gillbrooks opened this issue on Mar 10, 2005 ยท 116 posts
gillbrooks posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 7:22 AM
The Poser gallery is overflowing with images of females in various states of dress or undress. I, like many other women look through the galleries and comment on the ones that I like, regardless of the gender of the subject. 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! Even fewer are the male artists who actually CREATE images with male subjects in them - particularly the pinup variety, yet again, the female artists here have no qualms about creating beautiful images containing the female form. Any guys out there who bother to read this - please grow up and learn to see art as it is, not treat the gallery as a place just for female totty eh?? Sorry for the rant but this has been bugging me for ages and I got to the point of having to have my say!!!
Gill
randym77 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 7:33 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean. My preference is toward male subjects, pinup or otherwise. But it's kind of pointless posting those here, so most of my gallery is of females.
AmbientShade posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 7:44 AM
I completely agree, gill. Sometimes I wish comments had a delete key. Actually sometimes i wish users had a delete key. heh. but that's for mod's i guess. lol. E.D.
dfsmetsfan posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:10 AM
Let me throw my two cents into this. Realistically, if you don't have anything nice to say (or constructive) why not keep your yap shut?? You don't have to comment on everything you see, so why embarrass the creator with snide or untoward comments. It just shows your immaturity!!
pookah69 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:17 AM
Gill, don't let it bother you--a large number of artists who have actually made their mark on the world have featured male beauty in their work, either because they are gay and that's what appeals to them, or because they simply are able to appreciate the beauty of the male form. It's a sad aspect of human nature, and our society, that we haven't yet learned to deal with human diversity, but fortunately there are many people, including art critics, art historians, and gallerists, who "get it."
starlight64 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:20 AM
lol. I can agree Gill too from what I have read in others galleries as I don't have any Male's posted in mine. It does seem ridiculous to me too But in understanding the male mind(slightly) I can understand why they are this way. lol. Men think of Sex on a daily basis at least 5 to 10 times AS many times as woman. They tend to associate certain things like nudity w/ those thoughts. lol. So being as that they are so preocupied w/ those thoughts it makes sense that when they see nudity they tend to automatically think of Sex and if it is a male they tend to go on the offense/ deffense (I don't like Guys, ect...) kick. As Woman we are not usually so preocupied w/ these thoughts as men. And As Girls we act diffently than men. Think about it... We go to the bathroom together, change clothes in front of each other, ect... And think nothing of it. Imagine if a guy asked another guy to acompany him to the bathroom! ? lol. They would probablly say WHAT? " Are you Gay Dude or what? " lol. Guys don't ask other guys how thier butt looks in a new pair of jeans or if a new shirt makes them look Hot! lol. We do though. And as I said We are not so hung up on and obsessed w/ Sexual thoughts as they are, Therefore, we can look at and appreciate the body in art. Men are normally too busy wondering/thinking about Sex to look at these pics the same way as we do. And even in this community where many are anonymous the men still worry about another man thinking that they are Gay simply cause of a comment on a digital art pic! IMO MOST men are superficial Babies that are always associating just about everything w/ Sex and inuendos. uuuuhhhhh... Don't yell at me Guys! I said Most, not all! And my conclusions/opinions are based on what I have been told by MEN! lol. Of Course, that is MY Opinion! Rhonda
AmbientShade posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:22 AM
i might also add, its NOT pointless to post them, randym. that's bordering on conformity, allowing the community to dictate what you're going to create, or put into YOUR gallery. where is the art in that? sure, you'll proly get the same snide comments as above, but you'll also get other comments from people who actually can appreciate the beauty of the human form in both genders, regardless of whether its clothed or unclothed. E.D.
AmbientShade posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:29 AM
actually the average man thinks of sex 5 to 10 times or more, per HOUR, not day. and i'm not exaggerating either. and they equate more than just nudity to sex. they actually equate most everything they come in contact with to sex, including food, at some point or another. E.D.
pookah69 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:34 AM
I want to add my agreement to Existential's point...if the only posts here were the female pinups, I wouldn't continue thumbing through the galleries. It may be annoying to sift through so much boring work (sorry, but that's my humble opinion), but to find the occassional gem makes it worth it.
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:41 AM
LOL..if you look in my gallery you'll see that the use of men exceeds the use of women. But you'll also see that my female images don't have a lot of hits as I have kept them clothed while some of my men are just in their undies...
operaguy posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:42 AM
I my opinion, in addition to the ThinkOfSexSixTimesADay syndrome, it is also because of the loss of The King in Western culture. The pleasure of depicting the male as the hero of his own story and the prime mover of his world is now politically incorrect. ::::: Opera :::::
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:43 AM
And then ...
................................... there's ............................ NaySayGuy!
;=] (edited to remove all x-rated material - before the Mods see it, heh heh)
Message edited on: 03/10/2005 08:44
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
FreeBass posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:47 AM
Ummmm...I was gonna say "Is 'cuz we're pigs", but I like Starlight's description better, so I'll just 2nd that. And fer the record, I have a dude in my gallery ...sorta... OK, is jus Mike's hand...whaddya tink I'm gay or sumpin'? ;-)
WARNING!
This user has been known to swear. A LOT!
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:51 AM
Yeah ... it's prolly the "sumpin'" ... ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
randym77 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:24 AM
i might also add, its NOT pointless to post them, randym. that's bordering on conformity, allowing the community to dictate what you're going to create, or put into YOUR gallery.
I don't allow anyone to dictate what I create. I don't post everything I make here. Heck, I don't post everything I make anywhere. I believe art is communication, and the first rule of communication is "know your audience."
That said...I do think this sort of thing tends to be a "positive feedback loop." The early days of the net were very much male-dominated, and this site (like many others) very much reflects a male viewpoint. People who don't care for that don't hang around. They go elsewhere.
I think it's the same with the emphasis on fantasy. Poser wasn't meant to be a fantasy product. The stuff P4 and P5 came with was everyday clothing like suits and t-shirts. But net users, especially in the early days, were very much into fantasy. Even CL is getting with the program, with their "winter queen" package.
It's not just social conformity. The dominant viewpoint is also expressed in the marketplace. A lot of people post images of their new purchases...and there's a lot more to purchase for Vicky than for Mike. Similarly, if you're in the business of industrial training videos, you might look around DAZ's site, see only princess gowns and dragons, and assume Poser/D|S is not the product for you. So people who might broaden the focus of the community simply don't join.
randym77 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:25 AM
I my opinion, in addition to the ThinkOfSexSixTimesADay syndrome, it is also because of the loss of The King in Western culture. The pleasure of depicting the male as the hero of his own story and the prime mover of his world is now politically incorrect.
Yeah, that probably explains why Lord of the Rings was a such a flop.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:39 AM
The Poser gallery is overflowing with images of females YAHHHHHHHH-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H!!!!!!!!!!!!!
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:50 AM
The pleasure of depicting the male as the hero of his own story and the prime mover of his world is now politically incorrect.
I like politically incorrect.
In fact, I LOVE it.
That's one reason why the galleries need to be filled with females. Because it irritates the obsessively PC. And that's all to the good.
(uh.....they've got a lot more power than some claim.......a LOT more......)
I've mentioned this before, but I think that it bears repeating:
One of the many inherent contradictions of the feminists has to do with their attitude towards masculinity......
An attitude which involves belittling something, and denying its importance -- while at the same time desperately trying to imitate it. Message edited on: 03/10/2005 09:51
randym77 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:54 AM
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." -- Cheris Kramerae
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:09 AM
human beings
As the game show host would say: "She's a really fine human being.......".
It's difficult to compliment the obvious.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.
Women are my favorite people. For some hard-to-figure-out reason.
My wife doesn't complain.
However.....it's true.........in the past, people would look at her, and then they'd look at me -------
........."What did she marry you for?"
Heh....Heh.....I loved it.
Please -- keep the gallery full of females.
I'm all for that.
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:12 AM
"
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:13 AM
(that's a ditto mark - not an opening quote) ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
Philywebrider posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:19 AM
Freebass-Re line 13-Mikes hand...which hand was it? Is it open or closed, is the palm hairy? What kind of erotic images are you posting?
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:24 AM
LOL! @ Philywebrider
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
ynsaen posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:30 AM
"that's bordering on conformity, allowing the community to dictate what you're going to create, or put into YOUR gallery. where is the art in that?" I agree with the double standard being pointed out. Women can be ogled, men cannot be ogled. Even by women (it is still played for humor or sexual innuendo in popular culture, which is a signal of base level acceptance, not propriety). However, that is the standard by which this community exists. However, it is the fundamental nature of a community (by definition, in a rather literal sense, in some circles) to dictate -- either by acceptance, disavowal, disapproval, or disassociation -- exactly what is and is not acceptable within it. Including, perhaps most importantly, art. In turn, a community shapes the artist's experiences and thereby their vision. So, it's probably just my sickness, but I sorta had to take a tiny bit of winking umbrage at that statement. That said, I'm going to go lie down and take more meds...
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:51 AM
... meds??? ............... got any extra? ... ;=?
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
Hawke posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:04 AM
As Starlight kindly points out not all us men are 'homeophobic babies' who can't look at an image of a naked man without getting all uncomfortable lol, I've seen many superb pieces of art on this site featuring male characters (pin-ups or otherwise) but I can understand you getting annoyed by such comments - it's not exactly polite. Come on guys - your letting the side down :) Oh, and how about the other side of the coin while we're at it? - I've seen many a comment from the ladies complaining about the breastsize of female pin-ups but I've yet to see one from a guy complaing some dude is hung like a donkey ;P
FreeBass posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:12 AM
Phily; here would be the hand in question; http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=874907 & to keep on topic; Although I can claim in no way to be a "Art Historian" of any sort, I do enjoy art of many styles & forms. And offhand, I can't tink of male nudidity bein' really "popular" scince the days of Olympus & Rome. Yet I can recall many examples of female nudidity through every historical era & art "movement" . So I cannot believe the problem is one unique to this community, is more like one ingrained in society itself. Personally, I blame the....n/m, this isn't the time or place fer that discussion
WARNING!
This user has been known to swear. A LOT!
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:37 AM
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
rowan_crisp posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:41 AM
Oh man, Geep.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:44 AM
I agree with the double standard being pointed out. Women can be ogled, men cannot be ogled. Even by women
That's an interesting observation.
Do you happen to recall the fairly recent Michael Jordan TV commercial......the ad which consisted of two giggly women sitting on a park bench, guessing "boxers or briefs?" as various men walked past.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if the commercial had instead featured a couple of men sitting on the same bench......asking each other "white cotton or satin?" as women strolled by..........
Now -- what was that idea about who is allowed to ogle who without creating PC outrage in the process.........?
Be well. And I mean that.
I hope that you feel better soon.
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:51 AM
re:" ... men cannot be ogled."
NaySayGuy replies:
"Ah kin ooogul dem guys ifn Ah wnts two ...... kain't Ah?"
"By da weigh, ..... whot do ooogle mean?"
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
Hawke posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:51 AM
LOL at Geep :D
ynsaen posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:53 AM
Thanks, X "I wonder what the reaction would have been if the commercial had instead featured a couple of men sitting on the same bench......asking each other "white cotton or satin?" as women strolled by.........." You can judge it frequently for yourself -- it is on display in most convenince stores and many automobile covers. The Victoria's Secret fashion show is a perfectly acceptable venue for doing it. Indeed, I recall, vaguely, a particular incident pretty much exactly as you describe in a much older example -- featuring a celebrity who is arguably as famous as Jordan is today (though not at the time). Episode of Bosom Buddies, where the pair of men were indeed wondering what was being worn (cotton or lace, though, I believe, was the discussion) in the way you describe to some extent (although I believe it wasn't in a park). And you know perfectly well there is a large difference between PC outrage and actual social role norm challenges. Shame on you. ;)
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
ynsaen posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:54 AM
NSG: oogle means to take a long look at ones self in the mirror, drool casually, and then go on about one's day.
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:56 AM
As Starlight kindly points out not all us men are 'homeophobic babies' who can't look at an image of a naked man without getting all uncomfortable lol
Oh, I just love the predictable assignation of PC dogma to the motives of people that one doesn't know from Adam........
FYI -- looking at men is about as interesting as watching grass grow. It's about on the same level as a soft drink ad for its inherent appeal.
In other words, it's just background noise to me. Chances are that I won't notice it.
And if I do happen to notice it by some accident -- it'll be a real yawner.
Matters of personal taste cannot be argued over with any degree of "correctness".
But I think that I can safely say that I have a good grasp of the majority view...........the majority view by a wide margin.......
Have you ever noticed that almost all of the magazines at grocery store checkouts feature cover photos of attractive young women in bikinis -- including women's magazines? Once in a while, you'll see a man on the cover -- but very, very rarely.
Why?
Simple. Because the publishing industry knows what will sell magazines.
And it ain't pictures of men.
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:57 AM
"Oh doody, .......... me go an' dude it ....... rite now!"
"Um, by da weigh ...how do ya do da drool?"
"Fanks"
Message edited on: 03/10/2005 12:03
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
ynsaen posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:06 PM
I just had the feeling if I waited long enough, he'd figure it out on his own. Rare for the poser forum at rosity, but even NSG has his moments...
thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:07 PM
And you know perfectly well there is a large difference between PC outrage and actual social role norm challenges. Shame on you. ;)
True.....
However, Chippendale's will never make the kind of money that Victoria's Secret does. Not even close.
It's got something to do with human nature.
And these aren't "learned" roles -- it goes a lot further back than that..........
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.
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:10 PM
I think in terms of being objectified, men won't ever be able to compete with women. But there are certain genres in poser art like war or fight images where substituting a woman for a man would not have the same effect. Sometimes when I see a scene with lady cops or female soldiers and no men, it has more of sexual context than the grit that would be there if it were co-ed or all male. Not to sound sexist, but there is certain imagery that without a male present it doesn't have the same effect. Conversely, there are some imagery where substituting a man for a woman doesn't give the same effect either.
Hawke posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:12 PM
'Simple. Because the publishing industry knows what will sell magazines. And it ain't pictures of men.' It's not rocket science. Men like to look at women (sex) and women like to look at women (empathy, empowerment etc). It's a win-win scenario. 'Once in a while, you'll see a man on the cover -- but very, very rarely.' ...ya - he's called Brad Pitt ;) ***** BTW were you having a go at me in post 36? I don't think so but I like to know where I stand :) I ascribe motives to noone FYI I was quoting an earlier post which appears to have been edited :(
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:13 PM
aka - the "human" syndrome ... or should that be sindrome? Anyhow, it's a proven fact that: Little boys play with soldiers. Little girls play with dolls. Big boys play with dolls. Big girls play with soldiers. It's a funny world. ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:16 PM
I think the double standard rant is one-sided if you're limiting the conversation to the use of male or female subjects as sexual objects rather than the full spectrum of how they can be depicted. I have images in my gallery of fully dressed women that are as unviewed as images of half-naked men.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:17 PM
but there is certain imagery that without a male present it doesn't have the same effect.
The NFL doesn't field all-female football teams.
There must be a reason for that. Perhaps they are just being sexist..........
Philywebrider posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:21 PM
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:22 PM
BTW were you having a go at me in post 36? I don't think so but I like to know where I stand :) I ascribe motives to noone FYI I was quoting an earlier post which appears to have been edited :(
Sorry if I mis-read your post.
In case if I haven't mentioned it already: Political Correctness irritates me.
You don't come across as someone that I'm likely to "have a go" with. You sound reasonable.
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:23 PM
I think art in some way should reflect reality. There's such a thing as pushing the envelope to open boundaries for women to pursue traditionally male ventures. But in a lot of poser art, the message is unfortunately about sexual fantasies rather than an actual social statement. If there was a female NFL team don't you think they would be as padded as the male teams rather than something like the lingerie bowl.
Philywebrider posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:24 PM
Is the position of the horse too suggestive?
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:25 PM
aka - the "human" syndrome ... or should that be sindrome?
*Anyhow, it's a proven fact that:
Little boys play with soldiers.
Little girls play with dolls.
Big boys play with dolls.
Big girls play with soldiers.
It's a funny world.
;=]*
That's a good one, Doc......LOL.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:29 PM
If there was a female NFL team don't you think they would be as padded as the male teams rather than something like the lingerie bowl.
You might have an idea, there.
It would have a built-in male audience, anyway.
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:29 PM
re: " ... Is the position of the horse too suggestive?" Neigh. (unless you have your mind in the ...) ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:31 PM
" ... would be as padded ..." Conjurs up all kinds of images, don't it. ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:33 PM
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.
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:33 PM
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.
geep posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:37 PM
LOL @ "Fortunately, I wasn't ..." ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
wolf359 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:38 PM
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
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:40 PM
I second that notion, wolf :)
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:42 PM
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
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:50 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 12:59 PM
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.
randym77 posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 1:34 PM
*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...)
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 1:40 PM
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...
Wylder posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 2:01 PM
"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)
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 2:59 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 3:01 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 3:12 PM
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.
Acadia posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 3:29 PM
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.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 3:42 PM
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.
BladeWolf posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 4:13 PM
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.
pakled posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 4:23 PM
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..;)
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
aprilrosanina posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 8:20 PM
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
ShawnDriscoll posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 9:51 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:13 PM
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).
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:19 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:37 PM
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.
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 10:49 PM
"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...
XENOPHONZ posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:11 PM
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.
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.
Acadia posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:29 PM
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.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
PapaBlueMarlin posted Thu, 10 March 2005 at 11:31 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 12:41 AM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 12:44 AM
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
Birddie posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 3:33 AM
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. :)
randym77 posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 8:56 AM
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.
randym77 posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 11:48 AM
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.
FreeBass posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 1:41 PM
"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
WARNING!
This user has been known to swear. A LOT!
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 2:18 PM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 2:21 PM
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.
randym77 posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 5:02 PM
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.
FreeBass posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 5:04 PM
"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)
WARNING!
This user has been known to swear. A LOT!
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 5:22 PM
(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.
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 5:23 PM
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
XENOPHONZ posted Fri, 11 March 2005 at 5:33 PM
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.
randym77 posted Sat, 12 March 2005 at 9:37 AM
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.
profotograf posted Sat, 12 March 2005 at 1:55 PM
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
Greetings from Germany
ProFotograf
My
PoserAddicts
Keith posted Sat, 12 March 2005 at 2:33 PM
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.
Cheryle posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 12:05 AM
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.
XENOPHONZ posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 11:07 AM
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.
Philywebrider posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 11:21 AM
BTW Gaugan 'married' an 14 year old island girl, and eventualy died of syphilis, ( a disease brought to the islands by sailors ).
lmckenzie posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 11:41 AM
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."Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken
randym77 posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 12:04 PM
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
XENOPHONZ posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 12:43 PM
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.
Cheryle posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 1:08 PM
Depression is internally driven. If one is predisposed to depression- it wouldn't matter if he did find paradise- he still would have been unable to cope and the results would have been the same.
randym77 posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 1:14 PM
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.
No, it's the other way around. Economic changes result in changed morality.
Rome's problem was over-expansion. Their strategy was conquest, and it worked for awhile. Their farmer-soldiers could farm most of the time, and go to war occasionally. But as the empire got bigger, that became impossible. Soldiers were stationed in places like England and Germany - too far to come home for planting season. They were caught in the classic guns or butter bind. Their economy relied on the inflow of gold and goods from conquered terriitories, so they could not easily give them up. But they needed food, too, and the people who used to farm were now full-time soldiers.
Another example of economics dictating morality was London in Dickens' time. Economically speaking, it was nearly impossible to support a household with more than three people in it. Even the middle class could not afford more than one child at a time. So if a second child came along, they either killed it, or kicked the older child out of the house.
You see both at work in Oliver Twist. Orphanages were church-sanctioned baby-killing organizations. More than ninety percent of children in such orphanages died before they reached age 16.
If the parents kept a new child, the older child would be forced out on the streets to fend for itself. Children as young as three were turned out of their homes. Hence the gangs of boys roaming the streets, which we also see in Oliver Twist. (The girls were usually sent to work as servant girls or in brothels. They were also more likely to be killed at birth than boys.) Many of the street boys eventually ended up in the British navy, victims of press gangs.
Definitely not what we would consider a family friendly society, yet economically, they did very well.
But extended families are merely -- as the term "extended" indicates -- formed from the building blocks of nuclear families.
Not true. If it were, the nuclear family would be a universal, found in all human cultures. It is not. It hasn't even been the norm for most of our own history. "Paradise Lost" syndrome doesn't just refer to the Noble Savage myth. It also applies to those who romanticize our own past. The nuclear family was the rule in the '50s, which was also an economically prosperous time for us. Assuming the former caused the latter is not supported by the facts.
XENOPHONZ posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 2:26 PM
No, it's the other way around. Economic changes result in changed morality
A nation or a culture with an excellent moral foundation can survive bad economic times.....and can even come out stronger.
As, for example.....the United States and the Great Depression.
However, a weak moral climate leaves individual people without the strength of character that's necessary to face a crisis, and to deal with it adequately. A crisis such as a failing economy.
In a culture of weak moral character, people are too selfish to sacrifice anything -- and thus, they eventually end up by losing everything.
Not true. If it were, the nuclear family would be a universal, found in all human cultures. It is not. It hasn't even been the norm for most of our own history. "Paradise Lost" syndrome doesn't just refer to the Noble Savage myth. It also applies to those who romanticize our own past. The nuclear family was the rule in the '50s, which was also an economically prosperous time for us. Assuming the former caused the latter is not supported by the facts.
Our societies in the West -- and most societies in the East -- have never been based upon a family structure that amounts to communes.
Communal living, like all other forms of utopianism, simply doesn't work as advertised. In spite of all that's transpired -- from the bankrupt fantasies of the 19th century Utopians, to the abysmal failure of 20th century ideologies of various stripes -- we still haven't learned the lesson.
However -- people will insist on continuing to try out things other than the basic unit that has always been the elementary building-block of every stable, advanced society.
The nuclear family.
And, yes -- it has been the norm for most of history. In stable societies, that is.
Another example of economics dictating morality was London in Dickens' time. Economically speaking, it was nearly impossible to support a household with more than three people in it. Even the middle class could not afford more than one child at a time. So if a second child came along, they either killed it, or kicked the older child out of the house.
You see both at work in Oliver Twist. Orphanages were church-sanctioned baby-killing organizations. More than ninety percent of children in such orphanages died before they reached age 16.
Earlier, you recommended a book.
I'd like to recommend one, too.
It's entitled When Nations Die: Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis by Jim Nelson Black.
Among other symptoms -- no value placed upon the lives of infants. From ancient Carthage just prior to its razing by the Romans, to the present day......
Certain patterns stay the same.
XENOPHONZ posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 2:38 PM
Depression is internally driven.
If one is predisposed to depression- it wouldn't matter if he did find paradise- he still would have been unable to cope and the results would have been the same.
True, insofar as this statement goes.
But I think that it's interesting to note the fact that individuals of Paul Gauguin's ilk -- that is to say: of his particular intellectual/philosophical bent -- tend to be depressives in general.
Not that others don't suffer from depression too, mind you -- it's just that they are usually better equipped to deal with the problem.
His being a depressive doesn't change the fact that he went looking for something that he didn't find.
randym77 posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 3:20 PM
*A nation or a culture with an excellent moral foundation can survive bad economic times.....and can even come out stronger.
As, for example.....the United States and the Great Depression.*
That had nothing to do with morality. We are the world's only superpower because we settled a huge continent full of unexploited resources. We'd have to have really cocked it up not to have ended up dominant.
In particular, what happened in the 1930s was we discovered oil, and transitioned from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. Without that wealth of fossil fuels, we would not be where we are now, no matter how "moral" we were. The U.S. had more oil than Saudi Arabia. We've just used most of it, and so are no longer an oil exporter. OPEC is modelled on an organization that used to set quotas for U.S. oil companies.
Our societies in the West -- and most societies in the East -- have never been based upon a family structure that amounts to communes.
No, not communes. Communes imply that unrelated people are living together. That is not really natural. The Israelis found that out. They expected the children raised in a kibbutz to marry each other. None of them ever did, because they thought of each other as siblings Even though they were not related at all. We didn't evolve to live in a band of strangers. We evolved to live in an extended family. With people who share our genes.
And, yes -- it has been the norm for most of history. In stable societies, that is.
That is simply not true. It's the extended family that has been the norm throughout history. It's still the norm in much of the world.
And in a sense, it's still true for us. People who live in big cities don't know more people than those who live in small villages, or in a band of hunter-gatherers. (On average, of course.) Even living in cities of ten million or more, humans cannot make connections with more people than would have been in their Stone Age family band, millennia ago.
Certain patterns stay the same.
Definitely true.
Cheryle posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 3:27 PM
so what if he went looking for something and didn't find it-that happens to a lot of people- doesn't change the fact that no one made him kill himself- he made the decision to do that and he followed through with it- it's all his own responsability. If someone wants to do something- they will find all the justification in the world to do it. By the same token if one does not want to do something- short of a gun against the head, they cannot be forced to do it. So according to your statement because he didnt find what he was lookign for- his death is not his own fault? He killed himself because he was a selfish, self centered egomaniac- everything revolved around him and what he wanted to find, and because the world did not see fit to work the way he wanted- he left it. Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to that 10%. He chose his path on his own.
wolf359 posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 4:09 PM
"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." Not exactly peer reviewed science to support the oft repeated "sex thoughts every few seconds" ignorance now is it??.... { chuckle}utter nonsense! :-/
Keith posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 7:07 PM
"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." Because we (at least speaking of myself and other men I've talked about this with) are used to it? Look, it's not a matter of "being distracted" or shallow or unfocused or what other prejudiced and perjorative language it turns your crank to use. Tell me, if you have a car, have you ever driven and basically been on autopilot? Driven without putting your entire attention on the road. Maybe having a conversation with someone in the car, listening to music (maybe singing along), admiring some nice scenery you're passing? Ever done anything like that? If you say no and you've driven, you're probably a liar. Even people whose life depends on paying exacting attention to thgeir surroundings when driving, race car drivers, are able to converse on the radio while jockeying for position amongst 20 other cars moving at nearly 200 miles an hour in a confined space. The human mind can multitask. Right now, as I'm typing this, the TV is on in the background and my attention is flicking back and forth so I'm able to type this almost as fast as I would without distration and monitor the TV in case something interesting is happening, while also paying attention to my radio in case I have an emergency call and have to run to an ambulance call or to the fire truck. People can do that while observing other people in a superficial way. I freely admit (and my girlfriend would kick me if I deny it) that I will glance at a woman while having a conversation, take note of physical attributes or something about her if I know her personally, have an idle thought of something in a sexual context, and carry on without missing a beat. Men (and woman) who can't do this would quickly become unable to function in society. The majority of us recognize that allowing a momentary thought to distract us is a waste of time. Odds are we're not really going to end up having sex with the woman, so what's the point of putting too much thought into it? A good fictional example is in one of Robert Parker's Spencer novels. Spencer walks into an office to meet with someone and is introduced to a 40sh woman. Spencer notices she's attractive, that she seems to have a large bust squeezed into a suit jacket that seems a bit too small, idly has a passing thought of what they'd look like if she was topless, and then moves into the conversation without it coming up again. He's not likely to have her as a partner, so the sexual aspect is simply shoved away while he gets down to business. I was in a similar situation at a recent conference. One of the companies I was dealing with had an executive who wore a very cleavage-revealing suit, and she had, and I'll be honest, a nice figure. I could glance at it and admire it without it interfering with our discussions which involved, possibly, millions of dollars.
Cheryle posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 7:16 PM
who let you out of the kitchen?
wolf359 posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 7:46 PM
"very cleavage-revealing suit, and she had, and I'll be honest, a nice figure. I could glance" BLAH,BLAH,BLAH we are not just talking about some inappropriately dress tramp prancing about your office. were are talking about the utterly ignorant and never proven assertion that We Men think about getting laid "every 30 seconds" etc. that means while animating a karate fight in MAYA, Defacating,listening to the mechanic explain why it will cost $794 to fix our cars,watching self important grey beards argue foreign policy on public television. and changing our infant daughters dirty diapers. and so on and so on, we all stop during these activities to think about having sex???......Citizen please !!!
Cheryle posted Sun, 13 March 2005 at 7:49 PM
ok i love wolf359 :)
Keith posted Mon, 14 March 2005 at 12:33 AM
The "inappropriately dressed tramp" was a senior vice president.
And you might not love wolf359 as much given that he's wrong. Oh sure, not every 30 seconds by any means, but...
"The association between fantasies and a healthy sex life is so strong, in fact, that it's now considered pathological not to have sexual fantasies."
"In one study, researchers asked people at random times during the day whether sex had crossed their minds during the past five minutes. Among 14- and 15-year-olds, 57 percent of boys and 42 percent of girls said yes. Affirmative responses were less common with increasing age: among 56-to 64-year-olds, 19 percent of men and 12 percent of women answered yes."
(From Psychology Today Sept 1995, reporting on Leitenberg and Henning's study in Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469-496)
Cheryle posted Mon, 14 March 2005 at 12:41 AM
who cares what her title was- innappropriate dress is innappropriate dress ;p and a study of 15 yr olds does not support your allegations. Like DUH DUDE it's the hormone years :P
lmckenzie posted Mon, 14 March 2005 at 9:02 AM
Thanks Randym77 and XENOPHONZ for a very interesting debate. 'Phonz, you remind me, in a politico-philosophical way, of a guy over at the nasty 'R' place who also goes by a Greek handle is it a frat thing ? :-)
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken
Keith posted Mon, 14 March 2005 at 10:45 AM
"I who cares what her title was- innappropriate dress is innappropriate dress" Who decides what's inappropriate? You? So, what, she should go around in a veil and full body dress? Burqa? A high-collar loose-fitting floor-length overcoat? And while we're on that subject, how about those women who breast-feed in public places? Disgusting, isn't it. The baby should suffer until the woman is somewhere private just so they don't open their tops in an inappropriate manner that may briefly attract attention. After all, same thing, isn't it?