is a mistake.

I will not debate the arguments on religious grounds, both because I find there to be little merit in doing so, and because it would probably violate forum rules.

And, of course, there are differences between humans. But they are between humans, not between genders. I have had male partners more similar to me than some female partners, and female partners more similar to me than some male ones. The pretense that romantic context is based on, or improved by some innate difference of the genders of the people involved is patently false, and easily disproven by the variety of same-sex and different-sex relationships out there.

Maybe this fallacious reasoning is a sideeffect coming about from the basis of "ideally, one relationship per life". Of course, if that is with someone of a different gender; and they are different from you, how would you know what differences are because of the gender, and which just because they are another person? But drawing conclusions based on a sample size of 1 is bound to be wrong. I can prove most everything with n=1; and nothing I prove with it has any sort of substance.
The progress you describe is indeed a wonderful feeling - but it is new, everytime, regardless of differences or similarities in gender; and has in fact, nothing to do with it.


The structural conditions referenced in the Peterson video above, as identified by Nietzsche, have in no way been ameliorated and indeed if anything have been exacerbated by many decades of increasing weirdness, nihilism, pornographically violent and sexual shocks to our psychic system, and the creeping return, mutation, and spread of a certain Nineteenth Century Bad Idea.

Women and men ultimately rescue each other. In archetypal terms the virgin grants the hero strength and courage, and the hero grants the virgin freedom, life, and children. In modern terms women are getting creamed by social forces at work especially in Europe (which since it gets political from there you can explore on your own). To overcome this requires men and women to end the sex war, to end the war on tradition, to understand each other on a human level (humans as made in the image of Universal creative potency), to protect, preserve, and utilise their traditional, not just the local flags and statues, costumes and songs, but the real meat of this matter, the universal physical principles which comprises the only form of world culture worth spit. Without this, we are facing world war. It's inevitable if we won't retain our identity as humans.

Ending the social forces negatively affecting women will not be helped by simply accepting them and doing nothing about it. Restricting women and men to specific roles each, instead of allowing them to find their greatests strengths does nothing to strengthen the overall society; but actively weakens its ability to get things done. Beyond that, your argument is based on the same, unproven fundamentals cited above, and the point that I won't discuss because of religion. So I will say nothing additional on this but "no".
Indicentally, to argue that going forward in regards to producing gender equality will lead to a world war is about the most ridiculous "slippery slope" argument I have ever heard (And I heard the "sex with ducks" one regarding same-sex marriage...).


However, regardless of what bio-essentialists and bio-fatalists and the stranger adherents of evo-psych might preach... we are in fact thinking beings, with things going on in our minds that aren't about instinct. As hard as it might be to accept, some of us have other things in our heads, and might even appreciate the physical form for reasons other than simple reproduction.

We're far more complicated and nuanced than that, and unlike most creatures we're capable of making actual choices.

People who adamantly don't want children, right to their core, actually exist. They're not lying to themselves or repressing their nature or some crap, so no one even bother with that insulting and arrogant line of "argument".

People who absolutely feel that way still do fall in love, and want relationships.

"Ace" people really exist. Some of them, if I'm getting the term right, are romantic ace, and fall deeply in love without any sexual desires attached.

Evo-psych in its most hardcore form, utterly dismisses these people, tries to explain away their choices and feelings either via some cockamamie just-so story, or by insisting that they're all effectively delusionals who don't know what they really want... or just considers them deviants.

Thank you. I fear even in arguing what I am arguing, though I know and am friends with asexuals, I feel like I am in some way tacitly supporting this argument - that romantic or sexual desires are somehow fundamental to the human experience.
They are not, and I thank you for pointing it out - I hadn't felt any point where I could have comfortably included it myself.
(As for the terms; there are "asexual" ("ace" for short), not feeling sexual attraction; and "Aromantic" ("aro" for short), not feeling romantic attraction. People who are both often refer to themselves as "aroace". Then there are the demi- (having to form significant bonds with people before feeling any sort of attraction) and grey-a (having it, but incredibly rarely) versions of this, but the nuances are hard to explain via text. What you are describing are alloromantic asexual people. ("Allo" meaning "not ace/aro"))


@ Floret -- I don't put real stock in "the death of the author", I think the context of a work's creation has value in as part of the puzzle of understanding that work. Intent and outcome both matter.

Good to know, and a sentiment I pretty much share (though maybe with somewhat of a heavier weighting of outcome). ...I just had to spend too much time with the theory in university :smallwink:


Ah ha! So we see a problem with non-sexual emphasizing drawing, how do you determine if a character is male or female if their secondary sexual characteristics are not showing. But, I am sure you know the answer to your question, 99.9% of antagonist physical combatants who are disposable (that is they are not really characters, but merely pawns to be killed) in these genres are male. When a physical antagonist is female, she is often unique (if she is killed it is often important to the plot) and the fact that she is female is emphasized so that her uniqueness can be magnified.

Yeah, no, we don't.
1. I don't see much of a problem with a character being ambiguous in regards to their gender, if that gender is not relevant in some way (Such as representation of women in combat roles can of course be).
2. Even if I want to present it unambiguously, that is served enough by emphasising secondary sexual characteristics (Mostly, breasts/no breats and facial features/maybe beard). There has not been a demonstrated need for sexualisation.
3. So, basically, you guessed. Guessing is not sufficient proof. (Of course, if forced to guess, I would have made the same guess, based on the same reasons, that I find quite unfortunate)
4. Since you didn't answer: How would you respond to my arguments that the clothes of the women are indeed more sexualised than the ones of the man; as that seems to be the main point of contention between us?


Since I was specifically talking about biological differences, I wanted to avoid gender. When I was a young pup, sex (female/male) and gender (woman/man/etc) were interchangeable in common discourse. With greater awareness of differences in gender, it is important to try to be clear.

Hm. I have some thoughts on this, but don't think I want to give this topic another derail (Maybe the question: Would you describe a trans man on hormones as male? Because he'd qualify for about all the points on your list, besides possibly size and bone structure).

Amazon
2017-08-19, 11:56 AM
Oh, good grief, Amazon. You're going to play such slandering Internet games?? Please quote where I said "men can't control their sexual urges" and "women exist only to please the male gaze" before I write you off as acting in bad faith.


Because it's wrong. Women who aren't insane or stupid will know that their bare skin is a mild sexual signal to men young and old. And, why stop there? Why not make other sexual signals, go naked and expose oneself to everyone while making disgusting...you get the idea.

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.

There is nothing wrong with noticing people and enjoying their appearance.

How is "Men can't control their sexual urges and women exist only to please the male gaze" not what your quote was saying? Maybe that was not what you wanted to say, I get that but that's what you end up saying nevertheless.

I keep saying to myself this is futile but here we go:

Why men are allowed to do the same and not be sexual? Why a man's naked torso is not cosidered sexual but a woman's is? Other than a cultural stupidity?

EDIT:


A notable historical example of "married at 12, pregnant at 13" - Henry VII's mother:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Richmond_and_Derby

And because she was not fully grown - the damage done meant she could never give birth again.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were dozens of other historical examples - despite it clearly being counterproductive to guaranteeing offspring from a marriage, people still acted that way.

But they were royals, having a heir is not in top of the prority list for the population at large, sure having kids may help out in the farm but thats not the top priority, having a lot of healthy kids in the long run is better than having health complications during the birth if your wife is too young.

Blue blooded royals can hardly be used as a base for what people did at that time just look at all that huge amount of incest and inbreeds.

EDIT 2:



(2. I consider kissing a kind of perversion, since the mouth is made to eat and talk and sing, but humans are adaptable creatures and so kissing, at least in our culture, has become adapted into being part of sexuality. So, anyone who kisses someone with romantic intent is expressing “biological exuberance.”)

Hey Donnadogsoth, to you, what’s the biological function for this animal's body part?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQodEZZBh66iWG_V9r0509o_4A_Lv4g1 DO0JQUjWBAdF1R0xtMFxw

hamishspence
2017-08-19, 12:19 PM
But they were royals, having a heir is not in top of the prority list for the population at large, sure having kids may help out in the farm but thats not the top priority, having a lot of healthy kids in the long run is better than having health complications during the birth if your wife is too young.

Blue blooded royals can hardly be used as a base for what people did at that time just look at all that huge amount of incest and inbreeds.


True - it's more a case of "the powerful tend to be ruthless jerks when it comes to children".

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-19, 12:21 PM
How is "Men can't control their sexual urges and women exist only to please the male gaze" not what your quote was saying? Maybe that was not waht you wanted to say, I get that but that's what you end up saying nevertheless.

I keep saying to myself this is futile but here we go:

Why men are allowed to do the same and not be sexual? Why a man's naked torso is not cosidered sexual but a woman's is? Other than a cultural stupidity?

Why wouldn't handsome men at the beach be a turn-on to women?

Bare female eligible skin is a turn-on, a sexual signal, like (in male company) flicks of the hair, "accidentally" dropping things, sitting with knees apart, direct looks to the eyes, laughing at jokes, adjusting the man's tie for him, asking to borrow his comb, letting him pay for her iced cream cone, etc.. It's all part of the flirting/mating game and none of it necessarily means any particular thing, they're just play. Beach bodies are a part of that, and women should know that "nearly naked women's bodies" means something different to men than it does to women. That's common sense. That doesn't mean that women exist only to please the male gaze, nor that any of these signals is a direct "mate with me" command, but, rather, that sexuality radiates from women's natural behaviours around men and it's better to be informed of that fact. Be aware of what signals you're giving off.

THAT SAID, male urges to leer and to mash and to bed everything with an hourglass figure can and obviously should be controlled.


Hey Donnadogsoth, to you, what’s the biological function for this animal's body part?

Not kissing, I'd imagine. Since we're dealing with a non-cognitive animal ruled by its instincts then anything it does with it is natural.

Amazon
2017-08-19, 12:33 PM
Why wouldn't handsome men at the beach be a turn-on to women?

Bare female eligible skin is a turn-on, a sexual signal, like (in male company) flicks of the hair, "accidentally" dropping things, sitting with knees apart, direct looks to the eyes, laughing at jokes, adjusting the man's tie for him, asking to borrow his comb, letting him pay for her iced cream cone, etc.. It's all part of the flirting/mating game and none of it necessarily means any particular thing, they're just play. Beach bodies are a part of that, and women should know that "nearly naked women's bodies" means something different to men than it does to women. That's common sense. That doesn't mean that women exist only to please the male gaze, nor that any of these signals is a direct "mate with me" command, but, rather, that sexuality radiates from women's natural behaviours around men and it's better to be informed of that fact. Be aware of what signals you're giving off.

THAT SAID, male urges to leer and to mash and to bed everything with an hourglass figure can and obviously should be controlled.

Not kissing, I'd imagine. Since we're dealing with a non-cognitive animal ruled by its instincts then anything it does with it is natural.

Well if they are the same, then why if I go jogging in the park with my bare chest I will be arrested for
indecency and if a guy does that it's not a problem? What's the logic in that?

Well maybe not kissing but they do use it to show affection:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/13/article-0-1B72F71400000578-515_964x651.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5a/c5/96/5ac596fc0f4e7f7efd507abc6e6f2029--gentle-giant-cutest-animals.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/15/26ABB6EE00000578-0-image-a-27_1426428769817.jpg
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BG4A8A/brother-and-sister-elephants-linking-trunks-in-affection-kumily-kerala-BG4A8A.jpghttp://jonlieffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock-Elephant-Affection-43072396.jpg

If they can use it to show affection and its natural why can't human use their lips to do the same?

Bohandas
2017-08-19, 12:36 PM
@ Floret -- I don't put real stock in "the death of the author", I think the context of a work's creation has value in as part of the puzzle of understanding that work. Intent and outcome both matter.

Yeah I agree, the death of the author is just something literary critics invented to try and excuse the fact that they make up more outlandish stories than the fiction authors do themselves

Talakeal
2017-08-19, 12:45 PM
Yeah I agree, the death of the author is just something literary critics invented to try and excuse the fact that they make up more outlandish stories than the fiction authors do themselves

Don't forget rules lawyers who use it to ignore official clarifications for ambigous rules when the ruling goes against them.

2D8HP
2017-08-19, 12:53 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/13/article-0-1B72F71400000578-515_964x651.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5a/c5/96/5ac596fc0f4e7f7efd507abc6e6f2029--gentle-giant-cutest-animals.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/15/26ABB6EE00000578-0-image-a-27_1426428769817.jpg
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BG4A8A/brother-and-sister-elephants-linking-trunks-in-affection-kumily-kerala-BG4A8A.jpghttp://jonlieffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock-Elephant-Affection-43072396.jpg


:cool:

Thank you Amazon! (I think that those maybe my favorite images posted to this thread).


Sadly not elephants, but here's http://68.media.tumblr.com/015974f606d010c74d9712df21de2e6c/tumblr_o5n49nsebY1rb0qmoo1_1280.jpg

http://68.media.tumblr.com/421af1749f0356bfc7a8e20bb8c23eb5/tumblr_o7ahwiOgC81ts1qo1o1_1280.jpg

https://orig11.deviantart.net/33a6/f/2014/237/a/a/20140825dev_by_len_yan-d7wludf.jpg


Nod for Greyview!

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-19, 01:34 PM
Some turtles are born albinos, too. Are they psychologically repressing their species' natural colours??

Humans can indeed be bigger than their biological heritage, cf. the history of fine art.


Albino turtles?

Holy non-sequitor.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-19, 01:43 PM
Well maybe not kissing but they do use it to show affection:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/13/article-0-1B72F71400000578-515_964x651.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5a/c5/96/5ac596fc0f4e7f7efd507abc6e6f2029--gentle-giant-cutest-animals.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/15/26ABB6EE00000578-0-image-a-27_1426428769817.jpg
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BG4A8A/brother-and-sister-elephants-linking-trunks-in-affection-kumily-kerala-BG4A8A.jpghttp://jonlieffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock-Elephant-Affection-43072396.jpg

If they can use it to show affection and its natural why can't human use their lips to do the same?

I'd also point out that elephants, like higher primates, some cetaceans, and some birds, also appear to not be entirely bound to pure instinctive motive and action -- the line between homonids and other animals on that matter isn't as bright and solid as was thought.

And really, IMO, "it's natural" is a bad argument. Being preyed upon by carnivores, high infant mortality, death by disease or starvation, death in childbirth, and a bunch of other miserable things are "natural" too.

Wheras plenty of wonderul things are "not natural" .

So whether kissing is natural or not, to me, is utterly meaningless as a matter of judgement.

2D8HP
2017-08-19, 02:04 PM
Some turtles are born albinos, too...


Albino turtles?

Holy non-sequitor.


If I didn't have so many posts as "2D8HP", I would choose "Albino Turtle" (someone should grab it)
:amused:

Nod for Greyview!

hamishspence
2017-08-19, 02:24 PM
So whether kissing is natural or not, to me, is utterly meaningless as a matter of judgement.

Not that it matters much, but bonobo chimps (Our closest relation along with common chimps) do kiss.

While extrapolating from bonobo behaviour should be done with caution - they're still relevant to questions about "how much of human behaviour and biology derives from the ancestors of them and the two chimp species".

Vinyadan
2017-08-19, 02:41 PM
http://jonlieffmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/bigstock-Elephant-Affection-43072396.jpg



LOL at elephant boobies. I guess it's not that sure that human breasts are fake buttocks.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-19, 03:00 PM
LOL at elephant boobies. I guess it's not that sure that human breasts are fake buttocks.

"Breasts are fake buttocks" is just the sort of garbage just-so-story with no factual or experimental basis that I've been griping about.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-19, 04:05 PM
Understandable? Yeah, sure. Admirable? Why? What is there to be admired? Following natural urges? Bringing more humans into the world when there are ones there already that might need the help?

It's natural and good to want to perpetuate one's phenotype, unless one's phenotype is defective somehow. Why wouldn't people want to spread their phenotype? That's bizarre and unnatural to do that. People should do more of it. Now, I have nothing against adopting children, I think that's a noble act, and certainly there are many children who need adopting—we should expedite this process, help get those Russian children into American parents' hands and so forth, but I do not want to spread the idea that adoption should be preferred to bearing one's own children, of going through that intimate biological mystery and experience as part of one's human journey, as part of expanding the biological presence that you embody. There may be cases where people should not bear children, due to disease prevalence, genetic malformations, destitution, maybe even things like a bad strain of alcoholism running through the family, but these are marginal cases. Breed!


(1. Voicing to be offended is offering up the information that "hey, what you did hurt me". It is not an argument in itself, but it might well be a reason to reflect.)

I've been wounded debating online, but I don't complain about it or use it as a shield. It's tough to debate, and a person can get hurt. But--and I'm setting aside just vitriol and bad faith and trolling, illegitimate forms of discourse--it should be possible to spend one's time in a constructive debate and not complain about being hurt, no matter what the topic or intensity of speech. If debate hurts you, and your opponent is not just a vicious troll trying to hurt you for the love of it, then you should either suck it up or retire from the debate. As Jordan Peterson said, if you can't handle University debate, you should seek therapy.


(2. Interesting you say that, because (If we accept the conceit that any body part is actually "made for" anything) the mouth is definitely made for kissing. The act releases hormones that make people happy, helps with bonding, and is one of the best ways to figure out (biological) compatability (Indirectly, of course, but in the same vein that a persons smell does). Almost all human cultures do it, and many animals engage in rather similar behaviour.)

Bashing someone on the head can turn them into a math genius (https://www.livescience.com/45349-brain-injury-turns-man-into-math-genius.html). The main difference between that and kissing is the frequency of positive effects.


This trichotomy does not line up with reality. I am aware of the archetypes (Though some of it might be due to "young woman" being mistranslated as "virgin" into english. German, for example, has one letter of difference between the two; Hebrew and Old Greek have similar issues of less clear differenciation (Or even more issues; and then sometimes it is a literal child instead of just a virgin)), but you cannot divide reality that neatly. In fact, quite a significant portion of women fall into the "young, non-virgin woman without children" category; possibly more than into the "virgin" category, at least in western civilization.

Are you talking in terms of contraception? Because an uncontracepted women in a sexual relationship for any significant amount of time, like many months or years, typically has a high chance of conceiving, and I'm not sure the Middle Ages for example had much in the way of contraception available.

I've also heard the term “maiden” as in unmarried women; maiden/mother/crone.


2. Yeah, no. Virginity until marriage night is an utterly destructive concept to hold in any high esteem and to tie moral excpectations to. Any person should be free to do as they like, of course, and if you wanna wait until marriage to loose your virginity, that choice should be up to you - but for that to be an informed decision (The best kinds of decisions, especially about life-forming things), society must be honest about the drawbacks that can have (Lack of sexual compatability being found out too late; lack of knowlege about ones body, needs and desires, resulting in unsatisfactory situations) and not romanticise one (potentially very problematic) option, because that can sway opinions in unhealthy ways and apply pressure to conform to things you don't actually want.

I'll agree about the dangers of persuasion and conformity, but not about virginity. People can, and should, get to know their prospective marriage partners as intimately as possible, to get to know them very well, including physically, without needing to have sexual intercourse. These days people jump into the sack on the first date—the first half date!--they are alienated from the idea of spending months, or years getting to know someone. It's a mistake to think that the ideal of chastity until marriage should be associated with cultural blunders of the past telling people to never talk about sex, never kiss, never get partially physically intimate, never get to know each other's personality, likes, dislikes, fantasies, and so forth.


3. As has already been said: No it doesn't. That a person you are married to is the first you do it with does nothing to stop you from doing it with other people in the future. The only thing that actually stops it is being honest with one another; a concept not hurt in any way by non-virginity (or even nonmonogamy).

I didn't mean cuckolding is impossible throughout the marriage, only that if a man's wife is a virgin on their wedding night, and conceives immediately, cuckolding would be very difficult.


Alright, so "virgin" for you is synonymous with an age group. That has... little to no relation to what the word actually means, but alright. By equating virginity with attractiveness, you are assuming your conclusion (A rather easily disproven one in little relation to facts, at that.)
(If we take that classification, I am a virgin. ...I think there are several people that would be rather unlikely to believe that.)

Facts in the real world? Or facts in the fantasy world? Unless there are magic contraceptives any woman in these fantasy worlds is going to conceive in short order if she has an ongoing sexual relationship. In that sense, and in the sense that the artists are drawing ideals (mostly), these attractive women are maidens (shield-maiden, not shield-mother).


Okay, subconcious impulses. Is this basically "you have a sexdrive because evolution"? Or is there another argument you want to make?*
Because sex is something most humans consider fun because of evolution, sure. It is necessary for continuation of the species that intercourse happens. But because continuation of the species isn't really enough of a reason for living beings to engage in it, species in which the act triggers happyness responses (or where not doing it creates unhappiness) have more kids. Evolution*actively has to trick us*into having kids.
There is no drive to reproduce in humans (Okay, there is some, but that is not all there is to it), if there were an innate drive for that, sex wouldn't be fun. There is a drive to get those sweet, sweet happyness hormones - that might require actions that incidentally lead to children as a sideeffect.

I don't disagree with this. If it were otherwise than we shouldn't even be conscious.


No, not black teeth. I asked about nailpolish, and quite intentionally. Do not change the subject to something you are able to argue (Beyond the fact that you haven't actually argued anything, only sidestepped the question) Surrender the point if you aren't able to defend it, but don't try to weasel around it. You said anything makeup companies do is relating to already-present impulses. So I ask again: What already-present, natural impulse can there be in a person that explains nailpolish? Not any other cosmetica, specifically nailpolish.

I will not go into anything related to the "divine form". I disagree, and heavily disagree with using arguments steeped this deeply in belief systems (especially ones not based on reason, but pure belief, such as this one), as they need a shared framework to be arguments that is very likely to be not universally shared - so if you want your arguments to have any power beyond your belief system, you need to come back to universally shared value frameworks, and leave religion out of this.
I will stop commenting more on this to avoid violating the forum rules.

Good grief, if you're going to disallow metaphors or think I'm standing on religion this conversation won't go very far. Plato is not religion. And don't you accuse me of changing the subject! The answer I gave was perfectly satisfactory in indicating that the impulse of feminine beauty is a complex, a thing like Abhoth from the Cthulhu mythos that is a blue pool of protoplasmic goo randomly exuding pseudo-life forms that crawl away from it and occasionally escape, with others being dragged back into the pool and digested. Feminine beauty develops these various formlets, like nail polish or black teeth, and no particular formlet has a Platonic form or a direct rooting in biology, but rather an indirect one, hence the application of culture. This is metaphorically equivalent to the divine human form I referenced.


That is a surprisingly logic, though impractical idea (Also, if anything, I'd make the test to be taken when people want to marry. No reason to hand out cards before that; telling couples "best wait some more" isn't that bad a thing. Parents do it all the time.).*

Agreed. We agree!


It's really, really not.
(The rest of the discussion on marriage has been cut in the expressed interest from multiple people of this topic ending)

Harrumph.


Yes, young, attractive women going to the beach have a different experience. But, remember: This string of discussion started with you claiming that women dressing revealingly at the beach was an example of them "intentionally displaying their fertility".
Do you retract that statement, in the face of the conclusion that it is only their experience that is different, not their intentions?

No, because it's subconscious on their part. It's women's nature to signal males (without that statement meaning biological determinism drives women hopelessly and irresistibly to signal uncontrollably and wildly to every man they meet). And that signalling manifests on the beach in terms of bare skin, which the women owning said skin would be wise to be self-conscious about, which most of them are, which is good.


It is not natural, or normal, for men to want a harem of women at their disposal. Some men may want that. But it isn't something shared by everyone; not something fundamental to "the nature" of men. There is no secret beast in every man that tries to take over their actions* - there are only desires, that are fundamentally human, as part of their nature as animals. Because... humans are animals, just animals with self control and the ability to reflect on their actions and how those influence others. (Incidentally, this is not to say there aren't other animals with the same ability)

It's not natural to humans insofar as they are rational beings, no. But, in terms of instinct it's in men's interest to impregnate every woman in sight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbrIgaLHxnA), and a goodly number attempt this.

Yes, there is a beast, Freud called it the id. The American Indians call it the bad wolf. Augustine called it original sin*. Every bad thing is in there and it wants out.

*Not getting religious on you, just pointing out that this idea has a pedigree and is hugely influential.


And I have marked the line - at the point the men staring starts diminishing the comfort of life and sense of safety of women.

That's a dangerous place to put the line, because it empowers the “gaze police” to make men afraid of expressing their normal sexuality in noticing and admiring sexy women. So, I would alter your statement to read, “at the point the men staring starts diminishing the comfort of life and sense of safety of women, subject to common sense.” Like everyone in these days who are trained by Universities and activists to elongate their nerves three feet in all direction, women should have some toughness to them to resist the discomfort of being noticed by men, without turning the culture into a kind of nude Iran, while we bear in mind that real jerks need restraining.


Not because of any difference between humans "human" and "bestial" nature*, but because of the consequences the actions of some humans have on others, that are to the detriment of overall societal happiness. And, yes, the conclusion might, in face of a culture still steeped in patriarchy and the things some people refer to as rapeculture; be to err on the side of caution.
All of the above naturally applies to women and the reversed dynamics as well.

(*This sounds like it would be more at home in a discussion about WoD vampires than about humans...)

If Plato is religion so is patriarchy theory.

Vampire wouldn't have been as successful if it weren't a metaphor for something real.


And? What is that supposed to tell us? People make life decisions? People value different things? People get off on different things and need different things from their relationships? Some people need exclusivity in theirs? What... what point exactly do you think you are making by quoting this?
I agree with that kid, incidentally. Sex has no mystery to it, and I hardly see how the act and our society would profit from pretending that it has.
(Beyond that, the fact that some men might get off better if they don't see any bit of skin or hair on women other than their wives is a) something the couple might wanna take a look at, and b) not sufficient reason to require everyone in a society to wear headscarves)

I'm not requiring everyone in society to wear headscarves. But, it's pretty sad to see the difference in treating sex sacredly and treating it like trash, which is a short step to treating women like trash. How happy are women in this new liberated trash-sex disposable-relationship culture we have let be built for us? I know what I would promote in society.


Oh, absolutely. I won't list examples, as Forum rules forbid discussion of Real-life politics, but me being German and what I have said about my identity and opinions I think might provide solid ground for guessing.
(Incidentally, no, censorship of sexualised female characters is not one of the things I feel need restricting. Just... just to make sure noone takes my statements out of context in that regard, despite me repeatedly saying the opposite.)

Another moment of agreement, without getting into politics.


I don't know enough about the cultures involved to answer that. Lack of climate-appropriate clothing to wear underneath would be my first guess. Leather is generally uncomfortable to wear on naked skin, fur somewhat warm for the climate. Cloth of course existed, but I didn't find evidence of it in central African regions (As in, not along the more coastal regions).

Unless I'm misremembering your previous argument then, are you acknowledging that it is possible to have climate and cultural conditions conducive to warriors and maidens showing a lot of skin?

I don't know what you want to say with this. You cite a random source seemingly contradicting your claim, and then say that isn't relevant. What of it? How is that an argument against beauty standards being broader in certain cultures than they are in ours today?

I'm saying that wives were valued for their utility, not just their beauty, but that most men given their dithers wish for a pretty wife. Another example was a newspaper article about Russia I read long ago: most Russian men wanted the burly babushka type woman rather than the American fashion model. “American woman like butterfly: pretty but useless.” So, there is a dynamic between utility and aesthetics here, aside from personality considerations.


Yeah, no, I won't take flags. Or architecture. Because, as I said, "Culture [...] is not an entity worth preserving for its own rights, things worth preserving have to provide some value to achieve that worth." You have explained where you see the worth in two things. That is not an argument that contradicts mine; nor one for all of culture having that worth.
(Incidentally, images of stability are one thing, but to argue statues or buildings have never any right to be destroyed, damaged or defaced is arguing both against air, pollution, birds and the progress of cultural values that might be in conflict with the heritage that the statues represent. There was good reason for Germany to rename streets and tear down statues after World War II.)

I now agree with the bolded text.

In my experience there are plenty of buildings (e.g., postmodern Kentucky Fried outlets, modern Catholic churches, etc.) that beg for the bulldozer, so in principle I agree with you and don't mean to say that everything that exists is immune to bulldozing because they exist. The happenstance of history, to the degree that it violates the Classical ideal, should be cleaned up and replaced with what is truly beautiful.

The following is not a political statement, but an artistic one:

But, I think Germany went too far post WWII, possibly reflexively. Many statues and buildings and paintings—and planned buildings—were wonderful examples of neoclassical art, including romantic ruins (buildings intended to look like they had fallen into decay with vines and such) and military hardware. So, I would have kept a lot, for the sake of beauty and for the sake of not erasing history almost completely which is what, from what I know, the Germans did after the Second War.

To use another example, consider the art of the Soviet Union. Should this all be expunged and effaced? No. Unless an artwork is simply irredeemably ugly, or represents the pinnacle of domination by an evil entity, like a statue of a wicked leader, it shouldn't be taken down. And even then the statues and monuments and art, if they are to be taken down, should be stored somewhere, not destroyed, unless they are so unwieldy as to be immovable or unstoreable, and then they should be suitably documented, photographed, measured, etc, the plans stored, and the awful thing finally destroyed.


It would be necessary, for that argument to hold, to prove the fundamental human sexual difference. And I am not saying "difference in degrees, averages or leanings". Yes, men have typically more testosterone, which leads to more agressive behaviour and better ability to build up muscle. But that doesn't mean there aren't agressive women, or strong women, suited to the same activities (If maybe in lesser percentages than men).
Humanity is a spectrum; both men and women are spectrums in all of those regards - spectrums with significant overlap, at that. For there to be any reasonable argument in favour of "recognition of sexual difference" there would first need to be proof that this is fundamental, and not just a matter of degrees.

Yes, there is overlap, and I will add that culture can amplify or diminish any innate tendencies. We are the mimetic species and so can drastically alter how we express our instincts as dictated by inherited culture, new discoveries, and current environs. That said, men and women have differing optimal mating strategies that evolution has selected for, and which lead to differing behavioural procedures. And since reproduction is a big component of human life, these procedures are widespread, and help select new generations. Take all of this together and we get “how men are” and “how women are” and changing this will be very slow and difficult, and unless it's really hurting people there's no real reason to change it, but rather vive la difference.


Restricting women to looking pretty and sexy in Fantasy art, incidentally, is part of the latter: Bigotry against one gender, not recognition of any difference.

First, I'm not restricting women to looking pretty and sexy in Fantasy art. If someone wants to draw glaive-wielding grannies I say go for it.

Second, preference isn't bigotry. If I don't wish to marry a man that doesn't mean I'm bigotted against men, or homosexuals.


I will not debate the arguments on religious grounds, both because I find there to be little merit in doing so, and because it would probably violate forum rules.

And, of course, there are differences between humans. But they are between humans, not between genders. I have had male partners more similar to me than some female partners, and female partners more similar to me than some male ones. The pretense that romantic context is based on, or improved by some innate difference of the genders of the people involved is patently false, and easily disproven by the variety of same-sex and different-sex relationships out there.

If there are no differences between sexes then everyone should be bisexual, and it's only malicious culture that is preventing this from universalizing.


Maybe this fallacious reasoning is a sideeffect coming about from the basis of "ideally, one relationship per life". Of course, if that is with someone of a different gender; and they are different from you, how would you know what differences are because of the gender, and which just because they are another person? But drawing conclusions based on a sample size of 1 is bound to be wrong. I can prove most everything with n=1; and nothing I prove with it has any sort of substance.
The progress you describe is indeed a wonderful feeling - but it is new, everytime, regardless of differences or similarities in gender; and has in fact, nothing to do with it.

People do exist in societies and have friends and colleagues and can talk to each other about sex differences.


Ending the social forces negatively affecting women will not be helped by simply accepting them and doing nothing about it. Restricting women and men to specific roles each, instead of allowing them to find their greatests strengths does nothing to strengthen the overall society; but actively weakens its ability to get things done. Beyond that, your argument is based on the same, unproven fundamentals cited above, and the point that I won't discuss because of religion. So I will say nothing additional on this but "no".
Indicentally, to argue that going forward in regards to producing gender equality will lead to a world war is about the most ridiculous "slippery slope" argument I have ever heard (And I heard the "sex with ducks" one regarding same-sex marriage...).

What you say is itself a slippery slope, because the groups that work the hardest to efface sex differences are the ones who want to eliminate tradition entirely and replace it with a year zero society.

It is good to have national costumes for girls and boys, men and women, for example. That's not “gender inequality” it's blood for the veins of the nation.

And I didn't say “going forward in regards to producing gender inequality will lead to a world war,” I said, “the real meat of this matter, the universal physical principles which comprises the only form of world culture worth spit. Without this, we are facing world war. It's inevitable if we won't retain our identity as humans.” I wasn't talking about sex differences or sexual equity except in terms that all humans are primarily human and not sexes (so we can throw the sex war hypothesis of radical evo-psych proponents out the rhetorical window). You and I are approaching a common humanity in different ways.

Shamash
2017-08-19, 04:20 PM
Bashing someone on the head can turn them into a math genius (https://www.livescience.com/45349-brain-injury-turns-man-into-math-genius.html). The main difference between that and kissing is the frequency of positive effects.

I like to think that's your main pick up line. :smallcool:


If I didn't have so many posts as "2D8HP", I would choose "Albino Turtle" (someone should grab it)
:amused:

Nod for Greyview!

By the way, what does 2D8HP means? And the heck is Nod for Greyview?

Bohandas
2017-08-19, 04:31 PM
Yeah, it's pretty much the scientific equivalent of literary criticism/analysis

Shamash
2017-08-19, 04:35 PM
Yeah, it's pretty much the scientific equivalent of literary criticism/analysis

What are you talking about?

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-19, 04:50 PM
I keep saying to myself this is futile but here we go:

Why men are allowed to do the same and not be sexual? Why a man's naked torso is not cosidered sexual but a woman's is? Other than a cultural stupidity?

Why do women have breasts in the first place? It's not for lactation; every other animal has flat breasts that swell up with milk when needed. It's for turning men on. It's like the baboons with the big red derrieres.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-19, 04:54 PM
If they can use it to show affection and its natural why can't human use their lips to do the same?

Perhaps you're right. I mean, is there anything the human hand can do that isn't natural to man? Use tools, make signals, fight, etc.. All natural whether we're acting as merely animals or as humans.

2D8HP
2017-08-19, 06:41 PM
....If someone wants to draw glaive-wielding grannies I say go for it.....

Good idea!

http://68.media.tumblr.com/cb3f4323c41a5e3c6183ab475641b162/tumblr_orpbzn1QZA1v8ij0vo1_1280.jpg

(The polearm pictured is not a glaive which has a single edge)



By the way, what does 2D8HP means?


It's rolling two eight-sided dice to determine the hitpoints of a first level Ranger character in a game of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons per the 1978 rules.


And the heck is Nod for Greyview?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/ffflv0o3jw0dpwjqguyfdrohkopeopftwof1037.png

Greyview is a Dire Wolf character, who articulates the importance of nodding, in a wonderful and wonderous web comic called

Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html),

.which I highly recommend.

There's an ungoimg

Character Popularity Poll (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533266-Character-Popularity-Poll)

at this Forum, and for some strange reason Greyview is not yet the top vote getter as would be right, true, good, and beutiful, so...

NOD FOR GREYVIEW!!!

Zen
2017-08-19, 07:25 PM
There is nothing wrong with noticing people and enjoying their appearance. Culture that de-normalises male appreciation of feminine beauty is sick.

I have a problem with that, if I'm able to go thought my entire life without staring or looking at a woman who didn't gave me her consent, entire monastic orders are able to do same, you can control yourself you horndog.

Shamash
2017-08-19, 07:42 PM
Greyview is a Dire Wolf character, who articulates the importance of nodding, in a wonderful and wonderous web comic called

Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1037.html),

.which I highly recommend.

There's an ungoimg

Character Popularity Poll (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533266-Character-Popularity-Poll)

at this Forum, and for some strange reason Greyview is not yet the top vote getter as would be right, true, good, and beutiful, so...

NOD FOR GREYVIEW!!!

That's cool, this comic seems to be interesting but I have a lot to catch up. :smalltongue:

Awesome I love him, how do I vote?

Also, Donnadogsoth don't you think your views are kind of weird? I mean do you have joy in your life? You sound sexually repressed, are you very religious? Or have you been abused? Maybe you had a difficult relationship. What’s wrong with you buddy? Life is good, sex is good, life is not the scary place you think it is.

2D8HP
2017-08-19, 07:53 PM
That's cool, this comic seems to be interesting but I have a lot to catch up. :smalltongue:

Awesome I love him, how do I vote?.
You go to the Character Popularity Poll (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533266-Character-Popularity-Poll) thread, and cast ten votes for Greyview!!!


Then you go to the Favorite OOTS Character Tournament: 14 Block Wildcard Rush (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533850-Favorite-OOTS-Character-Tournament-14-Block-Wildcard-Rush) and NOD FOR GREYVIEW!

(It is remotely possible that you may have a different favorite character than me, and would thus nod/vote differently, but THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!)

Shamash
2017-08-19, 07:57 PM
You go to the Character Popularity Poll (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533266-Character-Popularity-Poll) thread, and cast ten votes for Greyview!!!


Then you go to the Favorite OOTS Character Tournament: 14 Block Wildcard Rush (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533850-Favorite-OOTS-Character-Tournament-14-Block-Wildcard-Rush) and NOD FOR GREYVIEW!

(It is remotely possible that you may have a different favorite character than me, and would thus nod/vote differently, but THAT WOULD BE WRONG!!!)

No way, he is the best and Black wing already has too many groupies.

Also, I appreciate fighting for the underdog. :smallbiggrin:

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-19, 08:45 PM
No way, he is the best and Black wing already has too many groupies.

Also, I appreciate fighting for the underdog. :smallbiggrin:

Underwolf?

Underworg?

Shamash
2017-08-19, 08:49 PM
Underwolf?

Underworg?

More like Uberwolf or Uberworg. :smallwink:

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-19, 08:49 PM
It's natural and good to want to perpetuate one's phenotype, unless one's phenotype is defective somehow. Why wouldn't people want to spread their phenotype? That's bizarre and unnatural to do that. People should do more of it. Now, I have nothing against adopting children, I think that's a noble act, and certainly there are many children who need adopting—we should expedite this process, help get those Russian children into American parents' hands and so forth, but I do not want to spread the idea that adoption should be preferred to bearing one's own children, of going through that intimate biological mystery and experience as part of one's human journey, as part of expanding the biological presence that you embody. There may be cases where people should not bear children, due to disease prevalence, genetic malformations, destitution, maybe even things like a bad strain of alcoholism running through the family, but these are marginal cases. Breed!

You're conflating biology and morality.

Also, some people wouldn't make good parents regardless of having the money and no glaring genetic defects.

Also... there are already too damn many human beings for this planet. We can't keep going like we're going until the technology catches up to allow us to support this many people without grossly outstripping the ability of resources and ecosystems to replenish. Growth is not an unquestionable unvarnished good.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-08-19, 10:12 PM
This thread certainly got creepy.

Vknight
2017-08-20, 02:42 AM
You're conflating biology and morality.

Also, some people wouldn't make good parents regardless of having the money and no glaring genetic defects.

Also... there are already too damn many human beings for this planet. We can't keep going like we're going until the technology catches up to allow us to support this many people without grossly outstripping the ability of resources and ecosystems to replenish. Growth is not an unquestionable unvarnished good.

How is relevant to a topic about female armour... Though you are right and it is an interesting part too our continue development.

Calthropstu
2017-08-20, 05:48 AM
I'd also point out that elephants, like higher primates, some cetaceans, and some birds, also appear to not be entirely bound to pure instinctive motive and action -- the line between homonids and other animals on that matter isn't as bright and solid as was thought.

And really, IMO, "it's natural" is a bad argument. Being preyed upon by carnivores, high infant mortality, death by disease or starvation, death in childbirth, and a bunch of other miserable things are "natural" too.

Wheras plenty of wonderul things are "not natural" .

So whether kissing is natural or not, to me, is utterly meaningless as a matter of judgement.

I had read somewhere that kissing began in rome. It was to detect wine on the lips of wives to see if they had been drinking while they were gone... which was thought to indicate infidelity.

Edit. Looked it up, and apparently that is incorrect. The act of kissing can be traced to 3500 bc Egypt, where trace writings mention the practice. Romans DID use it widespread for various reasons however, including the one I mentioned.

Floret
2017-08-20, 07:44 AM
It's natural and good to want to perpetuate one's phenotype, unless one's phenotype is defective somehow. Why wouldn't people want to spread their phenotype? That's bizarre and unnatural to do that. People should do more of it. Now, I have nothing against adopting children, I think that's a noble act, and certainly there are many children who need adopting—we should expedite this process, help get those Russian children into American parents' hands and so forth, but I do not want to spread the idea that adoption should be preferred to bearing one's own children, of going through that intimate biological mystery and experience as part of one's human journey, as part of expanding the biological presence that you embody. There may be cases where people should not bear children, due to disease prevalence, genetic malformations, destitution, maybe even things like a bad strain of alcoholism running through the family, but these are marginal cases. Breed!

You have explained how it is understandable. I already agreed with that - but how is such an essentially selfish decision, to decide your genes specifically are worth continuing in face of overpopulation and existing children without parents, noble, or admirable? (Now, of course, when it comes to big life decisions, humans should have a right to be selfish. But that doesn't mean it's something to be lauded.)
The experience of raising children, caring for them, seeing them grow up is unconnected from any biological connection you have with them; to assert otherwise would be to claim that adoptive parents can never truly be parents, that bonds forged by blood are somehow fundamentally stronger than those forged by agreement, caring, and shared experiences, which quite frankly is a ridiculous assertion (That contradicts the fact that for most people, a romantic partner - that they are not connected to by blood - is the strongest and most intimate connection they have; and for many people, friendship can far trump family in strength of relationship.)


I've been wounded debating online, but I don't complain about it or use it as a shield. It's tough to debate, and a person can get hurt. But--and I'm setting aside just vitriol and bad faith and trolling, illegitimate forms of discourse--it should be possible to spend one's time in a constructive debate and not complain about being hurt, no matter what the topic or intensity of speech. If debate hurts you, and your opponent is not just a vicious troll trying to hurt you for the love of it, then you should either suck it up or retire from the debate. As Jordan Peterson said, if you can't handle University debate, you should seek therapy.

Oh, a shield? No, dude. I don't need a shield against you. Calling you out to think about your choice of words is not a shield; it's really more of an attack than a defense, to be honest.
The opinion of Peterson that you so casually repeat is a bane on civilised discussion. If you, in the face of someone saying "Hey, you hurt me" answer not with consideration, and thinking about if that was worth it, or justified nonetheless; but with "Suck it up", you are not enabling rational discussion, you are excluding people based on their ability to stomach hurt. That is not a productive way to conduct open conversation; it's a way to exclude opinions and positions based on completely unrelated factors.
I think 2D8HP wrote something about that once... "Back in my day, we did have Political Correctness. It was called "having manners"", or something to that effect. If you have multiple ways to say things (and you almost always have), and choose the one that you have been told causes hurt; and your response is "I don't care", that that should certainly be your right - but you are still an *******. You don't loose that by not intending hurt, you loose that by doing your best by minimising hurt. Or as Lois CK, iirc, said: "If I tell you you hurt me; you do not get to decide that you didn't".


Bashing someone on the head can turn them into a math genius (https://www.livescience.com/45349-brain-injury-turns-man-into-math-genius.html). The main difference between that and kissing is the frequency of positive effects.

Yeah, no. The difference of something happening possibly, or guaranteedly is also in there. Besides that, I simply don't believe acting like body parts are "made for" anything is actually rational - that requires intent behind the creation. Evolution doesn't have intent. Evolution has random mutation, and some things being more suited to be passed on. Nothing is actually made for anything.
I mean, is the skeleton made for stability of the body? The first skeletons came about as a way to store calcium in bodies, as those lifeforms required it. It's not what a body part is "made for" that is important, it's mostly just what it can be used for. Mouths can be used for kissing, other body parts...


Are you talking in terms of contraception? Because an uncontracepted women in a sexual relationship for any significant amount of time, like many months or years, typically has a high chance of conceiving, and I'm not sure the Middle Ages for example had much in the way of contraception available.
I've also heard the term “maiden” as in unmarried women; maiden/mother/crone.

Facts in the real world? Or facts in the fantasy world? Unless there are magic contraceptives any woman in these fantasy worlds is going to conceive in short order if she has an ongoing sexual relationship. In that sense, and in the sense that the artists are drawing ideals (mostly), these attractive women are maidens (shield-maiden, not shield-mother).[/QUOTE]

Facts in the real world of the current day, where Fantasy works take a lot of their context from, and facts from Fantasy worlds.
The middle ages had some ways of contraception (someone else already linked stuff); and Fantasy worlds have often two ways of dealing with that:
1. Yes, magical or herbal contraceptives. Quite some settings explicitly include them, The Dark Eye, Germanys most popular RPG, has both.
2. Not bothering with that, and just glossing over the lack of realism (Which I think I've seen even more often). Quite often Fantasy stories and worlds have (more or less promiscuous) female characters, that just... don't get pregnant despite sex, because that's not the story the author wants to tell; without getting into particular reasons.
3. "Maiden" is not synonymous with "virgin", as you yourself point out.
(I also think you might be going off of a rather restrictive definition of "virgin" and "sex", but I don't blame you - western culture often does.
As a hint: If your definitions leave promiscuous lesbians as life-long virgins, they might be flawed; which of course mostly underscores how flawed of a cultural concept viriginity itself is.)


I'll agree about the dangers of persuasion and conformity, but not about virginity. People can, and should, get to know their prospective marriage partners as intimately as possible, to get to know them very well, including physically, without needing to have sexual intercourse. These days people jump into the sack on the first date—the first half date!--they are alienated from the idea of spending months, or years getting to know someone. It's a mistake to think that the ideal of chastity until marriage should be associated with cultural blunders of the past telling people to never talk about sex, never kiss, never get partially physically intimate, never get to know each other's personality, likes, dislikes, fantasies, and so forth.

I'll leave this (http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/relationships/advice/a37617/i-waited-to-have-sex-until-i-was-married/)here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mandy-velez/the-problem-with-waiting-for-marriage_b_5079625.html).
And without needing to have sex? Certainly, more power to people making their own choices. Without having sex? Why push that onto people that want to?
Also, so what? So what if people jump into the sack on the first date? What if people jump into the sack three months before the first date? What if people jump into the sack without dates at all, while just staying friends, or not even knowing each other? It's their choice. People should be empowered to make informed, free choices, not be encouraged one way or the other.
Why would getting to know one another better over time be hampered by having had sex? There is plenty to get to know about people even after you've seen them naked. Sex is not a big "final step" in a relationship, the "ultimate thing" two people can do together, or a reward for achieving enough bonding points (Looking at you, Bioware games). It's an enjoyable and possibly intimate experience to share. Something that can make people closer, be an incredibly intimate and deep experience - or just something that's quite fun to do. And those are not exclusive from one another either, having sex for fun does nothing to restrict you from having it as an intimate experience - if later on with the same person; or with someone else entirely. (This, btw, isn't an encouragement to do things my way, this is just for the "informed" bit of the "informed choices")


I didn't mean cuckolding is impossible throughout the marriage, only that if a man's wife is a virgin on their wedding night, and conceives immediately, cuckolding would be very difficult.

Immediate conception isn't visible immidiately, and also incredibly rare. Differenciating between "roughly 9 months since my wedding night" and "roughly 9 months since one week after my wedding night" is also pretty impossible; children aren't on the clock.
The point is: Any safety you gain against cuckolding by your wife being a virgin is pretty much illusory. (Beyond that, if your wife wants to cheat on you; "lying to you" is already on the table; and at that point she might well not still be a virgin at all, and "roughly 9 months since one week before my wedding night" becomes an additional option.)


Good grief, if you're going to disallow metaphors or think I'm standing on religion this conversation won't go very far. Plato is not religion. And don't you accuse me of changing the subject! The answer I gave was perfectly satisfactory in indicating that the impulse of feminine beauty is a complex, a thing like Abhoth from the Cthulhu mythos that is a blue pool of protoplasmic goo randomly exuding pseudo-life forms that crawl away from it and occasionally escape, with others being dragged back into the pool and digested. Feminine beauty develops these various formlets, like nail polish or black teeth, and no particular formlet has a Platonic form or a direct rooting in biology, but rather an indirect one, hence the application of culture. This is metaphorically equivalent to the divine human form I referenced.

I'm not disallowing metaphors. I am simply requiring direct, non-metaphorical answers to direct, non-metaphorical questions.
The problem with your new answer is, this started with you claiming there was a natural urge behind cosmetics. The way you use it in this response, the answer would indeed be satisfactory to explain that - it is just highly, highly unsatisfactory as an answer to a claim such as the one you made. Throwing your hands up, basing yourself on Plato (Who, while maybe not religion, certainly didn't base his arguments in much of facts) and something that vague will not be enough to convince me of the truth of your assertion. If you make concrete claims, be ready to supply concrete answers.

Whether or not the belief systems of Plato are religion (probably not?); what I was calling out as "don't bring a religious base into this" was this:
No, it means that there is a divine form encompassing the entire human form (male and female being alterations from the divine hermaphrodite, presumably)

in the image of the creative potency of the Universe
This? Divine forms? A "divine hermaphrodite"? Creative potencys of the Universe? That is religion. Those are arguments funded solely on belief; and nothing reproducible by facts or even just logic or rational thought.


No, because it's subconscious on their part. It's women's nature to signal males (without that statement meaning biological determinism drives women hopelessly and irresistibly to signal uncontrollably and wildly to every man they meet). And that signalling manifests on the beach in terms of bare skin, which the women owning said skin would be wise to be self-conscious about, which most of them are, which is good.

...I will now stop discussing that. If "It's women's nature to signal males" is an assertion that you are willing to hold in the face of women telling you "no, it isn't"; the most careful, logical conclusions that only break in the face of an assertion that women are fundamentally different from every other human being; and lesbians, I have nothing anymore. I cannot debate a position that refuses both evidence and logic so decidedly. I give up, believe your recursive bull**** if you want.


It's not natural to humans insofar as they are rational beings, no. But, in terms of instinct it's in men's interest to impregnate every woman in sight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbrIgaLHxnA), and a goodly number attempt this.

Yes, there is a beast, Freud called it the id. The American Indians call it the bad wolf. Augustine called it original sin*. Every bad thing is in there and it wants out.

*Not getting religious on you, just pointing out that this idea has a pedigree and is hugely influential.

I am really unsure if "the american indians" (as if they ever were a monolithic group) called this concept anything. Freud is heavily influential, but that doesn't mean he is right, his theories have been largely debunked. It is a nice concept to orient oneself on while writing fiction, but a heavy oversimplification of the way the human mind functions. And, no. It is not "in men's instinctive interests". I am unsure how a music video serves as proof of anything but that someone believes this. Someone believing something isn't an argument for its truth, though, not without a qualification for why they believe it.
What I mean by there being no beast is not that humans are always perfectly rational, or have no instincts. I am saying those base instincts are an intrinsic part of being human; being the animal we are, and that quarantining them off into a separate entity might sound appealing, but isn't based in truth. There is nothing we need to supress, there are urges, both rational and instinctive, and we need to evaluate each one seperately by what it does.
Maybe that is not what you are arguing. But it is what people who have used that argument before are trying to argue.


That's a dangerous place to put the line, because it empowers the “gaze police” to make men afraid of expressing their normal sexuality in noticing and admiring sexy women. So, I would alter your statement to read, “at the point the men staring starts diminishing the comfort of life and sense of safety of women, subject to common sense.” Like everyone in these days who are trained by Universities and activists to elongate their nerves three feet in all direction, women should have some toughness to them to resist the discomfort of being noticed by men, without turning the culture into a kind of nude Iran, while we bear in mind that real jerks need restraining.

I am not arguing for there to be laws. Just that men check themselves; and if being told they are over the line, take that into consideration; without a culture that empowers them to go to the reflective response of "Nah, who cares". The whole "If I tell you you hurt me, you don't get to decide that you didn't" thing.


Vampire wouldn't have been as successful if it weren't a metaphor for something real.

Something fictional can never prove anything about reality, or human nature, or anything. Only that a human being was able to think that up. To draw other conclusions from that is bound to be fallacious.
If there is truth in fiction, "it was successfull" is not sufficient proof. The proof has to come from logical arguments or facts arguing the content of the fiction; neither fiction nor its reception can be sufficient proof.


I'm not requiring everyone in society to wear headscarves. But, it's pretty sad to see the difference in treating sex sacredly and treating it like trash, which is a short step to treating women like trash. How happy are women in this new liberated trash-sex disposable-relationship culture we have let be built for us? I know what I would promote in society.

1. Having sex casually, often or with multiple people is not treating sex as trash. It is not treating it as sacred (Because why and how would you; outside of religious arguments), no, but it is simply treating it as a fun pasttime, that can possibly mean and be more if done with the right people, but doesn't have to. One might even argue that through making use of the enjoyment and the bonding effects sex can bring, you are valuing it higher than those who dare not touch it for fear of ruining it. You cannot ruin sex by having it.
2. How can treating sex like trash lead to treating women like trash? For that argument to work, it requires a whole lot of very, very uncomfortable and wrong bases. "Sex is a reward for men women give out" might make it work. "Women don't actually enjoy sex" seems to be a general undercurrent. "It is difficult to value people/treat people as people that you have sex with" somewhat of a part of the conclusion? None of those are correct, or comfortable.
3. Women are generally pretty happy with the destigmatasation of having casual sex, sex before marriage and sex in relationships, in what I have heard of... all the women I know. (A societal process that is still ongoing.)


Unless I'm misremembering your previous argument then, are you acknowledging that it is possible to have climate and cultural conditions conducive to warriors and maidens showing a lot of skin?

...I might be, to be completely fair. But: This does not excuse sexualisation, since showing skin is not synonymous with that :smallwink: (For details, please consult the conversation I have had with LiquorBox on the topic)


I'm saying that wives were valued for their utility, not just their beauty, but that most men given their dithers wish for a pretty wife. Another example was a newspaper article about Russia I read long ago: most Russian men wanted the burly babushka type woman rather than the American fashion model. “American woman like butterfly: pretty but useless.” So, there is a dynamic between utility and aesthetics here, aside from personality considerations.

...yes? I am still unsure how you think this contradicts my statement of "beauty standards are subjective and largely based on culture".


I now agree with the bolded text.

In my experience there are plenty of buildings (e.g., postmodern Kentucky Fried outlets, modern Catholic churches, etc.) that beg for the bulldozer, so in principle I agree with you and don't mean to say that everything that exists is immune to bulldozing because they exist. The happenstance of history, to the degree that it violates the Classical ideal, should be cleaned up and replaced with what is truly beautiful.

The following is not a political statement, but an artistic one:

But, I think Germany went too far post WWII, possibly reflexively. Many statues and buildings and paintings—and planned buildings—were wonderful examples of neoclassical art, including romantic ruins (buildings intended to look like they had fallen into decay with vines and such) and military hardware. So, I would have kept a lot, for the sake of beauty and for the sake of not erasing history almost completely which is what, from what I know, the Germans did after the Second War.

To use another example, consider the art of the Soviet Union. Should this all be expunged and effaced? No. Unless an artwork is simply irredeemably ugly, or represents the pinnacle of domination by an evil entity, like a statue of a wicked leader, it shouldn't be taken down. And even then the statues and monuments and art, if they are to be taken down, should be stored somewhere, not destroyed, unless they are so unwieldy as to be immovable or unstoreable, and then they should be suitably documented, photographed, measured, etc, the plans stored, and the awful thing finally destroyed.

I will not argue this. It is an opinion I don't quite share, but is largely subjective - and even the part that isn't is full of politics.


Yes, there is overlap, and I will add that culture can amplify or diminish any innate tendencies. We are the mimetic species and so can drastically alter how we express our instincts as dictated by inherited culture, new discoveries, and current environs. That said, men and women have differing optimal mating strategies that evolution has selected for, and which lead to differing behavioural procedures. And since reproduction is a big component of human life, these procedures are widespread, and help select new generations. Take all of this together and we get “how men are” and “how women are” and changing this will be very slow and difficult, and unless it's really hurting people there's no real reason to change it, but rather vive la difference.

Reprocution is not a big part of modern human life.
How much of those strategies are actually natural, and how much is cultural, is incredibly difficult to judge in the face of not having any examples of humanity being free from cultural influences. What we have, however, is that these procedures vary considerably between cultures, so evidence points to that being not all that natural.
Even if we take all of that together... We are left with pretty much nothing, to be honest. I mean, what are we left with "how women are"? If we restrict it to mating strategies, we aren't left with much, and nothing quite that justifies... any of this cultural baggage.

Beyond that, there is ample evidence in history that this is hurting people. Feminists didn't come out of the woodwork because they were bored, or didn't know biology, they were hurting; and noticing that women, as a social class, were hurting. Feminism is still active, largely because while some parts have been alleviated, some others are still ongoing, and women as a social class are still hurting. (Men are as well, yes; and feminism tends to fight for men to be free of the gendered dynamics, expectations and stereotypes just as much as it does women.


First, I'm not restricting women to looking pretty and sexy in Fantasy art. If someone wants to draw glaive-wielding grannies I say go for it.

Second, preference isn't bigotry. If I don't wish to marry a man that doesn't mean I'm bigotted against men, or homosexuals.

Preference isn't bigotry, no. Establishing (or in your case, defending) cultural norms that make it more likely for women to be put into those positions is.


If there are no differences between sexes then everyone should be bisexual, and it's only malicious culture that is preventing this from universalizing.

Now that is arguing in bad faith. I am arguing there are no fundamental differences in personality and psychology*; that doesn't mean there aren't any differences. Bodies exist, and are a rather fundamental part of sexuality.
While I do believe a lot more humans are bisexual than are able to recognize that (given our society kinda tries to make that option vanish, has negative connotations about same-sex relationshipsm as well as about experimenting with your sexuality; and all of that amplified for men), no, not all humans are bisexual.

*Except that there is, of course, something in people that makes them feel "nope, I'm a woman" or "yeah, I'm a man"; but that something doesn't seem all too well causally linked to any stereotypes, personality types, interests or... much of anything beyond that basic assertion.


People do exist in societies and have friends and colleagues and can talk to each other about sex differences.

Sure. And without the same background for reference, a certain lack of clarity if you are actually talking about the same things, or just similar things with the same words comes in. And even if you have expanded n beyond 1... Have you access to a control group? If you only ask men about how they feel about their one relationship, you aren't gonna know how it is for women. You aren't gonna know how it is for men to form relationships with men; for women with women; and where the differences there actually lie. When looking about gendered dynamics in humans, to make claims about them, we must look at the entire spectrum of dynamics there are.
In short, while you might not have quite as bad a basis for your argument as I might have postulated in the first hypothetical, the basis is still weak, especially in the face of rather stronger bases, such as experience reports of people with multiple relationships, that are able to talk about the differences between partners quite more clearly, since the intervening factor of miscommunication (A big problem in such a nuanced topic) is out of the picture when comparing their experiences to their own; or even people who have had relationships with people of different genders, that have direct, clear, non-miscommunication laden evidence of what differences are person-based and what are gender-based.
And, yes, I am basically saying "my experience gives me a way better basis to judge these things than yours", or if you want to be less charitable "you don't really know what you are talking about".
Adding to it the fact that no bisexual person I have talked to about this has had different experiences in this regard than I had (It's people, not gender, that makes the difference), I think that might not be the weakest claim to make.


What you say is itself a slippery slope, because the groups that work the hardest to efface sex differences are the ones who want to eliminate tradition entirely and replace it with a year zero society.

It is good to have national costumes for girls and boys, men and women, for example. That's not “gender inequality” it's blood for the veins of the nation.

And I didn't say “going forward in regards to producing gender inequality will lead to a world war,” I said, “the real meat of this matter, the universal physical principles which comprises the only form of world culture worth spit. Without this, we are facing world war. It's inevitable if we won't retain our identity as humans.” I wasn't talking about sex differences or sexual equity except in terms that all humans are primarily human and not sexes (so we can throw the sex war hypothesis of radical evo-psych proponents out the rhetorical window). You and I are approaching a common humanity in different ways.

You know, the funny thing about the slippery slope argument? It's not an argument, if you do not sufficiently prove both that the consequences are indeed inevitable (which you haven't), and that the endresult is really morally reprehensible (Which you haven't fully yet, as I have no idea what I would say to what you call a "year zero society).
So please prove that argument. Which groups work the hardest to efface sex differences; and where have they expressed desire in a year zero society? How does going forward with achieving gender equality inevitably lead to those secondary goals also being fullfilled? Beyond that, how do you define year zero society?

...Okay, what are you trying to say?
That humans will face war... when? When we relinquish "the universal physical principles"? ...What would those be? I don't know any universal physical principles of being human. Maybe having a brain, a heart and so on, but I don't see how that can be "world culture"?


How is relevant to a topic about female armour... Though you are right and it is an interesting part too our continue development.

Have you followed the discussion? This derail just kinda... happened. An offshoot of discussing why some people see the way female armor is depicted as problematic.
And some things, at least I think (Possibly Max too, though I can't speak for him) are worth answering and calling out.


I had read somewhere that kissing began in rome. It was to detect wine on the lips of wives to see if they had been drinking while they were gone... which was thought to indicate infidelity.

I am, in the face of cultures all over the world with no cultural connection to romans performing it, the physiological responses of the body to the act of kissing, numerous species of animals performing very similar acts (See for example the elephants above), and this:

{scrubbed}
Highly doubtful of this claim.
(The paragraph beneath that quote quotes sumerian and egyptian poetry connecting it clearly to romantic actions, btw)
Edit: I see you already looked it up yourself. Interesting tidbit that romans used it that way, btw.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-20, 09:08 AM
How is relevant to a topic about female armour... Though you are right and it is an interesting part too our continue development.

I really don't think it's relevant, but then I'm not the one who added it to the discussion. It enters in with the nonsense about "reproductive roles" etc.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-20, 09:24 AM
I have a problem with that, if I'm able to go thought my entire life without staring or looking at [!] a woman who didn't gave me her consent, entire monastic orders are able to do same, you can control yourself you horndog.

I will not live as though this were Iran or Saudi Arabia except with transparent burkas. Women are not fainting flowers who can't even be looked at without consent. My thoughts on actually obnoxious behaviour such as men staring, mashers, etc., are already logged and are within the realm of common sense rather than ideological lockdowns on male sexuality.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-20, 09:27 AM
No, it means that there is a divine form encompassing the entire human form (male and female being alterations from the divine hermaphrodite, presumably), such that “ear” and “kidney” are contained within the form. So with “feminine beauty”. There are many possible, and practiced, ways of attaining to female beauty, and these particulars are idiosyncratic to their respective cultures, but the overall “Platonic form” of feminine beauty remains and perpetually produces traditional and sometimes new formulations.


Consider what Jordan Peterson has to say (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgBuOQL1VYY).


Indeed, humans' primary definition is that they are respectively made in the image of the creative potency of the Universe. Of course we have massive things in common, and these commonalities are often obscured by devastatingly bad cultural forms, and also by our instincts. But progressing through instinct romantically to human connection is just about the best thing in the world. We would be lesser if we scraped away those differences into a wastebin, and instead strove towards total androgyny. That might work for some people, but for the whole species to do that is a mistake.


Women and men ultimately rescue each other. In archetypal terms the virgin grants the hero strength and courage, and the hero grants the virgin freedom, life, and children. In modern terms women are getting creamed by social forces at work especially in Europe (which since it gets political from there you can explore on your own). To overcome this requires men and women to end the sex war, to end the war on tradition, to understand each other on a human level (humans as made in the image of Universal creative potency), to protect, preserve, and utilise their traditional, not just the local flags and statues, costumes and songs, but the real meat of this matter, the universal physical principles which comprises the only form of world culture worth spit. Without this, we are facing world war. It's inevitable if we won't retain our identity as humans.


This right here is what I mean when I say "keep someone talking long enough and they'll do the job of damning their own position for you".

Divine forms? Creative Potency of the Universe? Plato and Nietzsche as sources of TRUTH? Men and women "rescuing each other"?


At this point I can't tell if you're serious or doing a giant parody of this nonsense.


(As for Peterson, when the first video linked is "Why am I so popular?" that's a giant red warning alarm...)

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-20, 09:39 AM
You're conflating biology and morality.

Also, some people wouldn't make good parents regardless of having the money and no glaring genetic defects.

Also... there are already too damn many human beings for this planet. We can't keep going like we're going until the technology catches up to allow us to support this many people without grossly outstripping the ability of resources and ecosystems to replenish. Growth is not an unquestionable unvarnished good.

Indeed, people who wouldn't make good parents shouldn't.

There are not too damn many people, in terms of resources, if we realise that new discoveries and applications of principle generate new resource pools which in turn allow us to better support our population. There's no need to breed until it's standing room only, 30 billion VR-addled people locked in cramped apartments, but there's no need to abstain from breeding for the sake of "the planet" either. The developing world will realise it doesn't need to breed to the Moon, the developed world will realise it doesn't need to have a suicidal birthrate. Things will even out.

Example of how geoengineering can help support millions of people (http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-01-07-hacking-nature-some-of-africas-most-ambitious-river-and-lake-projects).

In terms of discoveries of principle, generation of new technologies and new resources and thereby increasing our power as a species to survive (which means increasing our potential population density), no, there are no limits to growth.

Zen
2017-08-20, 10:52 AM
I will not live as though this were Iran or Saudi Arabia except with transparent burkas. Women are not fainting flowers who can't even be looked at without consent. My thoughts on actually obnoxious behaviour such as men staring, mashers, etc., are already logged and are within the realm of common sense rather than ideological lockdowns on male sexuality.

There is nothing normal about ogling and staring lustfully at someone, have a little of empathy Donnadogsoth, if you were a girl would you be comfortable with a bunch of creepy guys staring at you lustfully because you are wearing shorts in a hot day? That's not normal or acceptable.
{scrubbed}


Indeed, people who wouldn't make good parents shouldn't.

And how do you decide that? By the looks of it I don't think YOU would be a good parent, someone who seems to have a ton of unresolved issues, by the looks of it seems you would be teaching your son to stare and lust after random girls who are just enjoying their time at the beach and teaching your daughter to be sexually repressed, how would you feel if you weren't allowed to have kids? Doesn’t sound so fair and good now does it?

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-20, 01:21 PM
Also, Donnadogsoth don't you think your views are kind of weird? I mean do you have joy in your life? You sound sexually repressed, are you very religious? Or have you been abused? Maybe you had a difficult relationship. What’s wrong with you buddy? Life is good, sex is good, life is not the scary place you think it is.

I appreciate your concern, thank you. What's wrong with me is that (a) I don't have a regular gaming group, (b) I don't have a wife, and (c) my civilisation is about to die (which we will not get into). Remedy those three things and I will be happy as a clam. What's weird about me is that I am a philosopher and willing to consider unconventional ideas, including ideas that used to be conventional but are now deemed weird by contemporary society.

S@tanicoaldo
2017-08-20, 02:05 PM
Your sex drive comes to you courtesy of evolution.

You're overcomplicating it. Men naturally see breasts and think, instinctively, that this person is fertile.

Women who aren't insane or stupid will know that their bare skin is a mild sexual signal to men young and old. And, why stop there? Why not make other sexual signals, go naked and expose oneself to everyone while making disgusting...you get the idea.

Women who think they need to wear bikinis “just for themselves” are fooling themselves, every bit as their European analogues who go to topless beaches “just for themselves” (for their tan!) are fooling themselves.

There is nothing wrong with noticing people and enjoying their appearance.

Culture that de-normalises male appreciation of feminine beauty is sick.

Hahahaha this is hilarious, almost sounds like you are making a political campaign.

"Vote Donnadogsoth for the right of being a creep and staring at girls in the beach who just want to sunbathe in peace."

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSCeh2isU3AEck3Y_L5lWtyF4Xl9Y1Bp yjFvyKVVvS4h-kw-QBE

Are you sure these are the guys you want to be associated with? The creeps who keep looking and staring at girls who want nothing to do with them? Can't you control yourself?

What if they did that to your mother? Is it ok if a guy look at the young version mother and imagine she is quite f@ckble? I mean she is/was a woman. How does that make you feel? Are you ok with it?


Why not make other sexual signals, go naked and expose oneself to everyone while making disgusting...you get the idea.

No I don't, but now I'm curious, making disgusting what?


What's weird about me is that I am a philosopher and willing to consider unconventional ideas, including ideas that used to be conventional but are now deemed weird by contemporary society.

Such as slavery? :smallconfused: I mean that used to be conventional and people were cool with it and now people in our contemporary society see it as wrong. Is that what you are talking about? Is that one of the ideas you are ok with? If not, why not? What's the difference between that idea and the ideas that we got over with?

Alberic Strein
2017-08-20, 02:56 PM
What if they did that to your mother? Is it ok if a guy look at the young version mother and imagine she is quite f@ckble? I mean she is/was a woman. How does that make you feel? Are you ok with it?

While I don't enjoy making anyone uncomfortable, yes. You have the right to think whatever the flying f*ck you want. It's your own mind, your own thoughts. You are entitled to the sanctity of your own mind. If the first thought you keep having when you see an adult woman is "I'd bend her over the gaming table!" then it's your goddamn right to think it. It's your goddamn right to imagine yourself bumping uglies with a woman you've seen on the street, it's your goddamn right to think whatever the flying f*ck you want.

Saying it may be morally wrong, depending on the circumstances, but it could be argued that saying it is still your right. Just like it is my right to feel disgusted, insulted, and tell you not to say that kind of **** if you speak up about your thoughts and tell me you'd bend my mother over the gaming table. But thinking it? I may not want you to think of my mother that way but I don't have any right to stop you.

I don't want the absolute stranger across the street to imagine me in a homosexual threesome where I'm the bottom, but they are entitled to thinking that, to having their own dirty little fantasies and I got no right to stop them.

As for oggling attractive women in bikinis on the beach, what is bad and morally wrong is to have a behaviour that makes other people uncomfortable, or even insulted. So yeah, being a total and utter creep and staring is not nice of anyone.

As for merely seeing things and being appreciative of what you see, as long as you don't hurt anybody physically, mentally, socially or morally, then go ahead, oggle, enjoy the goddamn show. Beaches tend to be beautiful places.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-20, 03:46 PM
Indeed, people who wouldn't make good parents shouldn't.

There are not too damn many people, in terms of resources, if we realise that new discoveries and applications of principle generate new resource pools which in turn allow us to better support our population. There's no need to breed until it's standing room only, 30 billion VR-addled people locked in cramped apartments, but there's no need to abstain from breeding for the sake of "the planet" either. The developing world will realise it doesn't need to breed to the Moon, the developed world will realise it doesn't need to have a suicidal birthrate. Things will even out.

Example of how geoengineering can help support millions of people (http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-01-07-hacking-nature-some-of-africas-most-ambitious-river-and-lake-projects).

In terms of discoveries of principle, generation of new technologies and new resources and thereby increasing our power as a species to survive (which means increasing our potential population density), no, there are no limits to growth.

Those sorts of projects represent not the hope for a better future, but exactly the sort of overburden that the resouces and ecology of out world can't support long-term.

The total non-human vertabrtate population of the planet has dropped by about half, and the extinction rate is 1000s of times the typical background rate.

Loss of and disruption of habitat to human expansion and resource extraction is why.

Our world cannot keep up with us, regardless of what ideological blinders one might have on. And there's deep irony in the assertion that "our civiliazation is ending" (when hasn't it supposedly been ending?) when it won't matter in 100 years if things keep going as they're going now.

Bohandas
2017-08-20, 04:28 PM
Indeed, people who wouldn't make good parents shouldn't.

I don't know how many people there really are who are good on both the nature and nurture end.

Donnadogsoth
2017-08-20, 04:32 PM
There is nothing normal about ogling and staring lustfully at someone, have a little of empathy Donnadogsoth, if you were a girl would you be comfortable with a bunch of creepy guys staring at you lustfully because you are wearing shorts in a hot day? That's not normal or acceptable.
If creepy guys are becoming a problem, there are ways of dealing with creepy guys, often involving other, upright and stalwart guys. My recommendation that common sense be applied to situations where women are being noticed, looked at, or even lusted after (and how do you prove that is happening, anyway?) in all such situations is reasonable. There is a middle ground:

AFRAID TO LOOK AT WOMEN<---------LOOK/ADMIRE------->SALIVATE/OGLE/LEER/MASH
(don't be a cringer, son)<-----------(hey benny, check it out)------->(it's not polite to stare)


{Scrubbed}
{Scrubbed}

And how do you decide that?

It's not impossible to determine who should breed and who shouldn't. We already have mechanisms in place to remove offspring after the fact from the domiciles of rotten people who shouldn't have bred. But, this segues right into politics so let's drop it.


By the looks of it I don't think YOU would be a good parent, someone who seems to have a ton of unresolved issues, by the looks of it seems you would be teaching your son to stare and lust after random girls who are just enjoying their time at the beach and teaching your daughter to be sexually repressed, how would you feel if you weren't allowed to have kids? Doesn’t sound so fair and good now does it?

It seems you're really working hard at missing the basic idea here. I'm not prepared to have kids, no, I agree. But, if I did have them, I would teach them to be polite and not stare at other people. And if I had a boy and a girl, dollars for doughnuts the boy would end up being boyish and the girl would be girlish. And 98% chance the boy would notice girls at the beach and not make a swine of himself, while the girl would dress as she pleases at the beach and develop enough fortitude (the Catholic virtue you missed) to handle being noticed by boys.

Bohandas
2017-08-20, 05:02 PM
What are you talking about?

Oops! Looks like I accidentally deleted the quote on that post. I'll go back later and try to find it and add it in

digiman619
2017-08-20, 05:10 PM
It's not impossible to determine who should breed and who shouldn't. We already have mechanisms in place to remove offspring after the fact from the domiciles of rotten people who shouldn't have bred. But, this segues right into politics so let's drop it.
You realize that you're dangerously close to advocating eugenics, right?

Bohandas
2017-08-20, 05:19 PM
In discussions and contemplations of sexual signaling, evolution, etc etc etc please remember to distinguish proximate cause, ultimate cause, and volition/agency/intention. They're really quite different and conflating one with the others is just going to make you confused and misinformed

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-20, 06:09 PM
In discussions and contemplations of sexual signaling, evolution, etc etc etc please remember to distinguish proximate cause, ultimate cause, and volition/agency/intention. They're really quite different and conflating one with the others is just going to make you confused and misinformed

Well said.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-20, 06:30 PM
and even admire her fertility


The very idea of looking at a woman and "evaluating" her as breeding stock is utterly alien to me.

Arbane
2017-08-20, 10:33 PM
This thread certainly got creepy.

With a title that sounds like something a Ferengi might say, it didn't really have anywhere else to go.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/f4/f45295c776d1631e114b953721eedc1bd42a5668c0d66b5f1f e16a713ea095e3.jpg

Roland St. Jude
2017-08-20, 11:53 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: C'mon people. Real World Religion and Politics are Inappropriate Topics on this Forum. Please avoid them entirely, even when then intersect with gaming or other permitted topics.