Armor designs for females?

[Donnadogsoth]

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]

....If someone wants to draw glaive-wielding grannies I say go for it.....

Good idea!



(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?

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

Order of the Stick,

.which I highly recommend.

There's an ungoimg

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]

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]

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

Order of the Stick,

.which I highly recommend.

There's an ungoimg

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.

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]

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

Awesome I love him, how do I vote?.

You go to the Character Popularity Poll thread, and cast ten votes for Greyview!!!


Then you go to the 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]

You go to the Character Popularity Poll thread, and cast ten votes for Greyview!!!


Then you go to the 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.

[Max_Killjoy]

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

Also, I appreciate fighting for the underdog.

Underwolf?

Underworg?

[Shamash]

Underwolf?

Underworg?

More like Uberwolf or Uberworg.

[Max_Killjoy]

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]

This thread certainly got creepy.

[Vknight]

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]

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]

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on having children

Show

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.)

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on Shields

Show

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".

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on natural uses

Show

Bashing someone on the head can turn them into a math genius. 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...

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on Fantasy contraceptives and virgins

Show

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.)

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on waiting until marriage (or at least some time)

Show

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 here.
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")

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on cuckolding

Show

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.)

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on Makeup, Platon and Metaphors

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on the nature of women

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on instincts

Show

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, 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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on the male gaze

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on the value of sex

Show

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.)

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on environment justifying nakedness

Show

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 (For details, please consult the conversation I have had with LiquorBox on the topic)

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on beauty standards

Show

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".

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on the value of architecture

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on how women and men are

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on bigotry

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on how to know if gender or personality make the difference in relationships

Show

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.

Spoiler: Donnadogsoth on slippery slopes and ...something

Show

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]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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."



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? 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: Females

Show