|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share ![]() |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ila, we all want to be politically correct. We all want a society which gives men and women equal rights and equal chances. We all want institutions to treat both men and women alike. But there are definite, strong, very obvious physical differences between human sexes. First, sexual dimorphism is greater in humans than in just about any species of mammals. It doesn’t take much observation to realize it. Not very easy to distinguish between a female and a male cat or dog, for instance. There’s a bit more difference between apes, but far from the differences in humans. This is an evident testimony to one of the means of our survival as a specie: we collaborated by insisting on our sexual differences and aptitudes to adapt. Now, most of any good book on evolution (as long as they haven’t suffered too much influence of some trend in popular culture) will state those facts. And so will most good books on biology. After I read your answer, I googled it to get some infos to present here. Immediately, many came up. I invite you to consult simply Wikipedia on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans Let me quote to you what is said for the gender differences in skin: “Skin Male skin is thicker (more collagen) and oilier (more sebum) than female skin.[19] They also have redder skin. The skin of females is warmer on average than that of males. Females tend to have more pain receptors per cm of skin than males.” The biological creatures that we are also tend (I say “tend”, ila) to view beauty in terms not only of the acknowledgement and accentuation of such differences, but also in terms of capacity to procreate and transmit good genes. Therefore such differences in women’s skin will appear as being more beautiful then that of men (in all respect for divergent sexual desires and orientations, of course), not unlike for instance, the often more pronounced lower back curve in women (a characteristic which allow more room for the uterus and better position for carrying on the one hand, and the fact that it is a sexual position which favors sexual intercourse and is created by neurotransmitters traveling directly in the spine during phases of sexual stimulation, on the other hand) will be perceived often as an element of feminine beauty, amongst many other such physical differences. Ila, you’re a nice person with good, solid convictions, and a great sense of doing the right thing. And I respect you a lot. I don’t want to be contradictory here. But you have to acknowledge biology. And I mean of course, real biology (beware of what you find out there…). Last edited by dan; 08-03-2012 at 02:34 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The two statements that I was specifically addressing are: Women generally have paler skin. That is not true. It's individuals and not genders that have pale skin. For example my skin is as white as a Scandanavian's in winter. However after I've been in the sun for a week or so my skin turns a deep tan. Women have a greater quality of skin. Nothing in the quoted article has anything to do with quality. It does however state the differences between genders. Quality is subjective, depending on who is doing the measuring. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Start reading the post quietly once again and you might, I say YOU MIGHT understand what I?m saying? If not I can always try to give you a biology course. OK?
I always marvel at how people who don?t understand the first thing about any science are the first to use the term against others. Of course, there?s differences in individuals, ila! But that goes without saying, does it not? ?Skin Male skin is thicker (more collagen) and oilier (more sebum) than female skin.[19] They also have redder skin. The skin of females is warmer on average than that of males. Females tend to have more pain receptors per cm of skin than males.? These are facts from biology, a science. You mean to say you don?t understand the meaning of men+thicker skin; women+more pain receptors (more sensibility)? You don?t get men+redder skin neither? Really??????? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And I should think that you don’t understand the followings about how we tend to feel beauty and desire along such biological differences? It’s academic, ila!!
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And it's still individuals and not gender who various shades of skin (and of course race). One only has to look around to confirm this. I never once brought up feelings for beauty and desire. That has nothing to do with the paleness of one's skin or the quality. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Boys, boys....please play nice. Do I need to separate you two ?
![]() ![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I’m speechless, here. There’s indeed nothing else to add, everything is under your very eyes.
Yet I guess I’ll try to explain a bit more. Ila, you told me first that I was making an “unscientific generalization”. Well, science (biology) does make such a generalization. Of course people have particular physical differences and characteristics, but there is also obviously general differences between sexes (or else, by the way, why would anyone feel she/he is in the wrong body?) If that was your point (that everyone is different), it has nothing to do with what I was saying and therefore it was indeed irrelevant in the first place. In any case, stating that people are different is so obvious, ila, that in itself, it’s an irrelevant intervention. Isn’t it? Now, the point about desire and beauty is that we, as animals, have biological tendencies to find beautiful and desirable (“quality”, judgement on quality) what favours reproduction, and therefore we see more enhanced sexual (general) characteristics as something more attractive, something that seems to indicate good genes, good carrier of babies, good provider, etc. etc. Do you understand? As I said, this is academic, this has been well established by biology and evolutive sciences forever, ila. Besides, if you don’t think yourself that is of a greater "quality" a skin which will biologically tend to be paler, finer (thinner) and more sensible than a skin thicker, redder and less sensible, well, yes, there’s no reason for me to discuss endlessly and ridiculously with you… I’m sorry if I’m getting mad at you here. But ila please, read all the post quietly and try to understand what I wrote, would you? (By the way (and to end this all), we’re not discussing your point! You intervened on mine! We should therefore be discussing mine in all logic, shouldn’t we? It’s one more reason why I’m asking you to read back the posts!) Last edited by dan; 08-03-2012 at 08:50 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry for such an ungracious display, lady Alana...
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
There does seem to be some talking-past-each-other going on ... believe me, I recognize it when I see it, since I'm guilty of it sometimes.
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Panty Discussion | Panty Bulge Fan | Chat About Shemales | 134 | 04-19-2017 05:53 PM |
Discussion about movies with a transgendered theme | Naked Freedom | Chat About Shemales | 46 | 06-11-2012 11:47 AM |
Recent discussion on travel to Thailand | topp001 | Travelling | 11 | 07-20-2011 06:53 PM |
The general Discussion section | hankhavelock | General Discussion | 3 | 05-29-2009 03:09 PM |