1071 réponses à ce sujet

[Reptillius]

Karushna. You said it much better than my fumbling. Thank you.

[In Exile]

there aren't any places where women have more testosterone than men or vice versa, some things are just hard-coded

It's not about testosterone. And testosterone isnt completely determinative of secondary sex traits.

Again, I go back to androgyny. There is a large gulf between a 6'4 bodybuilder (e.g. the Dwayne Johnson) and a 5'6 thinly-build man (e.g. Elijah Wood or Daniel Radcliffe). And that's on build alone, not facial features.

[In Exile]

You do condone it when you argue for it as most people have in a way that is harmful to many. And the reason men fight back then? Child Birth. When you are not up for fighting for a period of time, and there are few people, those who make babies needed to be out of harms way, especially since death of the mother meant death for the child. Evolutionary Psychology is normally regarded in scientific circles as fairly empty since it assumes an answer and then just tries to fit a process to it. It also completely disregards sociology, and leads to absurd conclusions, as long as the answer ends up being evolution any answer is deemed correct, which has lead many people going backward in regards to social issues. Evolutionary Psycology is also rooted in Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, and has led to genocide. It is proof religion is not needed to use beliefs to subjugate people. In fact it is used to say anything usually related to dogmatic religious views with no proof needed except some form of invented correlation to evolution.

On these forums, people use it to say "gay people are unnatural" and many other things. Also considered pseudo-science by much of the scientific community, used by laymen with only a rudimentary understanding of how evolution works. Gender has changed from culture to culture, and not just with fighting, colors, roles, personalities, dress, all these are part of gender. To boil it all down to testostrone and estrogene is to ignore all social construct of the thing.

Evolutionary psych is nonsense. It's all a post hoc fallacy that relies exclusively on crafting a narrative for development in absence of any historical, archeological or genetic evidence. It completely ignores epigenetic effects and genes environment interactions in general. It is predicated on an understanding of neuroplasticity that's actually discredited.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  Are those demon ramblings I hear mage?  Careful, lest you receive the brand. 

[In Exile]

Said hormones are produced primarily by these "dangly parts" after development. The initial stages of life, and well over a decade and a half before secondary sex characteristics are even present mean nothing to this discussion, honestly.
There's variation in everything. That's a fact of life, but on the average, the differences between men and women are large. The fact that there can be something doesn't change that men are men and are shaped different than women who are women. At least genetically. These things all tie into gender as much as any social contract you believe is there(not that I'm saying that it doesn't).

You're wrong. Firstly, there are substantial genes environment interactions that impact secondary sex characterisric developments that are hard to quantify (e.g. foods that suppress the production of testosterone or encourage the production of estrogen). There is the issue of the general ingestion of sex hormones through e.g. our drinking water based on the use of medication and how it seeps into the water supply.

There are sophisticated environmental effects that themselves encourage (or discourage) the production of estrogen and testosterone that are all the product of culture (e.g. based on conflicts and people's involvement in them).

This also oversimplifies actual physical development that's entirely independent of sex hormones. Height, for example, relates to HGH which is a engages a totally different genetic mechanism.

And all of this is a gross oversimplification on my part. To reduce the outward appearance of a human adult to sex hormones is just comically wrong.

The differences between men and women on a population level are statistically significant. The differences between any ONE man and any ONE woman are hypothetical. That's why some women are stronger than most men without being stronger than the strongest men.

People talking about gender differences don't get statistics and particularly don't get the inferences you can draw from population averages. Hint: Men on average are taller than women does not mean that all men are taller than all women, or even that most men are taller than most women (and, strictly and logically speaking it doesn't even mean that a majority of men are taller than a majority of women).

[Br3admax]

You're wrong. Firstly, there are substantial genes environment interactions that impact secondary sex characterisric developments that are hard to quantify (e.g. foods that suppress the production of testosterone or encourage the production of estrogen). There is the issue of the general ingestion of sex hormones through e.g. our drinking water based on the use of medication and how it seeps into the water supply.

You do realise that testosterone and oestrogen/progesterone are the mostly produced naturally in the body yes? There are boards all across the world for these kinds of things. Most ingested hormones are digested in the stomach which is designed to denature nothing but proteins. Hormones are proteins. Sure some of them get through, but it's nowhere near as rampant as you're trying to say. Foods also aren't allowed to influence the entire biological makeup of a person. That's why the FDA exists, champ. 

There are sophisticated environmental effects that themselves encourage (or discourage) the production of estrogen and testosterone that are all the product of culture (e.g. based on conflicts and people's involvement in them).

And? There are fluctuations in everything. None of them are severe enough to cause one to develop enlarged breasts and hips as a male, or excessive shoulder width a woman. There are more secondary sex characteristics besides moodiness and facial hair. 

 

 

This also oversimplifies actual physical development that's entirely independent of sex hormones. Height, for example, relates to HGH which is a engages a totally different genetic mechanism.
 

Height has nothing to do with one's sex. It's also not a secondary sex characteristic. Not sure why you brought this up. 

 

And all of this is a gross oversimplification on my part. To reduce the outward appearance of a human adult to sex hormones is just comically wrong.

Who did this? The differences, the entire point of this exchange, seen between men and women are down to the influence of sex hormones on the body. This is why males who do not have these receptors will develop into females phenotypically. 

 

 

The differences between men and women on a population level are statistically significant. The differences between any ONE man and any ONE woman are hypothetical. That's why some women are stronger than most men without being stronger than the strongest men.

lol, women on the average aren't stronger than men. This is another thing caused by testosterone. I like how a single study can throw millions of years of evolution and human thinking out the window all in the name of equality. Two X chromosomes won't make you stronger than a man, otherwise, men with two XX's would be stronger than men with only one. No study supports this, and considering most genes on the second X are inactive, and the rest having to do with fertility, again, this makes no sense. 

 

 

People talking about gender differences don't get statistics and particularly don't get the inferences you can draw from population averages. Hint: Men on average are taller than women does not mean that all men are taller than all women, or even that most men are taller than most women (and, strictly and logically speaking it doesn't even mean that a majority of men are taller than a majority of women).

 

Again, what does height have to do with this? Considering I only spoke on the average, what point are you trying to make. Finally, since the reverse of none of these claims is true, and in fact is far less likely, why are you wasting your time even writing this? 

[Lennard Testarossa]

lol, women on the average aren't stronger than men. This is another thing caused by testosterone. I like how a single study can throw millions of years of evolution and human thinking out the window all in the name of equality. Two X chromosomes won't make you stronger than a man, otherwise, men with two XX's would be stronger than men with only one. No study supports this, and considering most genes on the second X are inactive, and the rest having to do with fertility, again, this makes no sense. 

 

I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing.

[Han Shot First]

You can see part of a codex entry on it at 34:01:

 

[Br3admax]

I find your lack of reading comprehension disturbing.

That's why some women are stronger than most men without being stronger than the strongest men.

I'm sorry, did you read something else? I've only seen one study suggest that women are stronger than men anywhere, and so I related it to this topic. 

[Lennard Testarossa]

I'm sorry, did you read something else? I've only seen one study suggest that women are stronger than men anywhere, and so I related it to this topic. 

 

The statement "Some women are stronger than most men without being stronger than the strongest men" doesn't assert that women are stronger than men in any way. What it does assert is that there is some percentage of women among the general female population that - while being weaker than the strongest men - are significantly stronger than the average man.

 

The best female boxing champion has no chance of winning against the best male boxing champion. But she'd sure as hell beat the crap out of average Joe.

[Br3admax]

The statement "Some women are stronger than most men without being stronger than the strongest men" doesn't assert that women are stronger than men in any way. What it does assert is that there is some percentage of women among the general female population that - while being weaker than the strongest men - are significantly stronger than the average man.

 

The best female boxing champion has no chance of winning against the best male boxing champion. But she'd sure as hell beat the crap out of average Joe.

Again, the conversation is about women on the average, which is what I'm speaking on. A man grew to be 11 feet tall, but I do not bring that up in this debate because it's about the average. Every point, brought up so far is me discussing the average. I said women can be stronger than men hours ago when this ridiculous debate about how society makes us develope hours ago. 

[Lennard Testarossa]

Again, the conversation is about women on the average, which is what I'm speaking on. A man grew to be 11 feet tall, but I do not bring that up in this debate because it's about the average. Every point, brought up so far is me discussing the average. I said women can be both stronger than men hours ago when this ridiculous debate about how society makes us develope hours ago. 

 

...but In Exile clearly wasn't talking about averages. So what relevance did your answer have to his point?

[KaiserShep]

Bah. Who cares about any of this anyway? Male or female, my Inquisitor's gonna kill everything with a health bar anyhow.

[Br3admax]

...but In Exile clearly wasn't talking about averages. So what relevance did your answer have to his point?

Later on Exile tried to dismiss the use of averages because of how people misuss them, I'm just trying to stress I didn't care about these misuse. On the average, men look a certain way, women look a certain way, and this is what people find attractive, and all of this is caused by gonadal tissue. 

[Br3admax]

Bah. Who cares about any of this anyway? Male or female, my Inquisitor's gonna kill everything with a health bar anyhow.

Good. Your Inquisitor also has a health bar. 

[Ryzaki]

Bah. Who cares about any of this anyway? Male or female, my Inquisitor's gonna kill everything with a health bar anyhow.

 

Hopefully in one hit once I get assassinate.

[KaiserShep]

Good. Your Inquisitor also has a health bar. 

 

One that will never deplete, good sir.

[In Exile]

You do realise that testosterone and oestrogen/progesterone are the mostly produced naturally in the body yes? There are boards all across the world for these kinds of things. Most ingested hormones are digested in the stomach which is designed to denature nothing but proteins. Hormones are proteins. Sure some of them get through, but it's nowhere near as rampant as you're trying to say. Foods also aren't allowed to influence the entire biological makeup of a person. That's why the FDA exists, champ. 

 

You're wrong. It's not that you eat raw hormone and somehow have them incorporated into your body. Rather (simplifying it for you), the nature of your diet has a pronounced influence over your production of hormones, and this relates to such things as the type and nature of fats that you eat, the type and nature of sugars, the level of physical activity, etc. It's a sophisticated process - you can't oversimplify it to the extent that you are. 

 

I don't know what you mean when you say "foods aren't allowed to influence the biological make-up of a person". Foods do influence our biochemistry. It has nothing to do with the FDA regulating food, and in fact, the FDA is not the body (in the US - I'm not American, btw) that regulates the agricultural and meat/dairy industries. 

 

And? There are fluctuations in everything. None of them are severe enough to cause one to develop enlarged breasts and hips as a male, or excessive shoulder width a woman. There are more secondary sex characteristics besides moodiness and facial hair. Height has nothing to do with one's sex. It's also not a secondary sex characteristic. Not sure why you brought this up. 

 

I didn't say that these are secondary sex characteristics. Again: the fact that a person has large or small ****** isn't what makes them more feminine or more masculine looking. It's a combination of features, including facial structure (cheek width, chin width, eye shape, overall fat deposits and distribution), height, mass, mass distribution, etc. 

 

Who did this? The differences, the entire point of this exchange, seen between men and women are down to the influence of sex hormones on the body. This is why males who do not have these receptors will develop into females phenotypically. 

 

 

 

You reduced the physical differences between gender to testosterone, which is comically wrong. 

 

lol, women on the average aren't stronger than men. This is another thing caused by testosterone. I like how a single study can throw millions of years of evolution and human thinking out the window all in the name of equality. Two X chromosomes won't make you stronger than a man, otherwise, men with two XX's would be stronger than men with only one. No study supports this, and considering most genes on the second X are inactive, and the rest having to do with fertility, again, this makes no sense. 

 

 

 

I can't even understand what this is supposed to mean. An "X" chromosome has nothing to do with strength. You're just using words whose meaning you clearly don't even begin to understand. 

 

There are some women who are stronger than some men. There are taller women. More muscular women. Serena Williams is taller than Elijah Wood. She's also bulkier. It happens. The "average" has nothing to do with that.  Gina Carrano can beat the **** out of a lot of guys. 

 

Again, what does height have to do with this? Considering I only spoke on the average, what point are you trying to make. Finally, since the reverse of none of these claims is true, and in fact is far less likely, why are you wasting your time even writing this? 

 

 

The point isn't what's true: the point is what's gibberish, and what's gibberish is drawing any of those conclusions from a statistical average. Yes, the opposite is true. But it's true because of independent data that shows that it's true, not because of anything to do with an average. An average is the least valuable statistic when it comes to any meaningful inference about any element of your set. 

[In Exile]

Later on Exile tried to dismiss the use of averages because of how people misuss them, I'm just trying to stress I didn't care about these misuse. On the average, men look a certain way, women look a certain way, and this is what people find attractive, and all of this is caused by gonadal tissue. 

 

You never talked about average. The first thing you said was that "dangly parts" (as I used it) determine how men and women look like, and then started talking about hormones. 

 

You're clearly unable to understand averages. "On average" is an expression that doesn't even make sense for physical appearance in any technical sense, because averages are an aggregate. What you really mean is "usually" or "often", and this has nothing to do with gender preferences because people can (and do!) prefer atypical looks. Beautiful people aren't "average" (in the sense that their features are common - they're actually very average within the technical meaning of average), but we're disproportionately attracted to them. Being attracted, for example, to guys doesn't mean that you're attracted to most guys, and not being attracted to very bulky muscular people doesn't denote a gender preference, except tangentially (because guys are more likely to be very bulky muscle wise). 

[BlueMagitek]

Beauty & status differs based on culture.  Heck, not too long ago it was considered more beautiful to be as pale as you could be, while now tans are all the rage.

[RobRam10]

[Adam Revlan]

Question time.

I recently did a marathon re-watch of Game of Thrones with a friend of mine, a particular sex scene with two men came up and he told me that he wanted me to skip it.

This led to a debate between the two of us wherein I told him that if the scene had portrayed two women, he would not have wanted me to skip it and I told him that this kind of double standard is hard for me to get.

On the one hand I couldn't call him homophobic because he would've like watching lesbians getting it on, but not men.

his reasoning for the whole issue was that as a straight man, he found females appealing, which is why he would not have wanted me to skip it, but he did not want to see men do anything sexual, he said that does not make him homophobic or hypocritical.

 

So what do you guys think, was what he did homophobic in any way? Do you think his reasoning is understandable?

 

Personally, I understood where he was coming from and thought that him not wanting to see two men doing sexual stuff does not make him homophobic

[Xilizhra]

Question time.

I recently did a marathon re-watch of Game of Thrones with a friend of mine, a particular sex scene with two men came up and he told me that he wanted me to skip it.

This led to a debate between the two of us wherein I told him that if the scene had portrayed two women, he would not have wanted me to skip it and I told him that this kind of double standard is hard for me to get.

On the one hand I couldn't call him homophobic because he would've like watching lesbians getting it on, but not men.

his reasoning for the whole issue was that as a straight man, he found females appealing, which is why he would not have wanted me to skip it, but he did not want to see men do anything sexual, he said that does not make him homophobic or hypocritical.

 

So what do you guys think, was what he did homophobic in any way? Do you think his reasoning is understandable?

 

Personally, I understood where he was coming from and thought that him not wanting to see two men doing sexual stuff does not make him homophobic

To skip over it is not homophobic. To demand that it not be included in the show is homophobic.

[In Exile]

Question time.
I recently did a marathon re-watch of Game of Thrones with a friend of mine, a particular sex scene with two men came up and he told me that he wanted me to skip it.
This led to a debate between the two of us wherein I told him that if the scene had portrayed two women, he would not have wanted me to skip it and I told him that this kind of double standard is hard for me to get.
On the one hand I couldn't call him homophobic because he would've like watching lesbians getting it on, but not men.
his reasoning for the whole issue was that as a straight man, he found females appealing, which is why he would not have wanted me to skip it, but he did not want to see men do anything sexual, he said that does not make him homophobic or hypocritical.

So what do you guys think, was what he did homophobic in any way? Do you think his reasoning is understandable?

Personally, I understood where he was coming from and thought that him not wanting to see two men doing sexual stuff does not make him homophobic

The two women thing is a bit sexist. The defence that someone is not homophobic because they enjoy F/F sex designed to be soft-core porn for straight guys is not really a defence at all.

It makes him both hypocritical and (well I don't like the word homophobic but still holding some anti-LGBT prejudice), IMO, especially *because* he's into the F/F scene.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The two women thing is a bit sexist. The defence that someone is not homophobic because they enjoy F/F sex designed to be soft-core porn for straight guys is not really a defence at all.

It makes him both hypocritical and (well I don't like the word homophobic but still holding some anti-LGBT prejudice), IMO, especially *because* he's into the F/F scene.

Being turned on by one thing and turned off by the exact opposite doesn't make you a hypocrite.