|
| Thread: Miss of the world - wtf? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The scenario here is the following: You want big titties, a slim waist and a round butt.
not really.Quote:
The women are pressured to deliver.
not by meQuote:
Some resort to plastic surgery to fill the demand, but then you start calling them pieces of plastic and denying their authenticity as human people.
yeah.
does that make me a hypocrite?
Don't mix males Type A with males Type B.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:12 PM |
|
|
In a latter post I did separate the two...
Could you like to share with us what makes you think less of them as people?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
|
|
Umm, not really, Corribus. It's more like the way people rather like a new car over a used one, if you know what I mean. It's the difference betweeb shrink-wrapped new and just new.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:17, 24 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
Could you like to share with us what makes you think less of them as people?
You said human people before, not people. 
I would classify intelligent robots (hypothetically, not yet since they don't exist) as people as well, so obviously I include plastified women too in that category.
Quote:
Umm, not really, Corribus. It's more like the way people rather like a new car over a used one, if you know what I mean. It's the difference betweeb shrink-wrapped new and just new.
Corribus was kinda specific with a biological evolutionary connection, your post is speculation.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ, yes, it's subjective. I'm just surprised there are so many false tits fans out there. I mean, those things are... ummm. have you ever had one in hand once? Stupid question, but whomever had will most likely dislike them because they feel... different. The least they are used, the best for us. That means a promotion of them - silicone enhanced models winning beauty contest and such - isn't desired 
Here, you have my reason why I don't like it.
Well, I didn't have my hand IN but ON, well, different ones, and I think you are either overly fussy or in Poland they do a bad job. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Umm, not really, Corribus. It's more like the way people rather like a new car over a used one, if you know what I mean. It's the difference betweeb shrink-wrapped new and just new.
Corribus was kinda specific with a biological evolutionary connection, your post is speculation.
Yeah, he said that, but that's speculation as well. Evolutionary and biologically spoken, the most resistent stuff is the used stuff, not the sealed stuff, because the used stuff has already proven how resilient it is, so we are not speaking bilogically and evolutionary here, but human new-car kis better than used (and for certain reasons I'm not going to explain since underaged people are supposedly reading this).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 10:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Umm, not really, Corribus. It's more like the way people rather like a new car over a used one, if you know what I mean. It's the difference betweeb shrink-wrapped new and just new.
Virgins are:
(a) Less likely to carry disease.
(b) More likely to be young and healthy.
(c) Less likely to be already taken by another male.
(d) Less likely to be pregnant.
(e) ... need more?
It's fairly easy to see the connection between virginity and biological desirability.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's fairly easy to see the connection between virginity and biological desirability.
Virgins are:
(a) Less likely to carry disease.
That may be true today, but 5000 years agio? Please.
Quote:
(b) More likely to be young and healthy.
Err, untried. They are untried, which means - they may not multiply. The most healthy being is the mother of one child, no consequences.
Quote:
(c) Less likely to be already taken by another male.
True. But that makes the assumption that males fought for females or rivalled with each other, and I don't think they rivalled directly. They rivalled by survival competetion - best fighter got first pick, period.
Quote:
(d) Less likely to be pregnant.
Which is important because?
Quote:
(e) ...need more
Yup. A lot.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 24, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That may be true today, but 5000 years agio? Please.
What, you think microorganisms are a recent thing? :confused:
Quote:
Err, untried. They are untried, which means - they may not multiply. The most healthy being is the mother of one child, no consequences.
Virgins are on average younger than nonvirgins. Younger women have a higher fertility and are healthier.
Quote:
Quote:
(d) Less likely to be pregnant.
Which is important because?
Hard to impregnate a woman who might already be pregnant, don'cha think?
Quote:
Yup. A lot.
There have been oodles of books written on the subject of the evolution of human sexuality. I'm sure you can find a few if you're really interested, or I can suggest one.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Fauch
Humans have connected virginity and "purity" with beauty forever, and it's not just for religious reasons. There's a biological, evolutionary connection between "purity" and desirability (and, therefore, attractiveness and beauty).
what has virginity to do with attraction and beauty? (I would say visual attraction and beauty since it's what the thread is about right?) can you say for sure if a girl is virgin or not only by looking at her? how can that make her look more or less attractive?
Quote:
Virgins are:
(a) Less likely to carry disease.
well, in some countries you have means of protection
Quote:
(b) More likely to be young and healthy.
wtf? if you smoke and take drugs you are likely to not be very healthy, but sex?
Quote:
(c) Less likely to be already taken by another male.
seeing as you don't need any engagement to have sex it doesn't mean much.
Quote:
(d) Less likely to be pregnant.
so the mother of Jesus was really a virgin? 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
what has virginity to do with attraction and beauty? (I would say visual attraction and beauty since it's what the thread is about right?) can you say for sure if a girl is virgin or not only by looking at her? how can that make her look more or less attractive?
But are those contests only about outside beauty or "inside beauty" as well? (and virgins are considered more "pure")
Quote:
well, in some countries you have means of protection
I don't think the means of protection have anything to do with evolution...Quote:
wtf? if you smoke and take drugs you are likely to not be very healthy, but sex?
likely? Smoking? You are sure to not be very healthy.
As for sex, I don't want to go into that here (again).Quote:
seeing as you don't need any engagement to have sex it doesn't mean much.
people naturally prefer monogamy.Quote:
so the mother of Jesus was really a virgin?
what has Jesus got to do with evolution?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That may be true today, but 5000 years agio? Please.
What, you think microorganisms are a recent thing? :confused:
Of course. In the minds of people, that is. You think, 5000 years ago people were thinking about micro-organisms? Nah. They DID think about hygiene, though, and it's quite a strange thing that the virginity=purity AD culture didn't place value on hygiene
Quote:
Quote:
Err, untried. They are untried, which means - they may not multiply. The most healthy being is the mother of one child, no consequences.
Virgins are on average younger than nonvirgins. Younger women have a higher fertility and are healthier.
I thought you were a scientist - how come you misstake cause and effect: if youth means higher fertility and better health, then you go for... youth, exactly. So if you could pick between an older virgin and a younger non-virgin you'd pick? Just because youth makes it more likely that someone is a virgin it doesn't mean a virgin must be young, fertile and healthy.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(d) Less likely to be pregnant.
Which is important because?
Hard to impregnate a woman who might already be pregnant, don'cha think?
And that's important because?
Quote:
Quote:
Yup. A lot.
There have been oodles of books written on the subject of the evolution of human sexuality. I'm sure you can find a few if you're really interested, or I can suggest one.
Indeed. I'm sure there's a lot around, and of course there are a lot of contradictory opions.
Historically spoken, we know that there has always been a "market" for virginity because in a male dominated society virginity would have to be a valued commodity - that's why I came up with the new/used car thing which basically works the same.
Let's just say that you have to be EXTREMELY careful not to mistake evolutionary/biological reasons with male social behaviour based on their domination.
The question, who the FATHER of a child is (the mother is obvious), is important only in a MALE dominated society with hereditary structure. However, it is assumed that this structure has been developed only and that it has been different in earlier times. Moreover, even TODAY there are some secluded clans of people who don't have these kinds of family structure: children are CLAN property, there is no family except the big one, and men and women just share each other as long as they like with a free sexuality.
Furthermore, ALL polytheistic religions have fertility goddesses and worshipped it. All these cultures were a lot more free with sexual things and made it even an art. Think about how old something like the Kamasutra is. All the old cultures have a wealth of erotic arts and erotic feasts, and music and dancing is as old as humanity.
There is another point to consider: IF a society considers virginity something with a high value, then the demand for a lifelong bond (marriage) is automatic, otherwise there would be a fast decline of society due to the devaluation of older women. What's more, there must be some rule to care for widows as well.
If you read the Bible, you'll see that this is the case with the Jews. Their laws reflect EXACTLY that - but they are the only ones, a puddle of purity in an ocean of uncleanness.
So: evolutionary and biologically spoken, virginity is no value as such, it needs a certain social structure to become important. That virginity = purity is obviously from much younger times. The VIRGIN Mary is something like a counterpoint to all the countless fertility goddesses - that couldn't be possibly virgins.
So I wonder whether the books you read may be a bit biassed. It may be interesting with a theme like that to checkl the back ground of the authors: a) man or woman; b) religion? c) Wrote that book for?
You know, there are vast groups with an interest in getting certain results there...
The Mead-Freeman controversy, lastly, is quite an interesting phenomenon, but maybe it proves a certain point. You can't reduce everything to DIRECT evolutionary/biological reasons - some may just be secondary effects, with different solutions possible. For example, if it had evolutionary/biological reasons that society was male dominated because warriors are needed to protect society from danger and males are better warriors which might lead to males make the decisions, then MALE ideas about sexuality would dominate as a consequence of that, not because there was a direct e/b reason for it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
people naturally prefer monogamy.
And you know that because?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
|
Mostly that is not correct. Without society (what is the word I am looking for..) restrictions (?) (may not be the right word) men would generally sleep with as many women as possible. Not (only) because they are horn dogs either. It is a genetic drive to ensure their bloodline as much as possible.
Women would also have as many partners as they could, not only to ensure a better chance of superior genetic material, but to protect them and their offspring. This of course is talking genetically and not meant as a dispersion to either sex. It is 'civilization' that limits the pairing and partnerships, and actually helps the 'weaker' members (genetically speaking) to have offspring. Neither would genetically prefer monogamy. More mates = better chance of offspring and better chance of superior genetic material.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 10:42 AM |
|
|
I guess that is what you call natural
That goes for the natural hair & body scars too.
Shes a warrior!
Ancestrial amazonianymam!
Rape the man then kill him!
Wait they do it nowadays too, whats the difference
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 10:47 AM |
|
|
|
hygiene?no wait...its still the same...
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 10:49 AM |
|
|
That is one thing we all want is good hygiene!
We dont want no B.O woman!
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 10:52 AM |
|
|
|
With stinky breath, rotten teeth and filthy nails?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 25, 2009 11:37 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, you have no valid points at all to the subject at hand. I wonder if you have any idea how evolution works. Let me tell you something though. First of all, these are INSTINCTS. WTF do you mean by "people thinking about micro-organisms", thinking is not instinct by definition. Pregnancy, same thing. If you can't reproduce then explain how does that encourage evolution? Please, think before you post.
@Mythical: because if you care for only one woman, you are much more inclined to protect her and the children, which leads to better survival.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
|
unlike other animals, we do not follow our instinct often
|
|
|
|
