Something About Sex.

[Squid]

Wtf does it even matter wow. That was like literally a year ago.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

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.

A. They could've easily been paid? The men in any study relating to men being visually driven could've been paid.
B. If you're standing and a woman with a plunging neckline is sitting in front of you..... its impossible to look at her without seeing her b00bs. Irrelevent.
C. What means of the study?

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

What's un-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.

What 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.

Why are they not genuine?

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?

Why not take it seriously?

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?

There are many different reasons and motivations for why people do things.

Suggesting there can only be one reason is oft indicative of someone forcing context.

My attempt at a point was different cultures and civilizations have different concepts of what traits are physically appealing.

This is one reason why its not necessarily accurate to judge men as being "visually driven". Everyone is different.

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.

How do you know there's nothing emotional about it?

Beauty can be a vague term.

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

1. Some women watch porn and enjoy it. There are women who became porn stars the second they turned 18 due to them being into watching porn when they were 14-16 and always wanting to be involved with it.

2. How would you know why men do anything? Unless you would presume to be a telepath or psychic, I would wonder what you base your views on.

3. Do you have evidence or an argument that shows men aren't turned on by the idea or concept of something?

4. As said, some cultures and civilizations believe fat women are more beautiful & sexually enticing than skinny women.

5. I just did a search for "bbw porn" and there is a lot of it. It appears fat women ARE RECRUITED for those roles.

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.

1. Why is there "not" a thought process involved in porn?

2. As I said earlier, it has been shown that reading stimulates the visual cortex area of the brain.

3. Even if pornography was pre-dominantly male gendered and romance novels pre-dominantly female gendered. That doesn't explain why such is the case.

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.

If you can't explain why or how men are "visually driven" how do you know they are?

Accepting the idea that something is true without understanding or verifying it = extremely bad science.

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.

1. If you care about accuracy and drawing conclusions that are true, it matters.

2. I never agreed men are visually driven. I said that SOME men MIGHT be indoctrinated into the idea that appearances and materialism are somewhat important in terms of sex, etc. Never agreed within the context you imply it.

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.

It does matter!

If viewing people from a materialism is a trait learned from society, saying men are visually driven is incorrect.

It would be more accurate to say that men are indoctrinated into a materialisic point of view.

"Men are visually driven" would only be correct if it were a default / genetic predisposition.

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.

Non sequitor.

1. You're stating your opinion that people are "visually driven" as if it were a proven scientific fact. Its not.

2. Suggesting that visual attraction is the only motivation behind someone being attracted to something is pretending there is only one possible reason for it. That is forcing context and usually indicative of someone attempting to twist and manipulate things to suit their own pre-conceptions and beliefs.

No one teaches them to be visually stimulated, only WHAT to be visually stimulated by.

How do you know?

Make a case, plz.

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.

1. What's "different" about it & why should it be considered a bad example? State reasons, plz.

2. Why is it wrong to say that media, culture and society play a large role in what people find attractive? Back up your statement, plz.

3. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with the idea homosexuals can't be born from heteros.

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?

There's evidence that women are sexually attracted to men who are most genetically disparate from them. If you don't believe me, do a search for articles about how birth control pills cause a reversal of what women are naturally attracted to.

The same may be true of men, and visuals aren't necessarily the main, underlying cause of it.

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.

Yes, it does matter as its necessary to classify the assumed behavior as being A) learned B) biologically pre-disposed.

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.

1. It looks like you're forcing context / twisting things. I never implied that anything I said constituted the only reason for something. I neve said that cultural influence was the only reason a person could be attracted to someone.

2. You however do seem to imply "visual attraction" is the only reason a person could be attracted to someone. And so, everything you said there in terms of rapists being "visually driven to go after women wearing skimpy clothes" might apply to your views. -shrug-

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.

Collecting a small sample of men and testing their response to images of things is the equivalent of collecting a small sample of who people are voting for in the next election. Its. A. Poll. If they test 5-10 men out of a population of billions does that necessarily lend itself to a high degree of accuracy? Think about it.

Considering you seem unaware that it is a poll format suggests perhaps you're not completely aware of the details present.

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. I never implied societal or cultural influences were the only variables present or the only influences.
2. There could be any number of reasons why there are pedos and MLP fans that have nothing to do with cultural influence, and it wouldn't contradict what I said as I never claimed societal influence was the only cause.

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. Ok, some men are attracted to skinny women (bright feathers) and others are attracted to obese women (dull feathers). This may be evidence that what people find attractive isn't completely genetically pre-disposed. Learned behavior and influences may play a large role.

2. Uh, like I said, experts generally have a consensus that rape is about power and control. Its about someone wanting to dominate others and throw a power trip. Its not necessarily about attraction or sex.

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.

1. This isn't an empirical science area. What we know is extremely limited and often speculation is the best that can be hoped for.

2. No, I didn't compare homosexuality to a mental disorder.

3. I didn't compare anyone to birds or fruit flies, needlessly nor pointlessly. Its called an analogy & it was fitting if poorly understood.

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.

The point was men being "visually driven" makes about as much sense as women being "wallet driven".

There is probably close to the same amount of evidence for both.

Also, considering plenty of attractive men date or marry women who might be considered ugly, unattractive or less attractive than they could get, why should men be considered "visually driven" at all?

There are plenty of other aspects to people and relationships in terms of what people consider important or sexy, and appearances and visual concerns aren't necessarily the most important.

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.

I think I already answered this above.

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.

There could be countless reasons why men watch porn and women don't that have absolutely nothing with people being visually driven.

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.

Heh.

Still, even if cigarettes or nicotine is chemically addictive, a person choosing to engage or partake of something isn't evidence that they are predisposed towards doing so. Its not necessarily legit to remove free will from the equation or assume its due to some materialistic or otherwise pre-disposed notion.

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.

You got this one. I'm not going to bother trying to answer......

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

1. Men wanting attractive women makes them "visually driven"? Don't women want attractive men also? /Double standard.
2. I already said multiple times men in some countries want obese women.
3. Tumblr is a visually driven website. Most of its users are female gendered. Does this mean girls are visually driven?
4. Girls swoon over Tom Felton and Justin Bieber and talk about how they want to have their babies far more than men do the opposite. Does this mean girls are visually driven?
5. I'm glad you can admit some men aren't all about looks.

.
.
.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

I think it bears mentioning that most studies offer compensation of some sort for your participation. Not always money but usually that's what it is. After all, how do you think random drug trials work? People volunteer, get paid, and take the medication to test them. Course they sign a contract and waiver but that's required.

And if you go by the DSM-III, homosexuality is a mental disorder. Of course they took that out with the DSM-IV. Good people-they figured it out sooner than the christians.

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

what does that have to do at all with whether or not men are visually driven?

 

[Saints&Storms]

Riddick, Stop trying to put words in my mouth, I already said not all men are visually driven nor did I say all they are driven by is visuals, I never said that; accusing me of otherwise is just simply wrong. xD

A. They could've easily been paid? The men in any study relating to men being visually driven could've been paid.
B. If you're standing and a woman with a plunging neckline is sitting in front of you..... its impossible to look at her without seeing her b00bs. Irrelevent.
C. What means of the study?

Everyone, but namely -- those women could have been paid to take part in that video, they could have been friends of those guys, they could have pre-agreed to take part it that "experiment", Riddick -- not the men. You aren't that dumb, come now.

No, its not "impossible" Riddick, I wear plunging necklines around my father and brothers; they don't oggle at my tit, I assure you this -- its called restraint and "non-interest", hun. I mean somehow a man thrusting his pelvis in that woman's face was "evidence" of her eying his penis; but when a man looks at her tits; "ohnoes itz cuz the plunging neckline". The bullshit keeps coming one after another from you.

The means by which; it is not and was not conducted professionally. Nor have you so far brought reason as to WHY we should take it seriously; else my Alien video is just as valid.

So, once more here we go; Why should we take your unprofessional video, with less than no proof of authenticity, seriously? What proves the women were not per-coerced or agreed to participate?

What's un-authentic about it?

Everything. From, the red stop-motion down to the fact that you keep dicking around my question.

What editing?

The red stop-motion/freeze-frame.

Why are they not genuine?

Because you brought said "proof" here, now burden of proof as to why it IS genuine falls on you.

Why not take it seriously?

Nothing proves or insinuates that those people ghave not pre-agreed to participate or that the entire video was not staged.

What proves that my Alien video from before isn't genuine? Because there's no proof that that was a real Alien aside from the bogus video, to which anyone could lie about.

Suggesting there can only be one reason is oft indicative of someone forcing context.

My attempt at a point was different cultures and civilizations have different concepts of what traits are physically appealing.

This is one reason why its not necessarily accurate to judge men as being "visually driven". Everyone is different.

Riddick read what you yourself have just said; you have once again admitted that ONLY the traits and such change; NOT the fact that they are visually driven. Do you understand that a physical trait can only be appealing to the eye? And that that in and of itself is "VISUAL DRIVE"?

To find something "physically appealing" means you SEE it as such, if you SEE said thing as PHYSICALLY APPEALING, you are indeed and henceforth; being VISUALLY DRIVEN.

The "TRAITS" that they find Physically Appealing MAY be diffferent; but they STILL find them attractive because they are VISUALLY finding said PHYSICAL traits "APPEALING."

WHAT men are visually driven to is the only interchangeable variable here, Riddick, not the mere FACT that they ARE visually driven. JUST because what they "like" changes, doesn't mean the fact that they like how it looks changes as well.

THE ONLY thing that changes here is WHAT THEY FIND ATTRACTIVE.

How do you know there's nothing emotional about it?

Oh, now being visually driven is emotional as well?

Guys check out women because we're visually driven. That's why 99.999999% of porn is geared toward men. .

Both points you made are untrue, btw.

Are you saying that being visually driven (to the neck rings [because that IS a PHYSICAL TRIBUTE [THAT THOSE KAYAN MEN FIND VISUALLY DRIVING]]) is emotional, Riddick? And in turn; you have, by your own admission; implied that men aren't attracted to emotional aspects?

I have to say you flip flop more often than not.

Beauty can be a vague term.

"concept of Beauty" is what I said; "concept" being the key word here.

1. Some women watch porn and enjoy it. There are women who became porn stars the second they turned 18 due to them being into watching porn when they were 14-16 and always wanting to be involved with it.

Key word being; SOME. You have just admitted yourself; its only "some" women. When all I have been saying is its "MOST" men who watch porn.

2. How would you know why men do anything? Unless you would presume to be a telepath or psychic, I would wonder what you base your views on.

I don't presume to know why men do some things. Like I have been saying; men in various cultures have perpetuated that sad fact that women must mutate themselves PHYSICALLY to appeal to their visuals.

I base my "views" on cultures where men strongly are visually driven, whether its Saudi Arabia where women MUST cover themselves foir the sake of MEN, cultures like the Kayan women who mutate themselves for MEN, Pron industries that are aimed at MEN, PLAY BOY MAGAZINES sales that are for MEN, RAPE statistics by MEN around the world or even what you have said

Spoiler

Which of the following are evidence men are "visually driven"?:

(Was it a custom whereby women placed increasing numbers of metal rings round their necks to elongate them?)

(The custom whereby women traditionally place extremely large plugs through their ears?)

(Or, was it the custom of gradually bending a woman's feet until the bone's in them broke and their feet looked like this?)

All of these things were considered "beautiful" and "appealing" to the men of certain cultures in certain eras & they were all things women adhered to and followed to please their men.

Even the three examples of what men find "beutiful" posted by YOU; were ALL visual and physical.

3. Do you have evidence or an argument that shows men aren't turned on by the idea or concept of something?

Hrm, never said they AREN'T, only said they are MORE VISUALLY DRIVEN THAN WOMEN, what are you missing here?

Let me point you to what I said to Tom before, or are you blind?

4. As said, some cultures and civilizations believe fat women are more beautiful & sexually enticing than skinny women.

5. I just did a search for "bbw porn" and there is a lot of it. It appears fat women ARE RECRUITED for those roles.

I don't even know what "bbw" porn is but YOU sure appear to know...

All I implied was that the majority of women recruited for Porn, is thin, big breasted and blonde women. I never implied fat women are never in porn. I have been saying this whole time "being fat" is another visually driving thing men like sometimes.

Is there some sort of "emotional" porn Riddick? Because "being fat" is yet another proof of what men are "visually driven" toward. Because that's another APPEARANCE men find VISUALLY attractive.

1. Why is there "not" a thought process involved in porn?

Cheap stories, no clever plot; more sex than dialogue that sort of thin; WATCHING two people have sex, isn't really something that stimulates a deep thought, Riddick. Its, VISUAL, maybe reading a book could change that.

2. As I said earlier, it has been shown that reading stimulates the visual cortex area of the brain.

Because you SEE words, are you kidding me? When you READ Riddick, you see text; so yes it is "visual" but you aren't SEEING a physical trait to be attracted to, there for it is not SKIN-DEEP like watchging PRON.

Fucking hell...

3. Even if pornography was pre-dominantly male gendered and romance novels pre-dominantly female gendered. That doesn't explain why such is the case.

You are visually watching a PHYSICAL attracting take place in PORN. You are reading and imagining an attraction, MENTALLY with a book.

If you can't explain why or how men are "visually driven" how do you know they are?

I never said I can't explain it. ONLY that its DOES. NOT. MATTER. WHY. OR. WHAT.


I can and HAVE explained how as well as WHY men are physically "visually driven", because even you admit that cultures of MEN force women to adhere to what they find physically attractive, to the eye.

Accepting the idea that something is true without understanding or verifying it = extremely bad science.

I know what you say here would be bad science, hence why I never said "I don't know why they are", only that it does not matter.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I know why men are more visually driven; to drive them to procreate. Hence the scientific reason.

1. If you care about accuracy and drawing conclusions that are true, it matters

Drawing conclusions isn't the important matter at hand here; only that fact that you claim it's "false" to imply men are visually driven. Which is wrong.

2. I never agreed men are visually driven. I said that SOME men MIGHT be indoctrinated into the idea that appearances and materialism are somewhat important in terms of sex, etc. Never agreed within the context you imply it.

Yes you did.

3. Therefore, men are not "visually driven" in a genetic or biological way. Bell-bottoms are sexy for a few decades, then something else is sexy and something else. It constantly changes and a person's conception of what is sexy has more to do with environment, upbringing and indoctrination moreso than anything else.

You have only pissed and moaned that "it because so and so" that they are visually driven A.K.A "find something sexy". To find something sexy is appearance, especially when referencing physical attributes such as "clothing".

Henceforth; you have admitted it.

It does matter!

If viewing people from a materialism is a trait learned from society, saying men are visually driven is incorrect.

It would be more accurate to say that men are indoctrinated into a materialisic point of view.

Said men, are still visually driven; why it is so doesn't change the fact that "men are visually driven" still. I am not interested in why, because dissecting "who or what made these men visually driven" does not interfere with the FACT that they are visually driven.

Think of it this way Riddick; since I have to water it down for you -- Wondering WHY the universe was created or how; does not change the fact that The Universe is HERE. The Universe will still be here and it will still exist.

"Men are visually driven" would only be correct if it were a default / genetic predisposition

False. View the above. Why something is, does not change the fact that said thing simply IS. Why we have bones does not change or alter simply, because you have questioned why we have them.

1. You're stating your opinion that people are "visually driven" as if it were a proven scientific fact. Its not.

You seem to be confused, I am simply stating that most men are as well as a larger percentage of people at all, not all.

You have once again put words where they never existed.

2. Suggesting that visual attraction is the only motivation behind someone being attracted to something is pretending there is only one possible reason for it. That is forcing context and usually indicative of someone attempting to twist and manipulate things to suit their own pre-conceptions and beliefs.

Hmm, you once again, ignored my question as per usual; let me post it again for you -- You said MEDIA and PEERS are to blame for the preconception that "beauty" is physical my question is; Are you prepared to explain who or how these Pedophilia/Bestiality were taught and/or forced onto certain people/men as the thing they should be visually driven by?

I never said the it was the "ONLY REASON", only that it is still a visually and physical attraction and reason. The topic and original theme of this thread it "Men are more visually driven" not "WHY ARE MEN VISUALLY DRIVEN".

You seem to be confused here about this.

How do you know?

Make a case, plz.

Did you just answer MY QUESTION, with a QUESTION? Because, Riddick I already ASKED YOU; Are you prepared to explain who or how these Pedophilia/Bestiality were taught and/or forced onto certain people/men as the thing they should be visually driven by? This is the case.

You claim that men are "only visually driven because MEDIA/PEERS" and I asked you the above, now answer my question and this time not with a question.

1. What's "different" about it & why should it be considered a bad example? State reasons, plz.

Heres a few for you;

Politics have not been around since the dawn of time as has the physical attraction between two people.

Politics is man made.

We did not have politics as hominids.

2. Why is it wrong to say that media, culture and society play a large role in what people find attractive? Back up your statement, plz.

I already have, its wrong because it doesn't change the fact that "said man" or even said person is still visually driven as well as to says such is to imply that going with society or going against it are the only two options a human has, which is false.

Spell "please" correctly; if you would like to be taken seriously.

3. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with the idea homosexuals can't be born from heteros.

Yes it does. To imply that men are only molded by Media or what their Peers tell them to do/or not to do; is to imply that its impossible that a Straight man/woman raising a son, perhaps rose a Homosexual son, all he's ever been pre-exposed to was Heterosexual life, by his peers; as opposed to a homosexual life, let alone the fact that perhaps they never even told him about a possibility of being "Gay".

Saying that is like saying loving the same sex is solely a man made concept. Which is wrong.

There's evidence that women are sexually attracted to men who are most genetically disparate from them. If you don't believe me, do a search for articles about how birth control pills cause a reversal of what women are naturally attracted to.

The same may be true of men, and visuals aren't necessarily the main, underlying cause of it.

Thats still a reason "why" they are driven to them visually. Which is not what we're discussing here; we are discussing WHETHER OR NOT MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN, get back on topic Riddick. Because you originally told Insanity Wolf that "its false" to say men are Visually Driven. Which is what I am disproving as of now.

Yes, it does matter as its necessary to classify the assumed behavior as being A) learned B) biologically pre-disposed.

Whether is a learned behavior or a genetically pre-disposed behavior; they are STILL visually drive at the end of the day.

We aren't trying to discover WHY men are visually driven only WHETHER or not they are, which you have repeatedly admitted; THEY ARE.

1. It looks like you're forcing context / twisting things. I never implied that anything I said constituted the only reason for something. I neve said that cultural influence was the only reason a person could be attracted to someone.

"3. Therefore, men are not "visually driven" in a genetic or biological way. Bell-bottoms are sexy for a few decades, then something else is sexy and something else. It constantly changes and a person's conception of what is sexy has more to do with environment, upbringing and indoctrination moreso than anything else."

moreso than anything else.

moreso than anything else.



This is what you said; you said those factors were what being visually driven had to do with "Moreso than anything else", and now you are trying to back pedal; first its "moreso than anything else" now its "I never said its the only reason".

Make up your mind please

Its a process of elimination going on here and the words "moreso than anythign else" was you attempting to eliminate. Hence meaning, you left it as the "only reason"

2. You however do seem to imply "visual attraction" is the only reason a person could be attracted to someone. And so, everything you said there in terms of rapists being "visually driven to go after women wearing skimpy clothes" might apply to your views. -shrug-

What the fuck did I just say in my last post?

What I said was, simply that men are more visually driven than women, then I told Tom/Harlequin that;

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. ~ what the fuck I just said.

Collecting a small sample of men and testing their response to images of things is the equivalent of collecting a small sample of who people are voting for in the next election. Its. A. Poll. If they test 5-10 men out of a population of billions does that necessarily lend itself to a high degree of accuracy? Think about it.

I.NEVER.POSTED.A.POLL.

1. I never implied societal or cultural influences were the only variables present or the only influences.
2. There could be any number of reasons why there are pedos and MLP fans that have nothing to do with cultural influence, and it wouldn't contradict what I said as I never claimed societal influence was the only cause.

Now you are juts plain lying

"3. Therefore, men are not "visually driven" in a genetic or biological way. Bell-bottoms are sexy for a few decades, then something else is sexy and something else. It constantly changes and a person's conception of what is sexy has more to do with environment, upbringing and indoctrination moreso than anything else."

moreso than anything else.

moreso than anything

1. Ok, some men are attracted to skinny women (bright feathers) and others are attracted to obese women (dull feathers). This may be evidence that what people find attractive isn't completely genetically pre-disposed. Learned behavior and influences may play a large role.

2. Uh, like I said, experts generally have a consensus that rape is about power and control. Its about someone wanting to dominate others and throw a power trip. Its not necessarily about attraction or sex.

Uhh. T-t-t-today junior.

Didn't these experts conduct such studies on "a select few or group", which is the same a poll? B-but, Riddick, Polls are bad remember?

Collecting a small sample of men and testing their response to images of things is the equivalent of collecting a small sample of who people are voting for in the next election. Its. A. Poll. If they test 5-10 men out of a population of billions does that necessarily lend itself to a high degree of accuracy? Think about it.

1. This isn't an empirical science area. What we know is extremely limited and often speculation is the best that can be hoped for.

"Accepting the idea that something is true without understanding or verifying it = extremely bad science."

;is what you said. Its getting too easy to find you contradict yourself.

2. No, I didn't compare homosexuality to a mental disorder. <(then why suddenly bring Autism into the discussion along-side homosexuality?)

3. I didn't compare anyone to birds or fruit flies, needlessly nor pointlessly. Its called an analogy & it was fitting if poorly understood.

Humans are not analogous with bugs and animals.

The point was men being "visually driven" makes about as much sense as women being "wallet driven".

There is probably close to the same amount of evidence for both.

False.

You, yourself, posted three examples of Beauty to men in different cultures all of which were a physical attributes, to be seen visually.

Also, considering plenty of attractive men date or marry women who might be considered ugly, unattractive or less attractive than they could get, why should men be considered "visually driven" at all?

They are considered "ugly" to YOU or OTHER MEN maybe; but perhaps that man who married her finds her attractive; which is still a visually influenced attraction.

You're the one who said MEDIA/PEERS are to blame for men being visually driven. Hence you already said they are. Why they have to be or are does not change the fact that they are indeed visually driven.

There are plenty of other aspects to people and relationships in terms of what people consider important or sexy, and appearances and visual concerns aren't necessarily the most important.

I already said that visuals aren't of course the ONLY reason for men loving a woman/man, I have said such to Harlequin/Tom.

You are hence forth, blowing hot air, by saying this.

I think I already answered this above.

No, you have not. I have indeed proven that YOU DID say media is the only/moreso than anything else the reason for men being encouraged/forced to be visually driven. Now answer the question.

Originally Posted by I s h t a r

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.

There could be countless reasons why men watch porn and women don't that have absolutely nothing with people being visually driven.

False, then why not read a book about the subject instead? Because they need and want to SEE it.

Heh.

Still, even if cigarettes or nicotine is chemically addictive, a person choosing to engage or partake of something isn't evidence that they are predisposed towards doing so. Its not necessarily legit to remove free will from the equation or assume its due to some materialistic or otherwise pre-disposed notion.

The first smoke is a choice, the rest is an addiction. Whether or not this is the same to being visually driven (whether men choose to be or not) DOESN'T MATTER, they are still visually driven/smoking. The ENDGAME is the same.

Riddick YOU are the only one who implied men have TWO CHOICES and not FREE will; you said they either live in the mold or break it. Not my words yours.

I never said anything you have just regurgitated here. So posting it was pointless. I never said it was pre-disposed nor did I take free-will from the equation. You did.

You got this one. I'm not going to bother trying to answer......

1. Men wanting attractive women makes them "visually driven"? Don't women want attractive men also? /Double standard.
2. I already said multiple times men in some countries want obese women.
3. Tumblr is a visually driven website. Most of its users are female gendered. Does this mean girls are visually driven?
4. Girls swoon over Tom Felton and Justin Bieber and talk about how they want to have their babies far more than men do the opposite. Does this mean girls are visually driven?
5. I'm glad you can admit some men aren't all about looks.

.
.
.

1. Here's where you have been FAILING this entire time, YOU said "Men being visually driven" was FALSE; my goal here was to dispel your misconception. Because you were wrong Riddick. You have been wrong this whole entire time.

I never once said Women WEREN'T visually driven, only that A. YES, MEN ARE VISUALLY DRIVEN and B. THEY ARE MORE VISUALLY DRIVEN THAN WOMEN.

You couldn't even grasp this.

2.

Then you have thus admitted defeat, because in your first post; you said "Men being visually driven" was false/untrue. Which was false. Because said men find "obesity" physically appealing; A.K.A Visually driving.

3. Assuming this is correct for shits and giggles; Say it is driven more by women; how does this combat the fact that Men are more visually driven, if there are less men on Tumblr? Dumb statement is dumb.

4. Wanting babies...is visually driven? Its physically driven but not necessarily visually, creating a family is endearing.

5. Already been stated.


What exactly are you trying to prove Riddick? Because you have been seeking the approval that women are visually driven when no one said they are not, only that men ARE MORE visually driven.

Even I am visually driven at times; I won't lie about that

Just the other day I saw a DILF who looked like a mix of Gerard Butler and Jeremy Renner, he was hot.

All that's been said is more men are more visually driven.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Welp, I've said between 65% - 85% of everything I wanted to say on this.

I'm done here!

Feel free to disagree...

I don't think there's much progress to be made on this topic & so I'll do us both a big favor & not bother replying unless you REALLY want me to.

Peace in the middle east~

 

[Saints&Storms]

Peace in the middle east~

What does this mean right here, just wondering...?

 

[Richard B Riddick]

What does this mean right here, just wondering...?

Its like when someone says..

"Have a good one"........ "have a nice day"..........

It doesn't really mean anything...

I just say it sometimes because..........

A. I wish there really were peace in the middle east.
B. Its an ironic statement & kind of funny considering how impossible it seems.

 

[Saints&Storms]

Its like when someone says..

"Have a good one"........ "have a nice day"..........

It doesn't really mean anything...

I just say it sometimes because..........

A. I wish there really were peace in the middle east.
B. Its an ironic statement & kind of funny considering how impossible it seems.

It just seemed oddly specific to me

 

[Richard B Riddick]

It just seemed oddly specific to me

Noope.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Don't teal deer posts Pooley. You might realize that a post has significance then.

 

[Dionysos]

Try and avoid the back and forth and off-topic chitter-chatter.

If you want to discuss your methods of posting or the uses of phrases with one another then do so via VM or PM, or in the SB.

Once more about the memes. This isn't 4chan or the spam section. It's disrespectful and is likely only to make people angrier and more determined to lock antlers. I know that respect and harmony is not necessarily sought by a lot of people, but this is not pleasant viewing at all and it looks bad on the forum.