Something About Sex.

[Richard B Riddick]

@Sepalcure

I'll give I s h t a r & @Wander a chance to reply before responding to your post.

 

[Will Graham]

All you did was list things that men find sexy and saying that we are taught to be motivated by visuals. Even if it is learned behavior (which I do not think it is) then you are still saying that men are Visually Driven because we are taught to be like that. In short you are still not saying that we aren't visually driven

 

[Richard B Riddick]

All you did was list things that men find sexy and saying that we are taught to be motivated by visuals. Even if it is learned behavior (which I do not think it is) then you are still saying that men are Visually Driven because we are taught to be like that. In short you are still not saying that we aren't visually driven

Nope.

Its a biological predisposition vs learned behavior issue.



The question you're looking for is:

"Are men attracted to skinny / obese women because they're biologically hardwired or genetically pre-disposed to find skinniness attractive?"

Or...

"Are men attracted to skinny / obese women because society tells them skinny women are attractive and their senses merely confirm if its true"?



The concept of men being "visually driven" implies there is some pre-defined, hard-wired, predisposed list of items men are intrinsically attracted to which is linked to their senses.

If it turns out men are merely attracted to qualities society tells them are sexy, then men aren't so much visually driven.

In that case, what men find sexy would be a form of learned behavior and indoctrination learned from their environment and the society they live in. If your concept of sexy isn't derived purely from the senses but rather from your environment, then the observation that men are "visually driven" may not apply.



In that case, a person's senses would merely confirm whether or not someone possesses the qualities society tells them are sexy.

It wouldn't be the appearance or the visual qualities on their own which merited a sense of stimulation or attraction.

In that people wouldn't be so much visually driven, as they are indoctrinated by society into believing certain characteristics are sexy with their senses playing a far lesser role.

 

[Saints&Storms]

@RichardBRiddick

So... you are just gonna pick and choose when or where to respond and what too? That's really immature, what amazing debate skills you have thar.

You still didn't answer my fucking question; Why the fuck we should have taken that video seriously, you lost all if you even had any, credibility just by posting it. Not to mention you have so far ignored answering it. I mean who posts some fucking bogus video's to prove heir points in debate? That's Riddickulous.

Riddick, you already posted images of men forcing women to mutate themselves in ancient and different cultures, if THAT doesn't prove men are visually driven then what does? I mean the ruin these woman's bodies so they can be VISUALLY stimulated by their PHYSICAL appearance; what about that do you not understand?

Mentally or intellectually sexual stimulating things have nothing to do with everything you just said; people can quickly and easily evolve what turns them on sexually, and go from one day loving fat woman to the next hating them; the same can be said for men who enjoy being pedophiles or are you saying such things don't exist because not all men have evolved to being turned on by children? Saying men can't possibly be visually driven by DIFFERENT THINGS is like saying pedophilia, bestiality and the like do not even exist.

1.1 Riddick, read closely -- Men find different things attractive but they are still visually driven to be attracted to those specific things, what a mans father found attractive or visually sexually stimulating will not be passed down to his son -- or else some men wouldn't bare homosexual offspring.

You need to listen to yourself because you are making absolutely no sense.

1.2 Humans are NOT birds, first off, we do not inherit what our instincts are turns us on or makes us sexually stimulated from our ancestors or parents, the basic fact is while the THING that visually drives a man sexually may change the FACT that they are driven sexually by their visuals of said physical trait does not change.

1.3 What I am saying is, men are simply visually driven to find things sexually stimulating -- it doesn't matter if the concept of attractiveness changes because what TURNS them on sexually is skin deep and nothing more. That's not to say this is all that is to it but its certainly the biggest reason.


2.1 What are you not understanding here. First off I hope you mean birds are attracted to feathers...creepy. Secondly you just proved me right for the billionth time. The animalistic urge still exists in men, you posted the images of Burmese cultures forcing women to deform their body-parts, do you forget this?

You can't always compare humans to animals, because while here Humans are mentally more intellectual, and are defined by what they are think; Animals are sexually driven by instinct, and humans maintain their instincts in some such form; believing that even if they are sexually stimulated by mutated feet; as long as it drives them to sexually reproduce, its still an evolved urge to better their sexual drive --hence being the fact that it is possible for different men to be sexually and visually driven by different things. But are still driven visually. Nonetheless.

2.2 What turns people on is different from passing people, saying its; saying its only and always genetically-biologically predisposed is like assuming a straight male and a straight female can't have a homosexual child -- this is false because it happens everyday. You can't limit human beings by animalistic beliefs.

3.1 WE ARE NOT SAYING ALL MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN BY THE SAME THING, WE ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE SIMPLY VISUALLY DRIVEN WHETHER OR NOT THE CRAVING THEY HAVE SEXUALLY CHANGES IS NOT THE SUBJECT, OPEN YOU'RE EYES -- DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR OWN TOPIC WAS?

The specific thing men are going after or find that turns them on and makes them get going is different we have never denied that, only that that THING is almost 99.9999999% of the time something that THING that does the job is something PHYSICAL in appearance. If anything your little babbling proved this even more; since the days of time when men were mindless animals they strive for something physically attractive to the eye.

4. Are you saying that when a man grow up to become a pedophile or a rapist, that he grew up in a society that told him to believe such? Because last time I checked there are still pedophiles in America and its illegal to do such thinsg here; so there is no encouragement of such behavior here. Let alone the fact that its not encouraged to be attracted to animals but some men who watch MLP and other such things still are. Society doesn't always or dominantly dictate what men find attractive or sexy.

You are just contradicting yourself all over the place because, you've taken this topic from men finding different women sexy (whether they are fat, deformed and mutated etc. etc.) and that being proof that they aren't visually driven and now you have taken it to; society forces men to find the same thing attractive and that's why they visually driven -- make up you fucking mind

5. Riddick, I am a virgin and even I KNOW a guy doesn't have anal sex because he either; finds an anus visually-sexy or is doing it because porn industries told him to -- which is hilarious because you have thus admitted that men do follow the pron industry religiously and its influence controls them either what they are attracted to it and therefore visually driven or they do what the Porn Industries tell them which is finding Big breasted, skinny blond women -- you just agreed with Insanity Wolf.

Men find whatever turns them on of their own free will, I'd like to believe that men aren't such simple creatures that they can't decide for themselves what turned them on.

6. Now they are simply not visually driven at all? No man huh Riddick, no man at all is driven visually, then why do promos sell a ton, did you're little video tell you that no man is visually driven, yet you insisted that women are? Sexist much.


Riddick, NO ONE HAS SAID MEN ARE DRIVEN BY THEIR GENETICS TO FIND SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE, THAT WAS YOU.

I have as well as everyone else, been insisting that men will be visually driven by all sorts of thing but the hard fact doesn't change that it is indeed a physical thing driving them to become visually stimulated, they react to what their eyes see and because turned on by it.

So, since you seem to think society dictates what people are attracted to, how exactly DO you explain pedophilia in men as well as rape; what society do you know that actively makes it a point to portray raping a woman as socially acceptable sexual activity?

American media doesn't make it a daily thing to tell men to go out and rape or molest someone let alone a child but here we are with numerous pedophiles abusing children, and I am to be lead to believe that out media outlets simply forced these men to rape and molest children and women?




So, in-closing, it doesn't matter what they find sexually driving, or whether their society and environment forced them to finds this or that sexually stimulating to their sight, because the simple fact that even you have been stating over and over in his one single post is that one thing among them is this; they are driven visually to find these things. Its skin deep.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but nope, never happened.

*Bambi questioned my sex life and said some things to me*
*Ego shields reduced to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% and holding*

You do know what "Reduced" means right?

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

No assumption. It was an observation based on the whining in your previous posts in this thread.

You're jumping in mid-stream and trying to reverse the course of the river. This discussion was about 40 posts strong between the two threads, solely talking about heterosexual male attraction. You could have just brought up gay men possibly being different, but instead you tried to call everybody out for talking about the topic we were all talking about. It looks very much like attention seeking.

An observation based on words on a page where you can read them any way you want? Making a valid point is attention seeking?

Thank you Mr. Wonka. I'd also like to add that this thread, by virtue of it being a separate entity, is at best only loosely connected to the previous thread. It's a spinoff, much like the Cleveland Show. I merely bring up that if you are going to talk about men in the general sense, include all facets of the male gender without discrimination on sexuality, race, or anything else. That or be more precise in your generalizations of groups to say what sect of a group you speak of. Example: ....heterosexual men generally... Of course this is not the only example but it makes its point well.

you're saying that you know most gay men are not visually driven, but you have a small sample group so cannot prove that. those two sentences there are utterly ridiculous.

Look closer. Most means a majority in this usage as a numerical value. 25% is far from a majority. Math tries to beat us all but you seem to have been backstabbed, knocked unconscious and given multiple coup de grâces. Next time try diplomacy. Also, try using your linguistics skill next time, you might find a successful roll will tell you what extrapolation means and that a period means the end of a statement.

 

[Squid]

I am pretty sure it was obvious we were talking about heterosexual men as the topic was originally about whether men found girls without make up hot...

 

[CassinoChips]

An observation based on words on a page where you can read them any way you want? Making a valid point is attention seeking?

Ah yes. When you don't have anything of your own to say, let someone else's work say it for you.

I merely bring up that if you are going to talk about men in the general sense, include all facets of the male gender without discrimination on sexuality, race, or anything else. That or be more precise in your generalizations of groups to say what sect of a group you speak of. Example: ....heterosexual men generally... Of course this is not the only example but it makes its point well.

Not going to happen. Sorry, but from a thread that was solely about heterosexual men's attraction to females who wear makeup, discussed by straight men and women who are the majority of the population, when speaking in generalities, some minority groups are going to be thrown in and/or left out, depending how you look at it. You might as well ask us to break it down by race, religion, income level, political affiliation, or any other arbitrary factor. But then it ceases to become a generality at that point.B

Bottom line, you're not going to be catered to. Deal with it.

[At this point I would find the Deal With It meme, but I don't actually care enough.]

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Toni, your ability to understand the obvious meanings and hidden intricacies of the English language has been in serious question since Spirit Shards 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Ah yes. When you don't have anything of your own to say, let someone else's work say it for you.

Not going to happen. Sorry, but from a thread that was solely about heterosexual men's attraction to females who wear makeup, discussed by straight men and women who are the majority of the population, when speaking in generalities, some minority groups are going to be thrown in and/or left out, depending how you look at it. You might as well ask us to break it down by race, religion, income level, political affiliation, or any other arbitrary factor. But then it ceases to become a generality at that point.B

Bottom line, you're not going to be catered to. Deal with it.

[At this point I would find the Deal With It meme, but I don't actually care enough.]

Actually, I made that one myself. I thought you might enjoy seeing an approximate visual of my face and posture while I made the last post. At least then you won't have to assume. Oh, I did it again, didn't I? I mean 'observe.' It's strange though; memegenerator is the first sight that has had trouble loading on my computer. I suspect it has to do with my brother playing Diablo 3 at the same time.

And I just love how you confuse statements. Feigning Dyslexia doesn't get you anywhere good. Look at the statement before it - the threads are two separate entities. Stop trying to turn the makeup thread into a red herring. I don't much care for raw fish except in the context of sushi. But if you were to pickle that herring, I would be much obliged. And just to make it clear, now I'm asking you to cater to me, since you know where I live. Make sure that fish is fresh. And on your way, try to come up with a nonfallacious argument. Don't worry, you'll have the time - traffic is murder in the cities.

 

[Squid]

I dunno why you have to start insulting when I didn't say a single nasty thing towards you.
You think you're clever but you can't even understand a simple thread.

 

[Saints&Storms]

Toni, your ability to understand the obvious meanings and hidden intricacies of the English language has been in serious question since Spirit Shards 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Wow, that's just plain fucking rude, can you come up with a more clever way to insult people than that or is this as far as your talents extend?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Wow, that's just plain fucking rude, can you come up with a more clever way to insult people than that or is this as far as your talents extend?

Can't you tell he's joking?

I'm responding to your excessively long, and excessively complicated post, btw.

If you don't want to see it, you had better ask a mod to close this thread, right now.

 

[Harlequin]

Can I just say that not EVERYTHING a man finds arousing is visual. For example a lot of men find virgins arousing and that's not visual. I'm sure there are more examples but I can't think of any atm.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

So... you are just gonna pick and choose when or where to respond and what too? That's really immature, what amazing debate skills you have thar.

You still didn't answer my fucking question; Why the fuck we should have taken that video seriously, you lost all if you even had any, credibility just by posting it. Not to mention you have so far ignored answering it. I mean who posts some fucking bogus video's to prove heir points in debate? That's Riddickulous.

Like I've said, I'm tired of disproving people.

If someone--like the guy in that video I posted says something you dislike or disagree with.

And, you think labeling him a "self absorbed tool" is a legitimate means of disproving the things he's said.

Clearly you don't understand basic fundamentals such as burden of proof, positive claims, providing evidence to support your views, etc.

Its not justifiable to attack someone's character or credibility in lieu of being able to provide a valid argument for your case.

Riddick, you already posted images of men forcing women to mutate themselves in ancient and different cultures, if THAT doesn't prove men are visually driven then what does? I mean the ruin these woman's bodies so they can be VISUALLY stimulated by their PHYSICAL appearance; what about that do you not understand?

1. If men inflicting physical trauma on women is evidence men are visually driven.

2. Is men inflicting emotional trauma on women evidence men are emotionally driven?

I would say: no.

There are other factors and variables involved and being visually driven or not being has little to nothing to do with people choosing to maim and abuse one another. Visually driven is more associated with attraction in terms of sexuality. Its not something even scientists link to violence and abuse.

Therefore, your argument = horribly out of context and off topic.

Mentally or intellectually sexual stimulating things have nothing to do with everything you just said; people can quickly and easily evolve what turns them on sexually, and go from one day loving fat woman to the next hating them; the same can be said for men who enjoy being pedophiles or are you saying such things don't exist because not all men have evolved to being turned on by children? Saying men can't possibly be visually driven by DIFFERENT THINGS is like saying pedophilia, bestiality and the like do not even exist.

Another out of context argument from you.

What I said was men can't be visually driven, in a genetically predisposed sense, if characteristics men are attracted to vary and change too often and quickly to invoke genetics.

You didn't respond to what I said.

You only mis-defined it, twisted it out of context, then tried to beat it over the head with a stick in its bastardized form.

1.1 Riddick, read closely -- Men find different things attractive but they are still visually driven to be attracted to those specific things, what a mans father found attractive or visually sexually stimulating will not be passed down to his son -- or else some men wouldn't bare homosexual offspring.

You need to listen to yourself because you are making absolutely no sense.

This is the real question you're looking for...

In regard to the things men find visually stimulating is it a genetically pre-disposed behavior?

Or, is it a learned behavior?

If it is a learned behavior and the result of environment, peer pressure & and assortment of arbitrary and subjective things.

Then, it is incorrect so say that men are "visually driven".

It would be more accurate to say that men in this particular society learn to be attracted to certain visual aspects and characteristics.

Not that its an innate and unavoidable trait of human nature.

1.2 Humans are NOT birds, first off, we do not inherit what our instincts are turns us on or makes us sexually stimulated from our ancestors or parents, the basic fact is while the THING that visually drives a man sexually may change the FACT that they are driven sexually by their visuals of said physical trait does not change.

1. I never said humans are birds. More out-of-context shenanigans from you.

2. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that republicans are "republican driven". You may be mistaking choice and the effects of environment and upbringing for some degree of pre-disposition.

If a man decides blondes are the hottest women on the planet, it doesn't necessarily imply he's "blonde driven".

You must admit that environment and other factors play a role in the things people find stimulating and appealing.

That's where your contention that men (all men) are "visually driven" is flawed.

1.3 What I am saying is, men are simply visually driven to find things sexually stimulating -- it doesn't matter if the concept of attractiveness changes because what TURNS them on sexually is skin deep and nothing more. That's not to say this is all that is to it but its certainly the biggest reason.

It most definitely does matter as it illustrates the degree to which human sexuality is prone towards being subjective and arbitrary.

It naturally follows that in a materialist and appearances obsessed society, that men might be indoctrinated into the belief that materialism, appearances, and similar related traits are sexy.

This doesn't imply that the same is found in all cultures or societies.

There could well be a culture or society that was anti-materialist and idealistic where men grew up in cultures which disdained the materialism and appearance-centric worshipping that follows. In which case, men who grew up in that culture would not be turned on by appearances but rather by other things.

Hence, to base a theory of men being "visually driven" on such a small subset of what amounts to poll data and assume the weakly observed precedent holds true under all circumstances is more evidence of temporocentrism and "our faith is the one true faithing" moreso than anything else.

2.1 What are you not understanding here. First off I hope you mean birds are attracted to feathers...creepy. Secondly you just proved me right for the billionth time. The animalistic urge still exists in men, you posted the images of Burmese cultures forcing women to deform their body-parts, do you forget this?

You can't always compare humans to animals, because while here Humans are mentally more intellectual, and are defined by what they are think; Animals are sexually driven by instinct, and humans maintain their instincts in some such form; believing that even if they are sexually stimulated by mutated feet; as long as it drives them to sexually reproduce, its still an evolved urge to better their sexual drive --hence being the fact that it is possible for different men to be sexually and visually driven by different things. But are still driven visually. Nonetheless.

1. You think birds being attracted to beautiful peacock feathers is "creepy"?

2. The general consensus is that rape is about power, insecurity and control. Its not about attraction, sex, etc. I would extend this explanation to everything you've said here. Men brutalize and abuse women for sake of power and due to their own insecurity, etc. Not because they're "visually driven".

2.2 What turns people on is different from passing people, saying its; saying its only and always genetically-biologically predisposed is like assuming a straight male and a straight female can't have a homosexual child -- this is false because it happens everyday. You can't limit human beings by animalistic beliefs.

Out of context.

1. We don't know whether or not homosexuality is genetically pre-disposed. We do know that autism and certain types of behavior may be pre-disposed in terms of them being caused by people coming into contact with certain chemicals and substances. It may not lie beyond the realm of possibility that homosexuality could be similar. Scientists have proven they can turn fruit flies gay by exposing them to certain chemical compounds. That area of human sexuality may be more pre-disposed than you think.

2. I never limited people in terms of animalistic beliefs. The general consensus is that genetic evolution occurs very slowly. It takes thousands and thousands of years for the genetic shifts necessary to account for things like changes in human sexuality.

3.1 WE ARE NOT SAYING ALL MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN BY THE SAME THING, WE ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE SIMPLY VISUALLY DRIVEN WHETHER OR NOT THE CRAVING THEY HAVE SEXUALLY CHANGES IS NOT THE SUBJECT, OPEN YOU'RE EYES -- DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR OWN TOPIC WAS?

The specific thing men are going after or find that turns them on and makes them get going is different we have never denied that, only that that THING is almost 99.9999999% of the time something that THING that does the job is something PHYSICAL in appearance. If anything your little babbling proved this even more; since the days of time when men were mindless animals they strive for something physically attractive to the eye.

That's doesn't necessarily apply to me, I don't think.

In a way, its like you're telling me that all men are the same. And, I feel an urge to disagree as much as you would probably disagree if someone said women were "wallet driven".

4. Are you saying that when a man grow up to become a pedophile or a rapist, that he grew up in a society that told him to believe such? Because last time I checked there are still pedophiles in America and its illegal to do such thinsg here; so there is no encouragement of such behavior here. Let alone the fact that its not encouraged to be attracted to animals but some men who watch MLP and other such things still are. Society doesn't always or dominantly dictate what men find attractive or sexy.

You are just contradicting yourself all over the place because, you've taken this topic from men finding different women sexy (whether they are fat, deformed and mutated etc. etc.) and that being proof that they aren't visually driven and now you have taken it to; society forces men to find the same thing attractive and that's why they visually driven -- make up you fucking mind

Just because pedos aren't mainstream doesn't mean they're not influenced by society.

People in general usually want to associate themselves with things they see as being "elite", "progressive", "cutting edge", etc.

If society says pedos and bestiality is wrong. There are those who possibly feel an urge to gravitate towards the opposite of what is mainstream. Its not necessarily a case where nothing can be influenced by society via omission.

5. Riddick, I am a virgin and even I KNOW a guy doesn't have anal sex because he either; finds an anus visually-sexy or is doing it because porn industries told him to -- which is hilarious because you have thus admitted that men do follow the pron industry religiously and its influence controls them either what they are attracted to it and therefore visually driven or they do what the Porn Industries tell them which is finding Big breasted, skinny blond women -- you just agreed with Insanity Wolf.

Men find whatever turns them on of their own free will, I'd like to believe that men aren't such simple creatures that they can't decide for themselves what turned them on.

1. What I said was the recent uptrend of people being into anal suggests human sexuality and what people find attractive is very flexible and can change almost overnight. This could be evidence that any observed behavior of men being "visually driven" is also very flexible and can change.

2. I would like to believe people aren't such simple creatures that they would take those who demand Obama show his birth certificate, seriously. But, unfortunately, reality says otherwise!

6. Now they are simply not visually driven at all? No man huh Riddick, no man at all is driven visually, then why do promos sell a ton, did you're little video tell you that no man is visually driven, yet you insisted that women are? Sexist much.

1. Do cigarettes sell because men are "cigarette driven"? Bad argument from you, methinks.
2. I never said women are visually driven, although considering the amount of time some of you spend swooning over Tom Felton and other celebrities its possible a case could be made. I see nothing "sexist" about women appreciating or admiring men for their appearance.

Riddick, NO ONE HAS SAID MEN ARE DRIVEN BY THEIR GENETICS TO FIND SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE, THAT WAS YOU.

I have as well as everyone else, been insisting that men will be visually driven by all sorts of thing but the hard fact doesn't change that it is indeed a physical thing driving them to become visually stimulated, they react to what their eyes see and because turned on by it.

So, since you seem to think society dictates what people are attracted to, how exactly DO you explain pedophilia in men as well as rape; what society do you know that actively makes it a point to portray raping a woman as socially acceptable sexual activity?

American media doesn't make it a daily thing to tell men to go out and rape or molest someone let alone a child but here we are with numerous pedophiles abusing children, and I am to be lead to believe that out media outlets simply forced these men to rape and molest children and women?

You're implying that men being "visually driven" is something near to an absolute law just because some scientists found poll data regarding a tiny sample of men finding certain images visually stimulating.

What about the guy who claimed to have sex with more than 1,000 cars? What do you think would happen if they hooked that machine up to his brain and showed him pictures of women? There may be a decent chance that none of those pictures would turn him on.

The same with the woman who married and claims to have sex with the berlin wall. Its possible that she doesn't get turned on by people and has some type of abnormality which causes her to be attracted to inanimate objects.

Hence, those are two possible exceptions to the theory that men or people are visually driven. And, I'm sure if the scientists who did the experiment bothered to do a more thorough and investigative job of it they would see a lot more evidence the theory was false if they expanded the size and demographics scale of their polling.

So, in-closing, it doesn't matter what they find sexually driving, or whether their society and environment forced them to finds this or that sexually stimulating to their sight, because the simple fact that even you have been stating over and over in his one single post is that one thing among them is this; they are driven visually to find these things. Its skin deep.

If sexual behavior and attraction is learned behavior, then any aspect relating to how men perceive sexuality via their senses may also be learned.

If that's the case, then men aren't "visually driven" in an intrinsic or innate sense. Its a learned behavior assimilated through growing up in a materialistic culture which bombards people with sexually charged advertisements and commercials and movies and tv. All promoting the concept that appearances are important and that a certain type of appearance is what should turn people on.

You do know what "Reduced" means right?

Only if you know the difference between figurative and literal language.

And yet the nature of sexual arousal in men does not pertain to genetics, what was merely proven (by yours truly) was that a man's sexual arousal was stimulated in the amygdala and the hypothalamus more so than in women. In terms of attractiveness, there are biological and intricate environmental factors that influence a man's perception of what makes one woman attractive and another woman repulsive in his eyes. Our mating patterns are thus a culmination of scientific rigidity and unpredictable individualistic rituals—that is to say, one man loves a woman differently from another yet his actions yield the same result during “unprotected” coitus—pregnancy. That was a weak example to be sure, but surely it enriched you with understanding?

1. Science claims women are genetically pre-disposed towards being attracted to men who are genetically dissimilar. http://voices.yahoo.com/can-birth-control-pill-cause-women-choose-mr-8186647.html?cat=41

2. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

3. A study concluded that strippers who are ovulating make bigger tips. Another example of sexuality being genetically pre-disposed: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-week-ovulating-strippers-bigger-tips

So you are saying that the per-determinant factors of physical attractiveness is strictly and wholly influenced by culture and the differentiation of cultural beliefs from nation to nation and from people to people? But what of the subconscious necessity of a man admiring a woman who is fuller in figure due to her possessing child-bearing hips? Or better yet what of the evolutionary tinge of the role of sexual intercourse in human nature—to procreate and strengthen one's lineage? Aren't those influenced by science and isn't the nature of attractiveness not just environmentally affected but also affected by psychological facets as well? But then … maybe I'm wrong.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, either.

I'm saying that things men are visually attracted to are learned. Men learn to be attracted to anorexic women or obese women.

Its not an intrinsic visual thing so much as it deals with environmental influences, etc.

… this is true to a fault but it's not entirely valid. There have been studies conducted in the past and recently that would dispute that attractiveness and sexuality in men and women is purely environmental in nature.

I never said it was purely environmental or purely learned.

Visualization denotes the act of visualizing imagery from one's mind and subsequently viewing it through the lens of one's eye. (Lol, that was so well worded )To state that men simply are attracted to the ideas of women in certain clothing or possessing a certain body type is ludicrous. Certainly a man must see the idea itself in its physical form to appreciate it. He must notice the voluptuousness of a woman to appreciate and be sexually aroused by her curves.

Sorry, if I'm not going a good job answering your posts. I g2g in 8 minutes or so to watch boring UFC & don't have much time.

Well, some doctors and experts say that.... sex is between the ears.

Meaning, a substantial portion of it is internalized cognitively in terms of a person's psychology and mind.

A person having nice skin conveys the idea that a person is healthy and strong. A woman having curvy hips may convey the idea that a woman is past puberty and fertile. And, thirteen billion other ideas, concepts and ideals might be conveyed by other aspects of a person's appearance..

Is it the appearance or the labels and ideas attached to them that cause someone to find a person attractive?

Egads.. this is probably the most uncomfortable and strange topic I've ever tried to discuss...

Redundant last point is redundant. Also, anal sex and any other form of copulation was not taboo in ancient societies such as Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome; even practices of fellatio and cunnilingus were fairly common within these societies so anal sex was never necessarily taboo or frowned upon from a historical society standpoint. If we're talking about the “strangeness” or “bizarreness” of anal sex in Western society then even that is tinged in falsehood because anal sex has been quite commonplace for quite some time within North America. Pornographic material didn't really increase nor decrease the practices of these different types of sexual intercourse in a dramatic factor from a societal standpoint. Also, I fail to see how the “lack of anal sex in a society” or the lack of popularity of anal sex in a society correlates to men visualizing or not visualizing it. If a man sees a round bottom he may or may not be attracted to the fullness of it—whether he engages in anal sex with a woman is a matter of preference but the visual aestheticism or the visual repulsion of aforementioned buttocks drives (at least in part) the man's desire or undesirability to perform the act.

Porn did have a HUGE effect on peoples sexual practices. Especially in america where people have gone from considering sodomy to illegal to it being something massively practiced by many within a span of only decades.

In terms of what motivates people to do certain things in a sexual sense isn't all motivated by horniness. A person who was a sadist may enjoy or gravitate towards anal sex because of the potential pain they could inflict on someone.

In terms of human behavior.......... like I said 1000000000000000 x pretty much everything said on the topic is a generalization. That's what makes it so difficult to define and understand.. etc.

K, gone... bblz, maybe tomorrow..........

 

[Squid]

Can I just say that not EVERYTHING a man finds arousing is visual. For example a lot of men find virgins arousing and that's not visual. I'm sure there are more examples but I can't think of any atm.

No one said men only find things visually arousing. Just like no one said that women don't find things visually arousing haha

 

[Harlequin]

Oh I know @Chuck, most of the users in the thread have indeed conceded that it's just predominantly visual rather than wholly. I was just responding to this:

1.3 What I am saying is, men are simply visually driven to find things sexually stimulating -- it doesn't matter if the concept of attractiveness changes because what TURNS them on sexually is skin deep and nothing more. That's not to say this is all that is to it but its certainly the biggest reason.

Oh also, there's no doubt whatsoever that sexuality is heavily influenced by the society we live in, both for men and women. Men tend to go for the voluptuous, aesthetically pleasing and eventually maternal woman, all feminine traits throughout human history. Women tend to go for powerful, headstrong and well respected men, all masculine traits throughout history. Not all of the feminine traits I've listed are visually based by any means.

Not to mention of course that a hell of a lot of men get off on a lot of concepts. It quite literally turns them on and it's not visual. For example, the idea of fucking your enemy's girlfriend might be arousing, regardless of how butt ugly the chick is. Well... not regardless​ but close.

Now it sounds like I have these fantasies wtf

 

[Sepalcure]

Lol I've got to agree with Tom on this. Historically, in some societies where food was scarce, a man would find a woman with fuller hips to be more pleasing because it was a sign of her not only being fertile but also being well-fed. Since food was such a commodity in those places (even Jamaica is brought to my mind, since economically it's a third world country) then a woman who was malnourished was considered to be "ugly" or "repulsive" to men of these societies. I'd be more specific in which societies these were historically (some of them were South American tribal peoples) but I can't be arsed to tbh. So in a sense that wasn't wholly visual in nature but it was driven by a biological process. The same could be said for men who are sexually aroused by the sound of balloons popping or the idea of being dressed up in feminine clothing. It's a matter of individual preference to be sure but it also has scientific evidence of being partially influenced by visual processing and the way a man processes these images that are fed to him (via television so think of porn or magazines ... again think of porn lol). I'd say that it's moreso a mixture of biological and evolutionary processes with individual variances and preferences influencing it than anything else.

 

[Saints&Storms]

Like I've said, I'm tired of disproving people.

If someone--like the guy in that video I posted says something you dislike or disagree with.

And, you think labeling him a "self absorbed tool" is a legitimate means of disproving the things he's said.

Clearly you don't understand basic fundamentals such as burden of proof, positive claims, providing evidence to support your views, etc.

Its not justifiable to attack someone's character or credibility in lieu of being able to provide a valid argument for your case.

xD

Don't dick around my question, if you are going to go on and cherry pick other parts of my post be man enough to answer that question, if you are tired of "disproving" people then why are you going ton carry on replying to the other segments of my post? You are quite simply pussy-footing about the topic and dodging every single question, not to mention PLAIN OUT ignoring the true questions and fact that you yourself have ADMITTED that men are visually driven, you only made excuses for WHY they are visually driven as opposed to actually "disproving" that they are INDEED visually more driven than women are.

I never called that guy a tool, now you are making stuff up, you seem to be fervently dodging this question Riddick, I simply asked you WHY we should take a silly video that could or could not be an authentic experiment seriously as a means to an insight on this topic, [I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS, STILL]when A. those women could have easily been paid, B. that man himself was checking out her breasts IN SAID video and C. you have yet to explain the means of the "study" conducted by measly random people.


Let me get back to each one of these little lines above;

I don't dislike the video because I don't have an opinion on such insubstantial evidence, especially when their is nothing authentic about it and there is nothing formal or official about the way they cut and chopped at the scenes of their own video, attempting desperately to assuage the viewers by doing such "clever" editing.

I never accused that man of being a "tool", only that he found ONE OF of not THE utmost insufficient way to try and test his theories, I have no problem with the things HE SAID as I only have a problem with the things he is SHOWING and trying to DO, as they are not genuine in the slightest.

Clearly you do not understand what the meaning of an "interrogative sentence" is, or else you would answer MY REAL question; which is -- WHY, should we take that mans video seriously, what credibility does he have behind is otherwise offensive video? Was the study conducted fairly? Were those women paid to participate?

I have provided a valuable argument, especially in the light of your mention of the neck rings of the Kayan women, where I proved men are just that visually driven there because A. they encourage those women to mutate themselves PHYSICALLY because it is pleasing to the visuals and B. the alarmingly high rates of rape/sexual crimes there in 2006.

What aren't you getting about this?

1. If men inflicting physical trauma on women is evidence men are visually driven.

2. Is men inflicting emotional trauma on women evidence men are emotionally driven?

I would say: no.

There are other factors and variables involved and being visually driven or not being has little to nothing to do with people choosing to maim and abuse one another. Visually driven is more associated with attraction in terms of sexuality. Its not something even scientists link to violence and abuse.

Therefore, your argument = horribly out of context and off topic.

Those Kayan women, mutate their necks because that is what the men's concept of Beauty is, you already said this you're self, there is only skin deep beauty in the mutation of a woman's body, there is nothing emotional about it.

5. I'll give you some examples. Anal sex. It wasn't considered sexy until recently. This recent development isn't because men always found women's anuses sexy & were visually driven to that part of a woman's body. Its because there was more media coverage of in terms of porn, etc. And, because, the idea of doing something risque or "progressive" eventually took hold. Thus, saying men are into anal sex because they're "visually driven" would be somewhat pointless. Obviously our concept of what sexy is are constantly changing at a pace too fast for genetics or biological hard-wiring to be involved.

6. Hence, men are not visually driven. Its more the idea or concept of something or someone which excites them. And, those ideas and concepts can change very quickly.

You do not watch porn -- as you have just admitted Men do, by saying all men are encouraged by this sort of media, that they do watch -- and get intellectually stimulated by such a thing, men don't watch porn for the "ideas" that excite them or else fat women and the like would be recruited for such roles, which they aren't

You have already admitted they WATCH porn, there is not a thinking process going on in porn, that's why they watch it as opposed to reading dirty novels with the cheap covers, because it is stimulating them visually as opposed to mentally.

Hence why, those Dirty Novels are usually aimed at women while Pornography in film form is a industry for more men than women, and even you have just admitted hat media controls what men think, so you admit that Porn is major factor for a man.

Another out of context argument from you.

What I said was men can't be visually driven, in a genetically predisposed sense, if characteristics men are attracted to vary and change too often and quickly to invoke genetics.

You didn't respond to what I said.

You only mis-defined it, twisted it out of context, then tried to beat it over the head with a stick in its bastardized form.

I know what you said, and I replied to it, like several times. I even agreed that men are not visually driven by a genetically predisposed standpoint, only that WHY they are visually driven does not matter; since no matter who or what rather made them visually driven -- they still are, in fact -- Visually driven, which is to say the reason they find things physically pleasing to the visuals does NOT matter, only that they are; Visually Driven.

Maybe you need to go back and read my post again, eh? Because had you read my post, you would know that I agree that what visually drives men isn't a genetically predisposed thing, only that whether or not they are doesn't matter.

Because at the end of your nonsensical ramblings, you have thus agreed, men are visually driven.

This is the real question you're looking for...

In regard to the things men find visually stimulating is it a genetically pre-disposed behavior?

Or, is it a learned behavior?

If it is a learned behavior and the result of environment, peer pressure & and assortment of arbitrary and subjective things.

Then, it is incorrect so say that men are "visually driven".

It would be more accurate to say that men in this particular society learn to be attracted to certain visual aspects and characteristics.

Not that its an innate and unavoidable trait of human nature.

関係ありません。Cela n'a pas d'importance. No importa. Non importa.

Do you get it now? Its doesn't matter if WHAT they are attracted or visually driven toward is influenced onto them, or changes, and varies or was learned unto them. Because the basic point is that they ARE visually driven either way.

Riddick, you are ignoring the fact that a lot of men find mutated, fat, undeveloped/children, animals and many other things visually driving for themselves. Are you prepared to explain who or how these things were taught and/or forced onto them as the thing they should be visually driven by? Because that's wrong let alone defeats the purpose because they are still visually driven as opposed.

So once again, answer and confront the above.

No one teaches them to be visually stimulated, only WHAT to be visually stimulated by, that is the only Variable here in this discussion.

1. I never said humans are birds. More out-of-context shenanigans from you.

2. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that republicans are "republican driven". You may be mistaking choice and the effects of environment and upbringing for some degree of pre-disposition.

If a man decides blondes are the hottest women on the planet, it doesn't necessarily imply he's "blonde driven".

You must admit that environment and other factors play a role in the things people find stimulating and appealing.

That's where your contention that men (all men) are "visually driven" is flawed.

You may be a little if not a lot confused here, Riddick, political preference is worlds different from what people find visually attractive/driving, assuming or attempting to imply that men are only visually driven to find certain things attractive because of media is to imply that it is impossible for a Homosexual male to be born from a country of Heterosexual people; that's wrong, the south is deeply Anti-Homosexual, there are STILL many Homosexuals here.


That just means he's visually driven to like blondes, there are no sub-categories here, because finding Blondes attractive falls under the description of being driven by visuals; what are you missing here, is this all flying over your head?


Its doesn't matter if environment influences or changes WHAT [i.e. THE THING, THE OBJECT, A BEING OR SUBJECT OF THEIR VISUALS] men are visually driven toward, only that they are visually driven. I have said this more than enough times for you not to miss it.

It most definitely does matter as it illustrates the degree to which human sexuality is prone towards being subjective and arbitrary.

It naturally follows that in a materialist and appearances obsessed society, that men might be indoctrinated into the belief that materialism, appearances, and similar related traits are sexy.

This doesn't imply that the same is found in all cultures or societies.

There could well be a culture or society that was anti-materialist and idealistic where men grew up in cultures which disdained the materialism and appearance-centric worshipping that follows. In which case, men who grew up in that culture would not be turned on by appearances but rather by other things.

Hence, to base a theory of men being "visually driven" on such a small subset of what amounts to poll data and assume the weakly observed precedent holds true under all circumstances is more evidence of temporocentrism and "our faith is the one true faithing" moreso than anything else.

Saying that it matters or that it is even a majoring factor is, like saying rapists are not to blame and only that they were taught to be visually driven to go after women wearing skimpy clothes, hence you are therefore assuming that society encourages rape/pedophilia when no such thing is encouraged anywhere in American media.


I never brought up poll data, you have already admitted to men being visually driven, only have you this far been pissing and moaning about how "its medias" fault that men find such and such attractive, as opposed to the fact that they even and are only naturally driven by what they see.

No where in media does it brainwash men by telling them to "be visually stimulated" only influences and changes what they find attractive; is this simple fact so hard for you to grasp? If men are robots and empty shells made for the media's own control; then why are there pedophiles and men who find animals (MLP) attractive? What media taught them that flat chestes, underdeveloped children are attractive? What media outlet influences bestiality as you seem to think there is one?

Are you going to sit there and tell me that there is some evil plot to perpetuate that men only are visually driven as opposed to being intellectually driven because media/peer pressure taught them so? Let alone the fact that there isn't a media outlet that dares to secure that men become pedophiles or rapists.

1. You think birds being attracted to beautiful peacock feathers is "creepy"?

2. The general consensus is that rape is about power, insecurity and control. Its not about attraction, sex, etc. I would extend this explanation to everything you've said here. Men brutalize and abuse women for sake of power and due to their own insecurity, etc. Not because they're "visually driven".

I think you referring to birds as a "us" and "we" is creepy. Because it is just that creepy. Because that is what you said, you referred to birds as an "us" -- unless you are some sort of bird then, no I did not call birds creepy.

"In our case, it would seem some of us are attracted to birds with bright feathers and others are attracted to birds with dull feathers"

You should probably make you little comparison, a little more intelligent and make a little more sense, since this one makes absolutely none, whatsoever. Men rape women because they want sex, if they wanted to brutalize them they could simply beat them, but they are driven by a need for sex. Hence the rape.

1. We don't know whether or not homosexuality is genetically pre-disposed. We do know that autism and certain types of behavior may be pre-disposed in terms of them being caused by people coming into contact with certain chemicals and substances. It may not lie beyond the realm of possibility that homosexuality could be similar. Scientists have proven they can turn fruit flies gay by exposing them to certain chemical compounds. That area of human sexuality may be more pre-disposed than you think.

2. I never limited people in terms of animalistic beliefs. The general consensus is that genetic evolution occurs very slowly. It takes thousands and thousands of years for the genetic shifts necessary to account for things like changes in human sexuality.

Hence until proven otherwise, is just a theory and has no place as evidence, until you or anyone else can prove this or that, then we will have to use only what we KNOW. And, did you just compare being Homosexual to a mental disorder? A sexual and or romantic preference isn't the same as a mental disorder. Please don't bring speculation into a debate its meaningless and pointless as me saying what "my opinion" on the matter is and gets us no where.

As opposed to judging them as Humans with a consciousness and the ability to "love" based on a sense of consciousness? We all know what evolution is Riddick. Stop repeating yourself over and over again.

Really because you just did it again by comparing us to fruit flies, as you did before by comparing us to birds.

That's doesn't necessarily apply to me, I don't think.

In a way, its like you're telling me that all men are the same. And, I feel an urge to disagree as much as you would probably disagree if someone said women were "wallet driven".

I never said all, just most. You and your cop outs. As usual.

But for the record, I wouldn't really care if you thought women were "wallet driven" because there's no way to prove such a thing, such as there is for men watching porn, raping, enforcing women to cover their entire bodies because they are so visually driven, encouraging them to mutate their bodies etc. etc. all for visual purposes.

Just because pedos aren't mainstream doesn't mean they're not influenced by society.

People in general usually want to associate themselves with things they see as being "elite", "progressive", "cutting edge", etc.

If society says pedos and bestiality is wrong. There are those who possibly feel an urge to gravitate towards the opposite of what is mainstream. Its not necessarily a case where nothing can be influenced by society via omission.

What media encourages men to find little children attractive? As well, as animals and other unsupported things such as this, what part of American society drives men to rape and molest children is my question, that so uncleverly averted? You have said that men find, thing and beautiful or physical things attractive because society taught them as much, so now when they find animals or babies attractive they are doing it simply to be different/break the mold?

Then you admit that men will and do have a choice of one of two things, "to follow" media or "go against it" -- then they indeed have a choice and individuality and you are trying to simplify it as men being simple creatures picking one of two options presented to them as opposed to breaking the mold and going with neither and liking what they please?

Riddick, what proof do you have and where do you get the idea that men will either like the standard beautiful woman or attempt to break the mold and like children and animals? Did you single-handedly ask all the pedophiles why they like kids and they answered you?

Because other-wise you are pulling excuses out of your ass.

1. What I said was the recent uptrend of people being into anal suggests human sexuality and what people find attractive is very flexible and can change almost overnight. This could be evidence that any observed behavior of men being "visually driven" is also very flexible and can change.

2. I would like to believe people aren't such simple creatures that they would take those who demand Obama show his birth certificate, seriously. But, unfortunately, reality says otherwise!

You said they were exposed to such ideas based on pron industries and such media, admitting that men get their thought-process and interests based on pornography. Let me quote yourself back to you;

"I'll give you some examples. Anal sex. It wasn't considered sexy until recently. This recent development isn't because men always found women's anuses sexy & were visually driven to that part of a woman's body. Its because there was more media coverage of in terms of porn, "

There was no uptrend in songs about anal, or in teen shows about anal, or in Disney about anal, or news stations and the like, such things are only upsurged in pron industries as you said yourself, which was you justification to why men like it -- because porn -- something most men are into -- drove them to like such a thing.

We're not talking about people here Riddick, we are specifically talking about men, but glad you admit that nearly all men are into porn and that it even molds their thought perception, opinions and interests.

1. Do cigarettes sell because men are "cigarette driven"? Bad argument from you, methinks.
2. I never said women are visually driven, although considering the amount of time some of you spend swooning over Tom Felton and other celebrities its possible a case could be made. I see nothing "sexist" about women appreciating or admiring men for their appearance.

If you had two-cents worth of knowledge in you brain, you'd know that cigarettes are composed of heavily addictive chemicals. Its a chemical reaction and has nothing to do with a preference. Like being visually driven does, because they choose what to be visually driven to.

Comparing men being visually driven to being addicted to smoke serves no purpose on your behalf, since either way whether men are forced to smoke by a chemical reaction or whether they are forced to be visually driven by media influence, they still SMOKE and they are STILL VISUALLY driven. Fail comparison on your part; methinks

Then what had you hoped to accomplish by posting that ridiculously incredulous video of yours? If not that those women were allegedly "looking" at that mans penis, arms and body, hence being visually driven?

I agree, women are visually driven, men are just more-so. Nobody has denied women being visually driven only that men are visually more driven. If you paid attention to shit said here, you would understand that.

You're implying that men being "visually driven" is something near to an absolute law just because some scientists found poll data regarding a tiny sample of men finding certain images visually stimulating.

What about the guy who claimed to have sex with more than 1,000 cars? What do you think would happen if they hooked that machine up to his brain and showed him pictures of women? There may be a decent chance that none of those pictures would turn him on.

The same with the woman who married and claims to have sex with the berlin wall. Its possible that she doesn't get turned on by people and has some type of abnormality which causes her to be attracted to inanimate objects.

Hence, those are two possible exceptions to the theory that men or people are visually driven. And, I'm sure if the scientists who did the experiment bothered to do a more thorough and investigative job of it they would see a lot more evidence the theory was false if they expanded the size and demographics scale of their polling.

I never said it was law, I said most men and more men then women maybe, but I never said it was law that they are in fact all only driven by their visuals, all I have ever said in this thread is that there are more visually driven men than women. Now you have once again made something up Riddick, as you always do; a little paranoid, eh?

What the the fucking, flying, motherfucking, fuck are you talking about, what polls? What polls are talking about, are you on glue? I never posted a poll, I only posted an expert and quote from the united nations stating that the rapes in Burma (where the Kayan women are) were alarmingly high; because you post pictures of neck rings as if that were proof men aren't VISUALLY DRIVEN, when in fact that was wrong.

But he was still visually driven to the car, ne? Like I said, just because the thing they are attracted to changes doesn't mean they aren't visually driven; if anything a guy having sex with a car -- that is INCAPABLE of emotion or intellectual anythings -- is even more proof that men are driven by what they see.

But in all honesty, this woman and that man are crazy, are you making this man the common factor to which we must hold all men up by this mans standards? A psycho who has sex with cars? Because, that's not a strong case for men...

So, two psycho's are the standards by which all sane and capable humans should uphold their expectations? Are you telling me that a guys who has sex with vehicles and masses of metal is the man you want to be compared to over simply admitting that men are driven visually? I bet the guy found shiny metal a turn on, because a show called "Strange Addictions" in America has the same case, and THAT man had sex with his car because he found its appearance visually appealing to his eyes.

Why you even brought that up as a reasonable evidence, is beyond me.

Oh also, there's no doubt whatsoever that sexuality is heavily influenced by the society we live in, both for men and women. Men tend to go for the voluptuous, aesthetically pleasing and eventually maternal woman, all feminine traits throughout human history. Women tend to go for powerful, headstrong and well respected men, all masculine traits throughout history. Not all of the feminine traits I've listed are visually based by any means.

Not to mention of course that a hell of a lot of men get off on a lot of concepts. It quite literally turns them on and it's not visual. For example, the idea of fucking your enemy's girlfriend might be arousing, regardless of how butt ugly the chick is. Well... not regardless​ but close.

Now it sounds like I have these fantasies wtf

I never denied that they are influenced by media, the only point I am making it that men are more visually driven than women are, despite whether or not what they find attractive changes depending on peers or what-not. Men, in my knowledge tend to want attractive women, naughty magazines don't feature fat or visually unpleasing women, because men aren't normally attracted to that. In the long run yes, we all eventually fall in love based on personality traits, but that doesn't change the fact that men wouldn't whistle at an over-wight woman.

I agree, men aren't always driven by visuals, but I say they are most of the time, is all. I never meant to say or imply men and all men are solely attracted to appearance only that they are more often visually driven than not.

I never meant men are incapable of otherwise loving someone based on personality traits or that sort of thing either

 

[Harlequin]

I never denied that they are influenced by media, the only point I am making it that men are more visually driven than women are, despite whether or not what they find attractive changes depending on peers or what-not. Men, in my knowledge tend to want attractive women, naughty magazines don't feature fat or visually unpleasing women, because men aren't normally attracted to that. In the long run yes, we all eventually fall in love based on personality traits, but that doesn't change the fact that men wouldn't whistle at an over-wight woman.

I agree, men aren't always driven by visuals, but I say they are most of the time, is all. I never meant to say or imply men and all men are solely attracted to appearance only that they are more often visually driven than not.

I never meant men are incapable of otherwise loving someone based on personality traits or that sort of thing either

Then it would seem I have misunderstood your post, it would seem we're on the same track here. In terms of sexual arousal visual and physical factors outweigh anything else for males. I wasn't making a comment on love by the way, only arousal and attraction.

 

[Captain Squee]

After doing my best not to teal deer most of this thread (totally got a feat of strength for that one), I had several things to say.

1] If I had a bag of jelly beans and ate one for every logical fallacy I could point right off, i would've paid about $3 at a candy shop. If I ate one for every time i laughed, snickered or made such a noise at hilarity or stupidity, I'd have eaten the rest of the bag.

2] Generalizations are exactly like stereotypes. Yes, there's fact behind them but not everyone follows them.

3] I demand that the Rainbow Coalition be represented in this. On a side note to that, I'm a man and I would rather read than watch a porno and my ability to imagine is superior to most.

4] Thanks for making me laugh; I needed it after the shit that happened recently.

At this point that number of jelly beans would have boosted you to support the entire business

Back on track...

I am minorly visually driven, but it comes with the fetish I have. It's not something I can control, if it was, I'd keep it anyway. The fact of the matter is, yes, men and women are visually driven, but you can't stereotype everyone in the same group and not get a proper grasp on potential cultural differences, which includes the gays.

I would be way WAY more interested in a woman with good personality and a complimenting set of interests that I would with a woman with good looks.

I like Beauty, which is not as simple as being pretty on the outside. Theoretically, I could also fall in love with another man with this way of choosing a partner. Though, I don't see this happening, it's possible.

Seeming to be the idea of a typical man here

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Wow, that's just plain fucking rude, can you come up with a more clever way to insult people than that or is this as far as your talents extend?

It was not meant to be clever, nor is it an insult though you certainly seem to take it as such. As for it being rude, it is in two ways but in different meanings. I did not cushion the harshness of it as there is no need to dance around it, though referring to it as 'Electric Boogaloo" may be discourteous. What it was was a pointing out of her inability in said RP to not understand a basic statement of saying that I will use an idea and make a character for said RP with aforementioned idea and instead take from it "I Quit." The gross misinterpretation of the statement by her has led me to question her basic functionality in the English language and thusly, I sidestep her comments and accusation's points for a lack of desire to parse her words for their true meaning.