Do looks make a big difference for us?

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: USA

27 Jan 2018, 10:01 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ the reddit guy’s argument was strong because he provided visual evidences, why do you want to be blind by believing a fake history(faked by an agenda) and bury your head in sand instead?

Check all paints and arts from ancient green, all women despicted were NOT obese.

ALL women in anicent Egypt arts were NOT obese.

Women in ancient Chinese paints were NOT obese.

Most women in Medieval paints were NOT obese.

These arts and statues are real reflections of these ancient civilizations.

Both books include pictures as well since that's your standard. :roll:
And you're creating a strawman since I never argued those representations didn't exist. They certainly do, but you can't deny there were fat women depicted in art either, well you could, but you'd have to deny every fertility goddess and claim Peter Paul Rubens never existed. 2nd, the ancients rarely depicted women outside of fertility gods, most representations were actually male, it's ~5 to 1 in ancient Greece. Also of note, your 'sexuality is purely biology' argument completely glosses over those cultural aesthetics and changes in them over time. Example: look at the few ancient Greek statues left and notice the male's penis is actually very small. That's because aesthetically the Greeks viewed a small penis as preferential to a large one. They also have larger shoulders/chest and smaller quad muscles than normal if we're looking at proportions, they also had rounder faces than the pronounced jawlines of today. Those were what were aesthetically pleasing to the Greeks, that's sexually what they wanted in males, and it has nothing to do with biology but their culture. As for bias of the two works I presented you, sure there's bias because there's bias in everything, but those two works have a hell of lot less bias than you're going to find on a reddit post with no peer review, editing, and to be honest logic.



Again, you’re too baised on many levels.

First of all, penises of ancient Greek statuses are not “very small” medically wise, they are of natural sizes, they are “small” because they are in flaccid state!! *facepalm”.
They are of normal size for Mediterranean population (who tend to have “grower” penises, meaning small as flaccid but about 3x bigger as erected) - 80% of males worldwide are growers.

Flaccid penises tend to be much smaller than their erected state, and those statues were not about sex.

And the shape of their faces don’t look that different than greek guys today. Of course they would look different to you. Hello? They were Greeks, not Americans.

But obviously your brain is too used to porn where males are always depicted as fully erected and big 100% of the time. Nude art is not porn.

Secondly, take a look at Priapus, the ancient Greek god of fertility, and at Satyr, a greek mythological species known for high sex drive. Check their statues and tell me if you think they have small penises.

Not every thing written in a some book must be true, which may be written by some biased author who may influenced by a certain agenda (ie. feminist agenda)- do some critical thinking yourself beyond books based on tangible evidences.

There's no use communicating with you, you're so set in your biases and refuse to even acknowledge evidence outside your comfort zone that there's nothing to be gained here. I don't concede this argument in any way shape or fashion, merely moving on because it's not worth my time.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,058
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

27 Jan 2018, 11:45 am

Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ the reddit guy’s argument was strong because he provided visual evidences, why do you want to be blind by believing a fake history(faked by an agenda) and bury your head in sand instead?

Check all paints and arts from ancient green, all women despicted were NOT obese.

ALL women in anicent Egypt arts were NOT obese.

Women in ancient Chinese paints were NOT obese.

Most women in Medieval paints were NOT obese.

These arts and statues are real reflections of these ancient civilizations.

Both books include pictures as well since that's your standard. :roll:
And you're creating a strawman since I never argued those representations didn't exist. They certainly do, but you can't deny there were fat women depicted in art either, well you could, but you'd have to deny every fertility goddess and claim Peter Paul Rubens never existed. 2nd, the ancients rarely depicted women outside of fertility gods, most representations were actually male, it's ~5 to 1 in ancient Greece. Also of note, your 'sexuality is purely biology' argument completely glosses over those cultural aesthetics and changes in them over time. Example: look at the few ancient Greek statues left and notice the male's penis is actually very small. That's because aesthetically the Greeks viewed a small penis as preferential to a large one. They also have larger shoulders/chest and smaller quad muscles than normal if we're looking at proportions, they also had rounder faces than the pronounced jawlines of today. Those were what were aesthetically pleasing to the Greeks, that's sexually what they wanted in males, and it has nothing to do with biology but their culture. As for bias of the two works I presented you, sure there's bias because there's bias in everything, but those two works have a hell of lot less bias than you're going to find on a reddit post with no peer review, editing, and to be honest logic.



Again, you’re too baised on many levels.

First of all, penises of ancient Greek statuses are not “very small” medically wise, they are of natural sizes, they are “small” because they are in flaccid state!! *facepalm”.
They are of normal size for Mediterranean population (who tend to have “grower” penises, meaning small as flaccid but about 3x bigger as erected) - 80% of males worldwide are growers.

Flaccid penises tend to be much smaller than their erected state, and those statues were not about sex.

And the shape of their faces don’t look that different than greek guys today. Of course they would look different to you. Hello? They were Greeks, not Americans.

But obviously your brain is too used to porn where males are always depicted as fully erected and big 100% of the time. Nude art is not porn.

Secondly, take a look at Priapus, the ancient Greek god of fertility, and at Satyr, a greek mythological species known for high sex drive. Check their statues and tell me if you think they have small penises.

Not every thing written in a some book must be true, which may be written by some biased author who may influenced by a certain agenda (ie. feminist agenda)- do some critical thinking yourself beyond books based on tangible evidences.

There's no use communicating with you, you're so set in your biases and refuse to even acknowledge evidence outside your comfort zone that there's nothing to be gained here. I don't concede this argument in any way shape or fashion, merely moving on because it's not worth my time.



You are withdrawing because my argument simply defeats your claim on logical basis.

You claimed that penises of ancient statues were "very small" because small penis was seen as attractive in the ancient Greece.

I simply prove it to you that this claim of yours is false because

1) The penises of the statues are of natural size, and you perceived them as small because they're in flaccid state.

2) If "small penis" was really seen as attractive and masculine in Ancient Greece, then why Priapus, the god of FERTILITY had an enormous penis? It doesn't add up at all with your claim. Why Satyrs were depicted with big penises? Obviously the penis 'size' (state) differed by context in ancient Greece.

3) Also your claim that "They also have larger shoulders/chest and smaller quad muscles" and "they also had rounder faces than the pronounced jawlines of today" is also false and obviously you're not taking into consideration that the Greek physical characteristics simply differ from what you're used to - they certainly didn't look like Brad Pit in Troy movie.

Geek guys today do have such characteristics:


Image

Image

Image



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: USA

27 Jan 2018, 11:50 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
^ the reddit guy’s argument was strong because he provided visual evidences, why do you want to be blind by believing a fake history(faked by an agenda) and bury your head in sand instead?

Check all paints and arts from ancient green, all women despicted were NOT obese.

ALL women in anicent Egypt arts were NOT obese.

Women in ancient Chinese paints were NOT obese.

Most women in Medieval paints were NOT obese.

These arts and statues are real reflections of these ancient civilizations.

Both books include pictures as well since that's your standard. :roll:
And you're creating a strawman since I never argued those representations didn't exist. They certainly do, but you can't deny there were fat women depicted in art either, well you could, but you'd have to deny every fertility goddess and claim Peter Paul Rubens never existed. 2nd, the ancients rarely depicted women outside of fertility gods, most representations were actually male, it's ~5 to 1 in ancient Greece. Also of note, your 'sexuality is purely biology' argument completely glosses over those cultural aesthetics and changes in them over time. Example: look at the few ancient Greek statues left and notice the male's penis is actually very small. That's because aesthetically the Greeks viewed a small penis as preferential to a large one. They also have larger shoulders/chest and smaller quad muscles than normal if we're looking at proportions, they also had rounder faces than the pronounced jawlines of today. Those were what were aesthetically pleasing to the Greeks, that's sexually what they wanted in males, and it has nothing to do with biology but their culture. As for bias of the two works I presented you, sure there's bias because there's bias in everything, but those two works have a hell of lot less bias than you're going to find on a reddit post with no peer review, editing, and to be honest logic.



Again, you’re too baised on many levels.

First of all, penises of ancient Greek statuses are not “very small” medically wise, they are of natural sizes, they are “small” because they are in flaccid state!! *facepalm”.
They are of normal size for Mediterranean population (who tend to have “grower” penises, meaning small as flaccid but about 3x bigger as erected) - 80% of males worldwide are growers.

Flaccid penises tend to be much smaller than their erected state, and those statues were not about sex.

And the shape of their faces don’t look that different than greek guys today. Of course they would look different to you. Hello? They were Greeks, not Americans.

But obviously your brain is too used to porn where males are always depicted as fully erected and big 100% of the time. Nude art is not porn.

Secondly, take a look at Priapus, the ancient Greek god of fertility, and at Satyr, a greek mythological species known for high sex drive. Check their statues and tell me if you think they have small penises.

Not every thing written in a some book must be true, which may be written by some biased author who may influenced by a certain agenda (ie. feminist agenda)- do some critical thinking yourself beyond books based on tangible evidences.

There's no use communicating with you, you're so set in your biases and refuse to even acknowledge evidence outside your comfort zone that there's nothing to be gained here. I don't concede this argument in any way shape or fashion, merely moving on because it's not worth my time.



You are withdrawing because my argument simply defeats your claim on logical basis.

You claimed that penises of ancient statues were "very small" because small penis was seen as attractive in the ancient Greece.

I simply prove it to you that this claim of yours is false because

1) The penises of the statues are of natural size, and you perceived them as small because they're in flaccid state.

2) If "small penis" was really seen as attractive and masculine in Ancient Greece, then why Priapus, the god of FERTILITY had an enormous penis? It doesn't add up at all with your claim. Why Satyrs were depicted with big penises? Obviously the penis 'size' (state) differed by context in ancient Greece.

3) Also your claim that "They also have larger shoulders/chest and smaller quad muscles" and "they also had rounder faces than the pronounced jawlines of today" is also false and obviously you're not taking into consideration that the Greek physical characteristics simply differ from what you're used to - they certainly didn't look like Brad Pit in Troy movie.

Geek guys today do have such characteristics:


Image

Image

Image




The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,058
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

27 Jan 2018, 12:01 pm

^^



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,547
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 Jan 2018, 12:18 pm

Closet Genious wrote:
Believing that beauty is somehow socially constructed, is pretty damn ridiculous.


I agree, to a point.

I believe there are universal beauty standards, but culture still has the power to influence people. Our biology demands that we be able to assimilate and adapt to our surroundings. That's why, for example, certain African tribes consider elongated necks to be "beautiful."


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (moderator)


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,546
Location: USA

27 Jan 2018, 1:04 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
Closet Genious wrote:
Believing that beauty is somehow socially constructed, is pretty damn ridiculous.


I agree, to a point.

I believe there are universal beauty standards, but culture still has the power to influence people. Our biology demands that we be able to assimilate and adapt to our surroundings. That's why, for example, certain African tribes consider elongated necks to be "beautiful."

Which also brings up another conundrum for biological only based standards of attractiveness: which skin color does biology favor? Color is one of the first things people tend to notice, it's a physical trait, and yet there's no explanation in the biology-only based theory that can describe why people tend to date people of their own color (yes, there are interracial relationships, not denying that, but they're still the anomaly and not the norm).



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,480
Location: Adelaide, Australia

27 Jan 2018, 5:20 pm

What's so bad about social constructs anyway? Driving on the same side of the road as everyone else is a social construct but that doesn't make it a bad idea. Why do some people use the term 'social construct' to describe things they don't like?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


NorthWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 517
Location: Europe (but not UK)

28 Jan 2018, 3:41 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Which also brings up another conundrum for biological only based standards of attractiveness: which skin color does biology favor? Color is one of the first things people tend to notice, it's a physical trait, and yet there's no explanation in the biology-only based theory that can describe why people tend to date people of their own color (yes, there are interracial relationships, not denying that, but they're still the anomaly and not the norm).

To some extent, because there's an ideal genetic difference. That's why we don't date our siblings but also don't tend to date people who are as different as can be. Siblings: lots of homozygous genes in offspring, harmful recessive alleles are more likely to matter. People very different to ourselves: We have lots of regulatory networks and protein complexes where one part better matches exactly with the other.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,480
Location: Adelaide, Australia

28 Jan 2018, 3:27 pm

NorthWind wrote:
People very different to ourselves: We have lots of regulatory networks and protein complexes where one part better matches exactly with the other.

What does that mean for children of mixed marriages?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Theamazinggeek
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 136
Location: Salinas, california

29 Jan 2018, 2:03 pm

Yes an no looks kinda matter. Its thw first judgemwnt we make is qith our eyes even if we dont think so. Its typical in any kinda human. Its also looking bwyond thw surface looking for truth.


_________________
*Pour a martinelli apple cider bottle into a wine glass. Puts down momentaryly poetry book next to philosophy book.

"Im search of answers, new marvels, and new questions to ask."


Disconaut
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jan 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 81

30 Jan 2018, 3:31 am

My ex was possibly on the spectrum, if he was not - he had poor social skills, a strange sense of humour, and did things many people were annoyed by. He was also incredibly attractive (not saying this because I dated him, he is objectively very conventionally handsome).

Despite his fantastic looks, he struggles a lot with girls due to his demeanour. So while he gets many girls talking to him and can usually get a girl to go on a date with him, getting a second date is very hard for him and he's only had one LTR (me) at the age of 27.

I guess it can cut both ways.