Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Is anyone arguing otherwise?

Mist is.

Chanur · Jun 3, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Mist and Quaid FTW.

Tanoomba is on your side, that pretty much says it all.

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
Mist and Quaid FTW.

I won't hold this against you, Quaid

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

Chanur_sl said:
I would say the skimpy clothing has far more to do with advertising her wares so to speak. It is the same with brightly colored animals for mating. Sight based species uses sight based attraction methods. Or its some vulnerability mumbo jumbo.

This. The alternative is that the Grand Ol' Patriarchy got together at some time in the distant past and decided that men would henceforth get boners from cleavage and legs and we all just subconsciously went along with it

ZyyzYzzy · Jun 3, 2016

Mist_sl said:
Case in point: women are, as a simple fact of biology, more likely to be cold. Yet, they are more likely to wear less clothes than men, because female gender expression is about wearing clothes that expose skin to portray vulnerability.

If we were just following simple biology, rather than social conditioning/grooming, women would wear more clothes than men.

Mist, don't you have a barrel to swallow?

Quaid · Jun 3, 2016

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Mist is.

Hmmm I'll have to go back and read, cuz I didn't catch that.

What I'm saying is that we as a society certainly recognize inherent female vulnerability, and then relate that vulnerability to sexual desirability. Young girls are absolutely encouraged to give off sexual vulnerability signals through dress, behaviour, and even emotional, social, and intellectual expression.

I'm not sure this is even disputable.

Quaid · Jun 3, 2016

Chanur_sl said:
Tanoomba is on your side, that pretty much says it all.

Uhhhh I hope you're joking. That's the same kind of shit argument people use against Trump.

moonarchia · Jun 3, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
You dudes are being fucking retarded.

Pretty sure the only retard who gets fucked here on the regular is tanoomba. And that's only because he keeps opening his dessert preference fluid insertion orifice and reminding people of what a retard he is.

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Hmmm I'll have to go back and read, cuz I didn't catch that.

What I'm saying is that we as a society certainly recognize inherent female vulnerability, and then relate that vulnerability to sexual desirability. Young girls are absolutely encouraged to give off sexual vulnerability signals through dress, behaviour, and even emotional, social, and intellectual expression.

I'm not sure this is even disputable.

It might not be so obvious in this thread, but her comments here taken with her comments elsewhere definitely give a better picture of her argument. She doesn't believe any biological, physiological gender differences exist in the brain.

As to your second point, ya, I wouldn't dispute that. But whether girls are 'groomed' to behave this way, if it's biological, or if they just recognize what men are attracted to on their own is certainly debatable

Quaid · Jun 3, 2016

Well there are absolutely biological brain differences. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

What I meant by 'not disputable' is that 'grooming' is absolutely responsible for some percentage of the female 'vulnerability as sexuality' relationship. Biology is certainly responsible for a portion of it as well. Nothing in the brain is 100% nature or nurture.

fanaskin · Jun 3, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Well there are absolutely biological brain differences. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

Have you met mist before?

Cad · Jun 3, 2016

Mist railing against gender roles and assuming its men's fault that women act the way they do again?

Tanoomba · Jun 3, 2016

I do take comfort that I am not the only person people can only argue against by relying on silly straw men.

hodj · Jun 3, 2016

You can try to run away and make yourself feel better by asserting falsehoods in other places attempting to assuage your ego, but the fact still remains that your core premise is utterly exposed as fundamentally, intractably flawed.

Deal with it.

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

Tanoomba_sl said:
I do take comfort that I am not the only person people can only argue against by relying on silly straw men.

What do we call this? a meta-strawman? Mecha-Strawman?

Chanur · Jun 3, 2016

Quaid_sl said:
Well there are absolutely biological brain differences. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

What I meant by 'not disputable' is that 'grooming' is absolutely responsible for some percentage of the female 'vulnerability as sexuality' relationship. Biology is certainly responsible for a portion of it as well. Nothing in the brain is 100% nature or nurture.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are many factors involved. This isn't what Mist said when you jumped in to support her though. Hence the Tanoomba joke.

hodj · Jun 3, 2016

Jive Turkey_sl said:
What do we call this? a meta-strawman? Mecha-Strawman?

Lets go with "Salted-butt strawman"

Cad · Jun 3, 2016

Mist_sl said:
The latest extreme fitness trends have struck a small blow against traditional 'soft' femininity, but they're still always shown with their entire stomachs exposed, non-threatening pose, etc.

Are threatening poses sexy for either gender? Men are portrayed with their abs exposed constantly.

Mist_sl said:
When a woman is shown in a threatening or powerful pose, it's still considered a paraphilia/fetish outside of the norm, ie: dominatrix, etc.

Which men are ever shown in a threatening/powerful pose which is expected to be sexy?

Mist_sl said:
It's definitely changing slowly, but if you seriously think cutesy, soft vulnerability isn't a huge part of female sexual expression in our society, I really don't know what planet you're living on.

There are definitely people who think cutesy is sexy, but I'm not sure what it has to do with "vulnerability". Vulnerability to what, exactly?

Jive Turkey · Jun 3, 2016

I've also never understood what it is about femininity that makes some women want to reject it as somehow inferior. Why are dresses intrinsically inferior to pants? Instead of trying to homogenize everything, why not build up femininity as something extremely positive? That's not to say anyone isn't free to sway anywhere between extreme masculinity and extreme femininity as they please, but if you ask me, the rejection of feminine traits as somehow lesser is the real societal brainwash

Sebudai · Jun 3, 2016

Heterosexual men are attracted to healthy female bodies. Portraying those bodies "vulnerably" is not a requirement. If you put Margot Robbie in a full suit of customized plate mail armor and had her sneer at me I'd still want to fuck her.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Karen

Shit Posting Professional

Karen

Karen

RIP USA

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

The Scientific Shitlord

Karen

Trump's Staff

Well known agitator

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Karen

Shit Posting Professional

Vox Populi Jihadi

scientia potentia est

Karen

Ssraeszha Raider