" ... would be as padded ..." Conjurs up all kinds of images, don't it. ;=]

Is the position of the horse too suggestive?

Ah, com'on......all that I want to see is a picture of people beating a dead horse.

I mean.....we've got a forum tradition to keep up around here.......

I've seen horses roll over on their backs like that -- to scratch themselves on the ground. Fortunately, I wasn't riding the horse at the time.

Xeno, I am not an advocate of political correctness at all. My backlash to PC is that you just can't be oversensitized to every little perceived social problem. My comments are directed though at saying there is a wide range of choices in poser art for using either a male or female as a non-sexual subject. And I think too often, discussions like these get caught up in the issue of attraction rather than whether people are experimenting in different genres.

LOL @ "Fortunately, I wasn't ..." ;=]

---

"actually the average man thinks of sex 5 to 10 times or more, per HOUR, not day. and i'm not exaggerating either."

Pardon me, but can you link me to some actual peer reviewed science to support this ridiculous peice of URBAN MYTHOLOGY you just asserted as fact???

Consider that as a practical matter if this were true
how would a computer program Like MAYA ever be coded and complied or a highly focused Combat mission ever be completed by a pilot if we MEN are all
daydreaming about getting laid every 5 minutes or so.

If I had to guess I would imagine that most of us men
are thinking of TWO things in our daily lives.

A) MONEY

B) how to avoid having crap at work blamed on us

Message edited on: 03/10/2005 12:44

I second that notion, wolf :)

My comments are directed though at saying there is a wide range of choices in poser art for using either a male or female as a non-sexual subject.

Not a bad thought.

However, I would point out the fact that even such non-sexual subjects as politics are now delivered to us via "newsbabes" with silky hair and fashion-model looks.

No........no more rooms filled with gray-headed old men discussing the latest in Washington for us.

No.......nowadays, many of the TV talking heads tend to be young, blonde, and female.

It's amazing to see just how many "political experts" are leggy twenty-to-thirty-something blondes. In short leather skirts.

And both political parties seem to have gotten the idea. It's non-partisan.

---

So.....these days -- "non-sexual" seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Is that a good thing? Ummmmm.....no.

But it's the times in which we live. Message edited on: 03/10/2005 12:43

LOL...I've joked that political pundits are the welfare recipients of the elite. When Ann Coulter basically says she wouldn't have a career if it wasn't based on her looks, you know something's wrong.

At least Ann Coulter is being honest.

For a lot of people, that's a tough thing to do these days. They get all huffy when such self-evident matters are pointed out to them.

The social expectations for men and women are different. And it was ever thus. As much as it might enrage some -- it will ever be thus.

An attractive woman has an automatic entree into places that others have difficuty following. Or at least, it's a lot easier for her.

Rush Limbaugh didn't get to where he is based upon his looks. Neither did James Carville.

Life just isn't fair.

*Simple. Because the publishing industry knows what will sell magazines.

And it ain't pictures of men.*

I don't think that's entirely true. I don't deny that men tend to be more visually oriented than women, but the plethora of cheesecake over beefcake is more than just biology. As someone upthread pointed out, the Greeks and Romans seemed to like pretty males an awful lot. What's changed since then? Not our DNA, but our culture.

We're in a rather odd time, historically speaking, in which women tend to doll themselves up a lot more than men. That's not a universal human trait. In the past (and in other cultures now), it was the men who dolled themselves up. High heels, wigs, makeup, lace, etc. In colonial days, men with skinny legs would pad their pants with straw to make their calves look shapely. I suspect that in other times and places, it would be Mike who got the fancy clothes, not Vicky. Or at least, he'd get as many as Vicky.

I also think that women like looking at men more than men realize. (Maybe even more than they realize themselves, at least according to some interesting research on sexual arousal.) I remember a couple of decades back, historical romance novels always featured gorgeous women, nearly "busting" out of their glamorous, low-cut dresses. That's because women like to see pretty women on book covers, right? Well, no. Turns out it was because the male publishers and art directors liked to see pretty women on book covers. Eventually, someone released a romance with a cover of a studly man leaning against a tree. Readers went nuts, and the book sold like crazy, just because of the cover. (Now fondly remembered as the "tree bondage" cover.) And it started to dawn on publishers that women don't want to look at women, they want to look at men. And suddenly Fabio was on every other romance cover. (Hmm. I'm not sure that was an improvement...)

Hmmm, I think this is an area of where the artist needs to ask whether they are perpetuating someone else's idea of how imagery and social context should work or their own. Simply saying that it's on magazines and TV doesn't necessarily coorespond to real life. The media is its own reality and unfortunately a lot of people are participating in the "rules" it projects without questioning them or having a part in their formation...

"I don't say things like - "EWWWW it's a girl", "Not exactly my type", "Wrong gender for me"....etc., etc., - I simply comment on the artwork as I see it, as do most if not all the other female artists here who leave comments. Then why, oh why do is see comments from MALES in the galleries on male subjects (those who actually have the NERVE to comment on them) do they contain such phrases?? Some even appear to be complaining because the subject is male. Those same males rave and gush on any NVIATWAS images - but see a male render, clothed or otherwise and they get so homeophobic it creeps me out!" Thread drift is a wonderful thing.... Getting back to Gill's original rant, she's right. Many (not all) of the men here seem actually threatened by images of studly males, nude or clothed. Why would probably involve a very lengthy discourse on the male psyche, extending back into pre-historic genetic predisposition. The same thing with why women aren't as threatened by images of beautiful women. Guys, seriously, just try to get up enough nerve to comment honestly about the technical aspects of images of nude males, whether you find them physically attractive (or threatening) or not. We've given you all honest and appreciative feedback for years. Please give us the same consideration. Ish (trying to post this for the 2nd time- the first one got lost in the bit bucket)

but the plethora of cheesecake over beefcake is more than just biology. As someone upthread pointed out, the Greeks and Romans seemed to like pretty males an awful lot. What's changed since then? Not our DNA, but our culture.

The Ancient Greeks had plenty of sculptures of beautiful women, too. Also, much of Greek mythology is based around various men and gods lusting after women -- and going to great lengths to satisfy that lust. Including turning themselves into animals, etc...etc......

The DNA of the ancient Greeks was exactly the same as ours.

However -- with ancient Greece, one is talking about a truly male-centric culture. Women didn't count for much in those days. Kind of like they still don't count for much in about 70% of the world today.

If a married woman was caught (disgused) among the spectators at the Olympic games, then she was summarily executed. Single young women were allowed in -- but only so that they could absorb a proper appreciation of Greek manhood through watching the (all male) athletes perform.

In addition to which: the ancient Greeks also romanticized the open practice of pedophilia. Modern-day peodophiles frequently attempt to use this history to justify their own current behaviors........

.......I will not allow them to say that "because the ancient Greeks did it, we should follow their example".

it was the men who dolled themselves up

Yes, they were called "fops".

Being called a "fop" was not a nice name.

And it started to dawn on publishers that women don't want to look at women, they want to look at men. And suddenly Fabio was on every other romance cover.

Oh, I'd never deny that women like to look at handsome men. I've seen the effect in action.

However, it's also been established that women tend to be even more attracted to money and power in men when they are considering a potential mate.......more so than the man's looks.

Whereas men largely tend to seek out the looks first. For men, other considerations tend to be secondary.

---

As far as the covers of magazines go, and what sells: I believe that the marketers and publishers (many of whom are women) know their business.

That's why they prominently feature pictures of women -- and not of men -- on magazines.

Novels in general, and Romance novels in particular, are a different matter. They appeal to people in a different way from magazines. No matter how good the cover: if the story inside doesn't grab the attention, then the novel won't sell.

Whereas magazines tend to be 85% to 99% about the pictures.

But even so -- the equivalent of NVIATWAS is often featured on the covers of sci-fi/fantasy books.

There must be a reason.........especially since quite a few of the publishers are female.

Simply saying that it's on magazines and TV doesn't necessarily coorespond to real life.

That's absolutely true.

But it does correspond to how people tend to indulge their fantasies.

Many (not all) of the men here seem actually threatened by images of studly males, nude or clothed.

OK....here we go again. Attributing motivations to people that we don't know -- at all.

No one "feels threatened" by anything. On the other hand, there is a strong possibility that they might feel irritated that certain other individuals keep trying to cram things down their throats -- things that they don't want anything to do with, and that interest them not at all.

There are underlying reasons why the galleries look like they do. And there are reasons why certain types of images tend to get the lion's share of the views/comments.

Those underlying reasons aren't going to change.

Personally, I have no intention of browsing the galleries for images that hold no interest for me.

Perhaps some might feel threatened by such an attitude. So be it.

People go for what they like. Not what others tell them that they should like.

I enjoy looking at all kinds of art, be it male or female content. All art is equally beautiful, no matter what the subject. However, as a personal preference I like to make "pretty" "girly" things... so because of that, I tend to enjoy working with female subjects. I'm still new to Poser and have only worked with V3 and addons for her. I find that there is a larger selection of clothing, addon textures and hair to choose from for V3 vs M3 or D3. Plus, a female character is more versatile to work with: skirts, tops, dresses of all kinds, lacey under things, different hair styles and lengths, various shoe styles, gloves, makeup, jewelery. All of which can be interchanged and mixed and matched. I feel that if you don't have anything nice to say, then you shouldn't say it. So I don't understand those who leave nasty comments in review. I look, appreciate and move on.

I find that there is a larger selection of clothing, addon textures and hair to choose from for V3 vs M3 or D3.

That's true -- and it's because items made for V3 tend to outsell things for other models by wide margins.

I feel that if you don't have anything nice to say, then you shouldn't say it. So I don't understand those who leave nasty comments in review. I look, appreciate and move on.

That's a good policy.

I don't comment often.

The only image that I recall leaving a negative comment on was a politically-oriented image. And my negative comment didn't have anything to do with the artist's compositional skills. He's a fine artist, I suppose.

Rather, my comment was directly addressing the political message of the image.

The image proclaimed one idea; I proclaimed another idea in opposition to it.

For specifically political art, I think that's a legitimate thing to do.

shakes his head Oy, I'm not even going to touch this can o worms. I will say this however... has anyone ever looked at the possible AGE RANGE of the posters? I know many of us don't post our ages, but there are those who do. This site has over 200,000 members. 200,000! I would venture to say that at least a third of them are teen age boys from the ages of 13 to 18. Now, hormones play a major part in their lives. Hell IT IS THEIR LIVES. Think about that.

hmm..maybe that's why I use males more than females..it takes a lot less of addon clothes, etc., to 'kit up' a male for a picture..;) I've had a lot of laughs with NVIATWAS, and actually had more fun making fun of the whole thing than actually trying it..
Well, I personally don't understand what it is about men that women find attractive..all that hair in odd places, knobby knees n' elbows, and ..well, you get the picture..but to each their own..;) If I see a picture I don't like (or mainly, just doesn't appeal to me), I let it go uncommented..;)
the whole gallery is there for you to look at what you like, if you don't like, don't look..;)
btw, the Bryce forum has a sock puppet available to use to beat the pink pony with..;)

Give the little boy a Barbie to play with, and he'll pretend that it's a gun.

Give the little girl a toy truck to play with, and she'll talk to the truck.*

My parents were very smart folks, I think. They gave me Barbies and toy trucks both.

I, uh, well, I seem to recall that I used to run over the Barbies with my favorite Tonka truck. (I don't have that truck anymore, but only because my little sister took it to store her Matchbox (tm) cars in. No idea what became of the Barbies.)

What does that say about my gender? ;) Message edited on: 03/10/2005 20:21

More men read Playboy than gay women do. More gay men read Playgirl than non-gay women do. Men love looking at nudes they are attracted to. More so than women.

Attached Link: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_7-8_49/ai_109355382/pg_3

*What does that say about my gender? ;)*

Have no idea. One can always find exceptions.

But as a rule -- and we are talking by major percentages -- the research that's been done on this matter is crystal clear. There's no ambiguity about it.

Other than from those with a political/social bias in favor of "PC-ism", that is.

One can interpet (or twist) the results of the research by one's own biases, of course. Like by insisting that children "learn" sex-stereotyping" prior to age 3.

To quote the man: I don't think so.

The results still stand as what they are.........attempt to twist them to mean something other than what they clearly say as one will.........

*Children were asked to name each instrument to check that they recognized them. The percentages of children who named each instrument correctly were: 98.0% (piano), 94.7% (violin), 84.0% (flute), 98.8% (drums), 96.6% (guitar), and 84.0% (trumpet). The number and percentages of children who categorized each instrument as for girls, for boys, or for both boys and girls are shown in Table I (data are taken from the final stage of the gender-stereotyped beliefs measure). Children had clear gender-stereotyped beliefs about the instruments. For example, 93.6% of girls and 90.3% of boys said that girls would play the flute, and 96.7% of girls and 96.1% of boys thought that boys would play the drums.

As expected, the majority of girls most-preferred a feminine instrument (77.1%), and the majority of boys most-preferred a masculine instrument (72.9 %). Children's gender-stereotyped beliefs about their most-preferred instrument are shown in Table II. Data show that the majority of children who most-preferred a cross gender-typed instrument (e.g., a girl who most-preferred a masculine instrument) were aware of the gender-stereotyped associations of that instrument. For example, of the 36 girls who chose a masculine instrument as the one they most-preferred, 66.6% thought that boys would play the instrument.*

Our findings indicate that children's own preferences for instruments were related closely to their gender-stereotyped beliefs about those instruments. Girls had a stronger preference for stereotypically feminine instruments, and the boys had a stronger preference for stereotypically masculine instruments. These results are similar to findings with 9-11-year-olds (O'Neill & Boulton, 1996) and 7-8-year-olds (Harrison & O'Neill, 2000). Findings also lend support to those of other similar studies that included a range of age groups (e.g., Abeles & Porter, 1978; Crowther & Durkin, 1982; Griswold & Chroback, 1981).

Keep in mind: Participants were 312 children (155 boys and 157 girls), aged 8-9 years (M = 8 years 8 months, SD = 0.29, range 8 years 2 months to 9 years 10 months), who were attending primary schools in the southwest region of England. Twelve schools participated. They were selected to include rural and suburban catchment areas with pupils from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds.

Attached Link: http://archive.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/2000/02/15/circumcision/index.html

And, of course -- one mustn't forget the recent case that really helped to blow the lid off of some modern mythology on this subject.......

The famous case of the Canadian Boy.

*The sex-switching saga of "Bruce-to-Brenda"

A failed attempt to "reassign" the gender of a Canadian boy after a clumsy circumcision has become a focal point in the debate over gender identity.

More than three decades ago, a baby boy born as Bruce in Winnipeg, Manitoba, lost his penis at the age of 8 months during a botched circumcision. His parents, Ron and Janet Reimer, made the excruciating decision to have their son castrated, transformed into a girl and renamed Brenda. The sexual "reassignment" surgery was performed by a renowned surgeon, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, who convinced them that gender roles are molded by cultural conditions, not biology.

"Sexuality is undifferentiated at birth," Money has written. "It becomes differentiated as masculine or feminine in the course of the various experiences of growing up."

The Frankensteinesque experiment was an abysmal failure, according to the recently published biography "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl" by John Colapinto.

---

---

Brenda's optimistic parents gave her dolls, garbed her in dresses and grew her hair long, but at age 7 she announced that she wanted a mustache, toy cars, guns and membership in the Cub Scouts. She also insisted on standing up when she urinated. Her persevering mother paraded around the house naked to portray the physical differences between boys and girls. Brenda's rebellion continued. When her breasts sprouted at puberty -- after she was forced to swallow estrogen pills -- Brenda began binge-eating to bury her breasts in fat.

"Brenda never fit in," her twin brother, Brian, said in a recent interview on the Canadian television show "5th Estate." "Brenda never had any friends; she never even looked like a girl."

When their confused, angry "daughter" was 14, the discouraged parents confessed to her for the first time that she had entered the world as a boy. Immediately, the determined teen changed his name to David so he could impersonate the Biblical hero who conquered a gargantuan obstacle. Testosterone injections followed. A penis constructed of skin and muscle tissue from his inner thigh was installed when he was 16. Acute embarrassment and confusion about his past led to three suicide attempts, but today David Reimer is happily married with adopted children and says he harbors no grudge against his parents for their miscalculation. "They did what they did out of kindness and love and desperation," he explained on the CBC show.*

Follow the link for the entire article.

"Other than from those with a political/social bias in favor of "PC-ism", that is." I don't think every challenge to the norm or traditional social roles can be dismissed as being political correctness. I think of PC as just oversensitizing every perceived social problem (and usual someone else's problem and not a personal conviction) as a means of insinuating the other person's complete ignorance. A lot of PC IMHO has been used to re-write history and add commentary by people who just want their "just desserts." It's difficult to address the topic of diversity when the other person merely wants to argue as to how persecuted they are. But I think it's equally discouraging when the topic is dismissed as a means of just perpetuating political correctness rather than as an opportunity to merely acknowlegde the other's view...

Attached Link: http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233

*I think of PC as just oversensitizing every perceived social problem*

I would argue that political correctness goes far beyond the rather limited definition that you offer here.

PC-ism has extended itself into nearly every aspect of life in Western cultures.

For example:

Such as to the point of the military re-defining a field casuality carry as a "four-person" task, as opposed to a "two-man" task.

That's why women aren't in Special Forces. And they never will be, so long as they would be required to meet exactly the same physical requirements as the men.

BTW - this very thing was tried in Canada. Only one woman ever succeeded in qualifying under that standard.

• The experience of other countries shows little evidence that women are suited for ground combat. For example, of 103 women recruited for infantry training after Canada repealed its combat rules in 1989, only one woman succeeded in meeting the physical requirements necessary to complete the training. (CF 2.5.4B, 1.79; International Trip Report, 16-25 September)*

So, in order to get women in with any kind of numbers (just to be able to say that they are "in there"), one is forced to lower the physical requirements for the training.

Not a good thing in terms of combat readiness.

This is but one small example among many. But it speaks clearly enough on its own.

---

No -- political correctness goes well beyond simply "oversensitizing problems".

It extends to the level of attempting to make the PC fantasies of some happen -- no matter what the cost in the real world.

Sure, they play a legitimate role in the military.

Only not in combat.

And it's for the same reason that women don't play professional football, or box professionally against men.

Unfortunately, in today's world -- emotion often trumps reality in the minds of many.

Quote - The famous case of the Canadian Boy. The sex-switching saga of "Bruce-to-Brenda"

That's an old article. David Reimer's brother, Brian, killed himself. David Reimer killed himself within the last year or two.

I agree that PC extends beyond the scope of social acceptance for certain groups. A lot of ineffectual military policies did indeed originate because some women felt they "had something to prove." But I am saying that at the heart of the whole PC dogma is the idea that if you don't agree with their point of view then you have persecuted them.

That's an old article. David Reimer's brother, Brian, killed himself. David Reimer killed himself within the last year or two.

Yes, he did. For financial reasons. As I recall, he dropped something on the order of $35,000 on a bad investment.

He had always had financial difficulties. Losing that money was the last of it for him.

So, he killed himself.

However -- as the article stated -- he had already attempted suicide several times previously. Largely due to issues over what was done to him as a child......and the emotional problems extending therefrom.

Also:

The fact that he committed suicide in no way lessens the impact of his story. If anything, it adds to the point.

The fact that he committed suicide in no way lessens the impact of his story. If anything, it adds to the point.

That is to say: the situation illustrates the disastrous results of attempting to force certain modern-day pet theories down the throat of a real, live human being. Message edited on: 03/11/2005 00:45

Male characters aren't widely used for art so much because you can do more with a female form than a male. You can dress a female character with lots of different stuff compared to a male and you get more gallery views with sexy Vic than you would with Mike. :)

I don't think Gill is saying that people should stop posting images of Vicky and instead post images of Mike. She just thinks it's rude for people to actively try to discourage her from posting images of men by posting snarky comments that have nothing to do with the artistic merits of the image. She's probably right, but I kind of expect that kind of thing here. It doesn't really bother me.

And to be fair, the site I first heard of Poser on was one that was 99% female. Sexy images of men were welcome. Images of women were not, and if you posted them, you were likely to get flamed.

Wow, that's really sad about David Reimer. I hadn't heard that he committed suicide. The fact that both he and his twin brother killed themselves is telling, I think. I doubt it was financial problems or his gender issues that were the ultimate cause. Depression is highly heritable.

I doubt any doctor would do today what was done to Reimer. That was a long time ago. It's become very, very clear that sexual orientation and gender identity are hard-wired from birth. Probably due to hormone exposure in utero. And they may not be connected to one's genetic gender or apparent physical gender. In the old days, they used to make "sexually indeterminate" babies into whatever gender they looked closest to. Later, they did DNA tests, and XX babies would be made female, XY made male. Now, the trend is toward not doing anything. Instead, parents and doctors wait until the child is old enough to decide for itself which gender it wants to be.

While gender identity may be hard-wired from birth, gender roles are not. Every society has different roles for men and women, but there's nothing men always do, and women always do. Except get pregnant, of course. :-) In ancient Hawai`i, men were in charge of food. Not just hunting, fishing, and farming, but also cooking. Women were forbidden to cook. Missionaries were horrified at how "lazy" Hawaiian women were, sitting around while the men worked.

Also interesting are the so-called "Amazons" of the Russian steppes. The women were warriors, the men tended home and hearth. For years, Russian anthroplogists did not realize this. They just saw skeletons buried with weapons and armor, and assumed they were male. Closer examination revealed the truth: the warriors were women. And it was not a ceremonial thing. One skeleton of a girl about 14 years old showed several healed injuries consistence with battle wounds, and the kind of skeletal changes that come with riding a horse and wielding weapons from a young age. Her armor and weapons, buried with her, were clearly used. A nearby male skeleton was found buried with a baby in its arms. His grave goods contained no weapons; instead, he was buried with some cooking pots. This pattern persisted for hundreds of years; some speculate that these people were the Amazons of Greek myth.

"93.6% of girls and 90.3% of boys said that girls would play the flute" I'm glad Ian Anderson never heard this crap

Attached Link: http://print.google.com/print?id=p_oz0Pqb7ywC&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3DMotel%2Bof%2

*Also interesting are the so-called "Amazons" of the Russian steppes. The women were warriors, the men tended home and hearth. For years, Russian anthroplogists did not realize this. They just saw skeletons buried with weapons and armor, and assumed they were male. Closer examination revealed the truth: the warriors were women. And it was not a ceremonial thing. One skeleton of a girl about 14 years old showed several healed injuries consistence with battle wounds, and the kind of skeletal changes that come with riding a horse and wielding weapons from a young age. Her armor and weapons, buried with her, were clearly used. A nearby male skeleton was found buried with a baby in its arms. His grave goods contained no weapons; instead, he was buried with some cooking pots. This pattern persisted for hundreds of years; some speculate that these people were the Amazons of Greek myth.*

That's a load of speculation.

A bit too much speculation to buy into as 100% fact.

Digging up a few graves proves nothing.

If you've never seen it, you should check out a really funny book entitled Motel of the Mysteries by David Macaulay. It's basically a parody of the many assumptions that are routinely made by archaeologists based upon scant evidence.

It's quite easy for archaeologists to make such assumptions. After all, no one truly "in the know" is alive today to dispute their conclusions.

And once again -- one's own bias tends to play a role in interpeting things. One always needs to recognize that fact.

While gender identity may be hard-wired from birth, gender roles are not. Every society has different roles for men and women, but there's nothing men always do, and women always do.

One can always come up with an exception here or there.......but such examples are in extremely tiny minorities. And the undue emphasis placed upon such extremely rare examples over the other 99.99% of examples is nothing more than an attempt to create an invalid conclusion.

Many present-day South American Indian tribal men hunt -- and that's about it. They tend to spend the rest of their time doing little to nothing -- while the women till the fields, cook, clean, take care of the children -- and pretty much do around 90% to 95% of the work.

If one wished to find an example of nearly useless males, one need look no further. Not that others can't be found, of course. A bit closer to home.

All in all, traditional male roles and traditional female roles are quite well defined. And not merely in Western cultures.

Grasp at the few rare contrary examples if you like. But the 99.99% on the other side of the scale tends to overbalance them by a sizable margin.

I'm glad Ian Anderson never heard this crap

That's the best method to deal with the overwhelming weight of research -- research with clear results that don't fit the PC template.

Label it "crap", and then walk away.

Assigning instruments to boys vs. girls is a cultural construct. It's easy to test. Just look around at other cultures. Do children all over the world think the same thing? The answer is no. In some cultures, men play flutes, women drum.

But the social pressure in this culture can be intense. When I was in school, I knew several boys who wanted to play the flute. They didn't dare, though. They'd get beat up every day if they did. Not one single boy played the flute in my school band.

Some did play clarinet, but it was iffy. They got called fags regularly. Woodwind instruments were for girls. Except the saxophone. That was a boy's instrument.

Gender roles can be random - men play vertical flutes, women play horizontal flutes, say, or men wear skirts, women wear pants. But often, there are solid economic reasons behind gender roles. A group under population pressure will generally value men over women. Control of females is control of fertility. You see this writ large in China. Their one-child policy has resulted in a high rate of female infanticide. (And how better to justify infanticide than the belief that women are inferior, less human?) It will certainly solve their population problem, when millions of boys grow up and find no wives available.

In a society that is not under population pressure, where a woman can raise children without help from a man, that is generally what happens. Society is built around related females and their children, with the men wandering in and out at the edges. (I think that is where Western cultures are headed now.)

Perhaps the most well-known case of this are the Mosuo, at Luo Lake in China. Women do everything. They make all the decisions, do all the work, own all the property, pass their names to their children. Most do not get married. They practice something called "walking marriage." A woman will tickle the palm of a man she likes, and he will be expected to show up at her house that night. They will sleep together, but he's expected to be gone by morning. The woman keeps any child of the union, and raises it with the help of her mother and siblings. I read an interview with one Mosuo woman who had married an American and moved to San Francisco. The marriage only lasted two years. The woman was raised to be in charge, and could not get used to American gender roles.

"Label it "crap", and then walk away" So what yr sayin' is that we all hafta read yr "overwhelming weight of research" & fit ourselves into the "clear results" of the "PC template"? (FreeBass walks away from Xeno's crap)

(FreeBass walks away from Xeno's crap) Good move. And worthy of your position. An ever-so-slightly advanced version of 3rd grade playground name-calling. Try something academic next time. ....uh.....actually......you are being academic.

BTW - this particular maneuver is a typical tactic of those on the left......whenever the facts don't fit the template, then force it.

And start calling names, of course.

Message edited on: 03/11/2005 17:24

Society is built around related females and their children, with the men wandering in and out at the edges. (I think that is where Western cultures are headed now.)

Sadly, I am afraid that you are correct in this portion of your statement. But I would contend that this isn't a good thing.

When the majority of children are born to single mothers, without fathers -- this tends to lead to all sorts of problems down the line. High crime; gangs of young men wandering the streets -- terrorizing everybody; young men growing up with no respect for themselves or for others........on and on.

Little boys need decent fathers to teach them how to be men. They need their mothers, too.

Dropping the father from the equation creates a situation similar to Mt. St. Helens. It's just a question of when the lid will blow off.

Actually, the Mosuo are a remarkably peaceful and stable society. War, murder, and rape are unknown among them. Some believe that "Shangri-La" referred to them.

What is causing us problems is the transition. When social structures are changing, it's always stressful.

And it's not like Mosuo boys don't have male role models. Their mother's brothers are usually around. Men who want to raise children nuture their sister's children, rather than their own. (This is not unusual even in non-matriarchal societies. "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe." A man can never be sure his wife's child is his, but he can be 100% sure that his sister's children are related to him.)

When you think about it...such families are probably more stable for kids than our own. A husband may abandon his wife and children, but the mother's brothers will likely always be around. Indeed, the "traditional family" isn't Ozzie and Harriet. It's the extended family - not just mom, dad, and kids, but uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents. That's how kids are meant to grow up.

It's true that kids tend to do better with two parents than with one. But it doesn't have to be two biological parents. Studies suggest that it's the ratio of adults to kids that matters. So two adults in the family is better than one...but three or four is better than two.

I know this issue first-hand since I run a male-themed Poser site and its hard enough to get people to come and post their male artwork... When I came to the Poser artworld, I noted that there was a serious lack in male figures in art, unless they were surrounded by big busty women as the main figure or figures. When one considers that women outnumber men, and not all women are turned on by looking at other women, why is it that more women don't do male figures? I recently met a large number of women who have homoerotic fantasies, and actually do artwork in that direction, some of it quite clever. However, no one posts it here, mainly because of the TOS but anything even clothed with men in it seems to glorify women to the point that the hormone driven male viewers get their psychological rocks off. I invite the women who are creative enough to make male art, be it dressed, half-dressed or undressed, erotic or not to post their best work at my site and thus create a world where people don't make such stupid comments about male art. They simply don't login to my site! Hooray. However, I am not allowed to state the name of my site here, since it also causes trouble with the TOS. So, I'll let you all figure the name out, here are some hints: The site is a .COM It deals with the MALE form and with POSER and with EROTICA. In that order. However, the name overlaps and the ER is not duplicated. Figured it out? If you have, then come visit my site. Everyone gets their own private gallery when logged in, and all users are over 18. And people who don't want to see male images, don't. That solves the problem in this forum thread pretty much. Greetings Antonio

I explained that "x times per hour" bit to a woman once who thought, as stated here, that it involved some deep fantasy. It doesn't. Here's the example I used. Imagine you could read the mind of the guy sitting in the office working. "...need to calculate the cash flow oh look there's that hot secretary with the great ass, love to do her, but the finance group hasn't released the figures yet so I really can't get an accurate account there she is again--great set of tits, love to suck on them--but the boss is demanding it. Damn it, I'll have to call Karen (picture that nice rack she's got) and see if she'll give me a heads up..." That's three sexual thoughts over the course of probably a few seconds. Most men simply integrate it into their thought pattern and move on.

Quote Keith "Here's the example I used. Imagine you could read the mind of the guy sitting in the office working. "...need to calculate the cash flow oh look there's that hot secretary with the great ass, love to do her, but the finance group hasn't released the figures yet so I really can't get an accurate account there she is again--great set of tits, love to suck on them--but the boss is demanding it. Damn it, I'll have to call Karen (picture that nice rack she's got) and see if she'll give me a heads up..." That's three sexual thoughts over the course of probably a few seconds." If that's the case then what the hell are men doing in positions of authority when they are so easily distracted and unfocused and too shallow to be able to provide the uninterupted concentration required by most higher level jobs. Please get back in the kitchen and finish making dinner, I've had a long day at work and am tired and hungry, and did you finish doing the laundry yet? I need my suit cleaned as i have an important meeting with a client tomorrow.

*Actually, the Mosuo are a remarkably peaceful and stable society. War, murder, and rape are unknown among them. Some believe that "Shangri-La" referred to them.

What is causing us problems is the transition. When social structures are changing, it's always stressful.

And it's not like Mosuo boys don't have male role models. Their mother's brothers are usually around. Men who want to raise children nuture their sister's children, rather than their own. (This is not unusual even in non-matriarchal societies. "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe." A man can never be sure his wife's child is his, but he can be 100% sure that his sister's children are related to him.)

When you think about it...such families are probably more stable for kids than our own. A husband may abandon his wife and children, but the mother's brothers will likely always be around. Indeed, the "traditional family" isn't Ozzie and Harriet. It's the extended family - not just mom, dad, and kids, but uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents. That's how kids are meant to grow up.

It's true that kids tend to do better with two parents than with one. But it doesn't have to be two biological parents. Studies suggest that it's the ratio of adults to kids that matters. So two adults in the family is better than one...but three or four is better than two.*

Ah, yes......."it takes a village to raise a child" -- seems like I've heard that one somewhere before........

Since the 18th century, there has been a fascination for certain Western intellectual types with what was then known as "the Noble Savage". I.E. -- the idea that somewhere out there in the jungles and on the islands lived groups of perfect people, dwelling in harmony with the earth, and with each other.

This isn't a new idea. It's been buzzing around in Western thought for a little over three centuries.

A few intellectuals and philosophers decided to make good on their theories by relocating to the Pacific islands, and taking up an idyllic life amongst the noble savages.

One of the more famous cases was that of Paul Gauguin, French Post-Impressionist painter (1848-1903). Gauguin was among those that wholeheartedly bought into the mythos of the noble savage. He truly believed that paradise existed with primitive tribal peoples.

So, he went to Tahiti.

His experiences there among the noble savages led to his famous painting Whence Come We? What Are We? Whither Go We? all questions to which Paul Gauguin had found no answers among the Tahitians.

A dying old woman is depicted in the lower left-hand corner of the painting, holding her head in misery. A squawking stupid bird aimlessly wanders around in front of her. The entire scene indicates ultimate despair and meaninglessness.

Paul Gauguin attempted suicide shortly after the painting was completed. And little wonder. He went expecting to find paradise, and instead he found.nothing.

Rather than primitive tribal peoples -- a far more apt comparison culture-wise for our current situation in the Western world would center on the decline and fall of Rome.

Most, if not all, current Western cultural trends can be legitimately compared to the last 100 years of Roman history.

Rome possessed a military machine which no one could defeat; enormous public welfare systems including food, housing, and medical care; people in general had adopted a free-thinking style when it came to subjects like morality and marriage.

Gradually, things fell apart. The culture carried the seeds of its own destruction within itself.

The Romans are the ones that we should be taking our lessons from.

Not from Hillarys mythical village. Hillarys village is as real as Paul Gauguins paradise was.

Poor urban areas like the hell-hole known as downtown Detroit -- a thrid-world country in the middle of America -- show us the "paradise" created by fatherless families.

BTW Gaugan 'married' an 14 year old island girl, and eventualy died of syphilis, ( a disease brought to the islands by sailors ).

Attached Link: http://www.womensprofootball.com/

IMO, PC is/was nothing more than an attempt to address the some of the aspects of racism/sexism ect in popular culture/society. Like anything else, some people got carried away and took it to ridiculous lengths and unfortunately made it a convenient whipping boy for the right who now use it as an epithet as they do the "L" word. Sadly, they seldom see fit to do the same for their own excesses. For your amusement/enlightenment or whatever, a link to the WPFL (chicks in shoulderpads and they ain't Versacci). The reference to the frequency of men's sexual thoughts may have originated with Jones and Barlow's study which reported: "In a sample of college students, researchers found that men fantasized or thought about sex 7.2 times a day, compared to 4.5 for women. For each sex, two of those fantasies were internally triggered. But men reported twice as many externally provoked thoughts." Self-reported frequency of sexual urges, fantasies, and masturbatory fantasies in heterosexual males and females. Arch Sex Behav. 1990 Jun;19(3):269-79.

Paul Gauguin attempted suicide shortly after the painting was completed. And little wonder. He went expecting to find paradise, and instead he found.nothing.

Or maybe you have cause and effect reversed. Gaugin was inclined toward depression, and therefore unhappy in his society. He went seeking a better place, but since the problem was in himself, it didn't help. Like all depressives, he had a mental filter which screened out the good and highlighted the bad.

I said some people think the Mosuo are the root of the Shangri-La legend. I didn't say I thought it was paradise. The Mosuo have their problems. Not least among them that men are as oppressed there as women are in the rest of China.

I don't know if it takes a village to raise a child or not. Didn't read the book, and I'm not going to. But anthropologically and historically speaking, there's no denying that humans evolved to live in extended family groups. The nuclear family is a recent, transient development. Holding it up as "natural" is ridiculous. Closer to natural are those Italian family compounds you still see around here. Several houses on one large farm, each with several families, all related. Often, it will be a different generation on each floor. The advantages are easy to see. There's always someone to watch the kids. If someone loses their job, there are other adults who can contribute economically to the group. If someone gets sick, there's always someone to take care of him. If a kid is having a hard time with his parents, there are other adults he can confide in.

As for Rome...yes, I do think there's a lesson there for us. But it has nothing to do with family structure. It's the economy that determines family structure, not the other way around. Rome fell due to economic reasons, and we are certainly not immune.

Joseph Tainter covers Rome, and many other collapsed societies, in a book called The Collapse of Complex Societies. It's fascinating reading. A synopsis/review is here:

http://members.aol.com/leanan7/tainter.htm

As for Rome...yes, I do think there's a lesson there for us. But it has nothing to do with family structure. It's the economy that determines family structure, not the other way around. Rome fell due to economic reasons, and we are certainly not immune.

The economic problems were a symptom of deeper cultural problems. Sure, the economic problems contributed to the overall chaos -- just as our economic difficulties have the potential for doing today.

But the economic problems followed the fundamental changes in people's attitudes towards basic matters such as marriage and personal morality. Not the other way around.

When the dam starts to give way, then everything else begins to fall apart.

The economy is merely a societal support structure that is eaten out by other forms of deep cultural rot.

Once again, I am put in mind of Detroit -- and other such shining examples of destroyed nuclear family units.

I don't know if it takes a village to raise a child or not. Didn't read the book, and I'm not going to. But anthropologically and historically speaking, there's no denying that humans evolved to live in extended family groups. The nuclear family is a recent, transient development. Holding it up as "natural" is ridiculous. Closer to natural are those Italian family compounds you still see around here. Several houses on one large farm, each with several families, all related. Often, it will be a different generation on each floor. The advantages are easy to see. There's always someone to watch the kids. If someone loses their job, there are other adults who can contribute economically to the group. If someone gets sick, there's always someone to take care of him. If a kid is having a hard time with his parents, there are other adults he can confide in.

Extended families are a wonderful thing -- as are close personal friends.

But extended families are merely -- as the term "extended" indicates -- formed from the building blocks of nuclear families.

Detroit.

Or maybe you have cause and effect reversed. Gaugin was inclined toward depression, and therefore unhappy in his society. He went seeking a better place, but since the problem was in himself, it didn't help. Like all depressives, he had a mental filter which screened out the good and highlighted the bad.

Yes, he was a depressive.

But his black depression was driven to crisis by his discovery of the primitive paradise that didn't exist.