One of my co-workers referred to the "courageousness" of people allowing military doctors to "practice" on them. If it were an experimental, or life-saving, procedure, I might agree. This makes me a little uneasy at best though.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Given the horror stories I've heard about some military quacks, I think they're still brave.
Risking your health for something as trivial as liposuction or breast implants so your doctor can bone up on his skill...well...ok, maybe not brave.
-Trevor
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well...that's what they do at UofM. Their doctors in training give poor people free surgeries or dental work for free as part of their training.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes, but it's a far cry from a free boob job.
Now, if the Army docs were pulling rotations in hospital ERs for learning how to better treat gun shot wounds, stabbings, car accidents, things like that...I can see it easily being justified.
But unless the Army is planning a base in Beverly Hills, I really don't see what skills they're going to be practicing with for lipo and boobs.
Except the basic ones which, if they're doctors, they should already be proficient in.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true....Dr's have to do plastic surgery for all types of accidents, and breast implants are needed for those sometimes.
We aren't Surgeons, and we don't really know what should and shouldn't be necessary for their education. Some people go into the military to learn skills that will provide them with a career outside of the military when they are done. If they choose plastic/reconstructive surgery as a specialty, they need to know how to do ALL the procedures, not just the ones that happen in war.
Burn victims, car crashes, skin cancer; they all can require plastic surgery, and none of them are frivolous. Without doing these procedures, the doctors might lack the skill needed to do many sorts of jobs that I can't even conceive of.
Now, that doesn't mean that the patients should receive medals....
Kwea
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Liposuction? C'mon, liposuction? And boob jobs?
Had they said anything about reconstructive surgeries, I might buy it.
The two surgeries mentioned are so damned chic you can find them all over town and almost border on mall-front operations.
-Trevor
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Now, that doesn't mean that the patients should receive medals....
I dunno, you got this nice new chest of course you'll want something to pin on it. . .
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
We can't have fat soldiers, now can we?
Nor can we suffer boobless among the brainless...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A friend of mine who was in the army noted the following:
Doctors who couldn't make it in the high paying, yet high demanding world of civilian medicine became Army Doctors. If your record is so bad you can't get Malpractice insurance, you practice where its not required--the Army
Doctors that couldn't make it in the low paying, less demanding world of Army Doctors became VA Doctors. If you don't want to make mistakes on people who play with guns for a living, you make them on people who are to old to play with guns for a living.
While I don't believe this is true of all military medical practioners, I am fearful it is of too many of them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
TMedina: There are plenty of times "boob jobs" are part of reconstructive surgery.
What should we do, deliberately crash people into wall so we have patients to practice on?
Those techniques are very similar to parts of reconstructive surgery....in some instances.
Also, we train the Doc's to the same standards as civilian doc's...if you need to know how to do it in the civilian world, that Army has to teach them it...otherwise, why would they go there for training that is only good in wartime?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually I know of quite a few doctors who went into the military because it paid for their medical school and they didn't end up massively in debt at the end.
AJ
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
They can be - or they can be needless implants. Since they were mentioned with liposuction, I'm inclined to believe it's for vanity as opposed to reconstructive.
However, as the article does not go into detail on the nature of the operations, I am willing to concede they might have been perfectly valid efforts for reconstruction.
As for running people into walls - no. Civilians do that all the time on their own. So why not rotate the docs through civilian care centers so they can fine-tune the skills most applicable to necessary skills?
I was thinking in terms of battlefield needs, but sure - why not rotate them through similar free care services for general purpose training.
-Trevor
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: As for running people into walls - no. Civilians do that all the time on their own. So why not rotate the docs through civilian care centers so they can fine-tune the skills most applicable to necessary skills?
My guess is that insurance issues would prevent this. You would have to insure them to work in the civilian population...which would cost quite a bit of money.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Soon we won't even need guns. The rows and rows of women sporting size double FF breasts will cause all who oppose us to become drooling idiots. Are they designing a new uniform too? I'm picturing something with tassels.
space opera
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
They could coat them with kevlar so they would be bulletproof, then they would be sufficently useful.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bah - too much kevlar and you can't float if your ship goes down.
In a bad way, I suppose - the ship going down, I mean.
-Trevor
Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
Just so you know, these procedures are not totally free for the recipients. The labor is free, but the soldier has to pay for the materials. So really, it's a bit misleading for CNN to say that soldiers are getting breast implants "on the government dime."
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: The rows and rows of women sporting size double FF breasts will cause all who oppose us to become drooling idiots
I would assume that the military has some sort of restriction on exactly how much breast augmentation is acceptable. Having known several women who have had breast reduction surgery, I can say that big boobs aren't exactly desirable. All "top-heavy" jokes aside, the back pain alone is a reason the military wouldn't allow the kind of boob jobs you see in Hollywood.
On the other hand, if you have a woman who has been teased her whole life because she has small breasts, I'm all for surgical enhancement if it has a positive effect on that woman's self-esteem. Just because the woman happens to be in the military doesn't mean she isn't allowed to feel better about herself.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Megan made similar observations about "self-esteem issues" and the disturbing boom in plastic surgery.
As to the practicality of DD breasts - it's a "grass is greener" argument. When all is said and done, I've had an opportunity to sample both and find that I prefer smaller over larger.
Women who opt for the massive upgrades are buying into the stereotype and unfortunately, the stereotype carries a lot of weight (no pun intended) with the general public.
However, some women who grew up well-endowed are going the other way for, as mentioned previously, the back pains and other health considerations.
-Trevor
Edit: And c'mon, I realize the military has plenty of regs - but I sincerely doubt anyone's put guidelines on what kind of cleavage is acceptable.
"You may not join the Army if your breasts are larger than..."
[ July 23, 2004, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Wow, I find it really icky for people to profess any sort of preference in other people's bodies. It sounds like picking out a good horse or something... "excellent hindquarters on this one." <laughs> It seems like one's own body is the only proper sphere (though hopefully not literally a sphere) for expressing one's physical preferences, whether it be through exercise, decoration, surgery, or whatever. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yeah. It's wrong to have a type you're attracted to.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry ak - I'm siding with Bob in this one.
I'm not requiring, nor do I expect you to alter your body, lifestyle or anything about you to conform to my tastes or standards.
However, there is nothing wrong in saying "I prefer blondes" or "I like guys with tattoos" - you're stating a personal taste in, rather than passing judgement on people.
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Nothing wrong with it, except that it's just really vulgar, is all. Doesn't it strike you that way?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't know. Do you have a favorite flower?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Not at all. I don't understand why I like brunettes, I just do. That is not to say I haven't found my girlfriends to be the most attractive people I'd ever seen, loving all their physical quirks because they were attached to them.
The thing is, if you ask me what my type is it's going to depend on whether you're showing me a bunch of pictures or if I get to talk to each woman for a few hours. In the first case my answer is going to be primarily physical characteristics that draw me to someone. There's usually some initial hook that pulls at you from across the dance floor. In the second case I'll tell you a lot more mental/emotional/whatever things. These are things that dictate whether I linger for longer than the first dance.
Do you work differently? You see no difference between any men until you’ve gotten to know them? I'm curious.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Flowers aren't people and don't know they're being judged by superficial ephemeral qualities.
And yes, I have a favorite flower: the Little Prince's rose. She was vain and silly sometimes, but she was his, she had tamed him, and she blessed his life.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Well, yeah, if you are curious about me in particular, actually I do pretty much like or dislike a person's looks according to how I feel about them as a person.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
ak, the point is that attraction is nearly always based on the physical. How often do you hear a person talk for hours before you see their face? (Unless it's at Hatrack.) And if you don't get to see someone's face until you marry them, then how do you judge their voice? Deep, soft, rolling? These are things that are part of a person too, and difficult to change. Is it unfair to judge someone based on THESE qualities too? Seriousness or humor in the voice? What car they drive? Do you think that the best matchmaking scenario would have people type out a paragraph about themselves, and let someone pick the paragraph that they like most? Do you then judge based on their spelling skills or syntax?
(Posted before I saw your post before this. I'm just wondering how you judge a person.)
[ July 23, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I do to, ak. But I'm talking about before you get to know them. Or is there an "I don't know them yet" level? Sorry if that part of the question wasn't clear.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I'm not judging their qualities as a person, whether they are good or bad. I'm evaluating my responses to them on a physical, mental or emotional level.
I don't like you - why? Because you're a blonde. That's shallow and amazingly narrow-minded of me.
I don't like you - because you're a nasty, spiteful person with no sense of humor and a cruel streak. That's more understandable.
I do like you - why? Because you're blonde? If that's my sole criterion, then yes - it is still narrow-minded and short-sighted. But if I find blondes aesthetically pleasing, it's icing on the cake if I like everything else about the person - personality, personal habits, sense of humor, etc.
I'm rambling, but I think I made the point in the first two paragraphs - it's not a "you're blonde, therefore you're a bad person and I don't like you." It's "you're blonde and I find that physically appealing...now let's find out if you have a sense of humor and meet any of my other criteria."
And before I get accused of being shallow, why did you reject the last person who asked you out? (General question, not specifically focused to anyone in particular)
-Trevor
Edit: I try not to judge a person, but rather whether or not I'm willing to associate with them.
Just because I do (or don't) like someone does not automatically make them "bad" or "good".
[ July 23, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Maybe it's because there is this sublime mystery of a person taken as a whole, and of love. When you say "I prefer slim ankles" or "blue eyes are dreamy", it's as though you are flipping through a catalog shopping for a nice accessory. But these are people we are talking about.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry ak - I really don't know how to better phrase it and I think you're just going to be offended at the idea regardless.
And to be fair, if I was judging someone solely by physical appearance, I agree it would be offensive.
But I'm trying to illustrate that having a taste in or a like for a specific aspect of someone isn't a judgement of that person but rather an indication of your tastes.
And really, that standard could be applied to anything: be it religious preferences, a compatible sense of humor or personal habits.
-Trevor
Edit: For clarity
[ July 23, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's a nice ideal to think that appearances don't matter a whit, but it's arbitrary. Countless people have preferences and requirements in a mate. Some of these items are appearance, but many are things like, "Christian," or "my nationality," or "Intelligent." How are these any more honorable? I argue that they're not. They're simply different facets of a human being. It's just as "shallow" and nit-picky to require your mate to be intelligent.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
The things that make up the most important early impressions of people seem mostly to be internal or intrinsic qualities as well. Confidence as expressed by body language, or a friendly open smile, say. Loving kindness shining from the eyes. Not how many hands at the withers, or whether the hocks are sound, you know?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And if I'm 800+ pounds, haven't moved from my apartment in three years and have this annoying laugh? Would you still be interested in exploring my personality for a possible long-term romantic relationship?
It's an extreme example, but still a true one.
I might have a wonderful personality and be an extremely charming guy, but the fact I weigh 800+ pounds and add the assorted social/health issues with it will probably turn off most romantic interest.
It doesn't mean I'm a bad person, but let's face it - I don't "do anything" for you.
-Trevor
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But you have to avoid those people with serial killer eyes, right? (It's more of a dull gleam than a loving shine for the folks back home who are wondering)
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Do I want to know where you picked up that interesting tidbit of information Bob?
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Lots of questions. Trying to answer all of them thoughtfully.
Sveta, I think in the voice example you give, it would seem nice to say it specifically, for example "he has a wonderful voice". But to say "I like men with deep manly voices, I don't like for men to sound like boys" does strike me as being not very nice. What if someone who really cared about your approval heard you say that, and he felt his voice wasn't deep enough for you? What if your son heard you say "I like tall guys", for example, and he wasn't as tall as his brother?
When I hear guys say they like this or that superficial feature in women, I always feel put off by it, whether I have that feature or not. Either way it is icky. I don't want to be liked because of my <fill in the blank>.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I understand what you're saying, ak. I'll be the first to say that what makes me attracted to someone is their personality. If I think they are kind and caring, and especially respectful, then I will be able to look past how they look, or disregard it, at least I think so. But it remains that I have to get to that point in the first place, and I need something to help me determine where to start. I could just sit outside my house and let a line form, but I don't have time for that.
There have been guys that I liked alot as friends, and it was only after being with them a while that I found myself becoming attracted. So, for friendship, I would agree that it doesn't make any sense for physical to come into it. But for a romantic relationship, which is at least in part built upon chemistry, it would seem that there needs to be some physical attraction.
And as far as a warm, friendly smile, etc, I have to wonder why you're looking at that person in the first place that they are smiling at you.
quote: What if your son heard you say "I like tall guys", for example, and he wasn't as tall as his brother?
Truthfully, I try very hard not to let my kids hear me make comments about physical stuff. Mainly because I don't want them to feel too self-concious too early on. But I think that they will STILL form opinions about people's looks without me to say anything.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
I don't think people can really help what turns them on. I think physical attraction is largely at the un- or sub-conscious level, and if things like breast size or a big butt or a cleft chin or a winning smile cause that kind of reaction, what can you do about it? Having that reaction doesn't make you a bad person or shallow. And if it's normal and basically inevitable that you will have a response to these types of stimuli, then why is it wrong to acknowledge that it happens? I can see the argument that it's rather gauche to say it out loud, but to try to make it go away seems futile and possibly dishonest.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. Men get the same thing, although not so much.
A good friend of mine absolutely had to date men who were taller than she was. Race, religion - it didn't matter, but the height thing was an issue.
-Trevor
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Let me try again, before I make ak think I'm a severe jerk.
I like tall dudes, but mainly because I'm very tall myself.
But, if a guy that wasn't tall asked me out, and seemed to be a nice guy, I'd probably go. I wouldn't be thinking "But you're not tall!" Instead I'd be thinking about what I was going to wear. It doesn't mean I won't like a guy if he's not tall, it just means that I probably wouldn't have noticed him on my own right away.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
TMedina, on shallowness, you asked why I turned down the last person who asked me out. I'm trying to thoughtfully answer that one with this post. Luckily he's not a hatracker so I can.
He never actually asked me out, but it seemed as though he well might until I began to discourage it. I thought about it for a long while. He had some very nice qualities. But I realized that he saw life primarily in terms of survival and getting ahead, which don't count highly on my list of priorities, and he already had several times said things that were bossing me around, which is cute when you can thank someone and ignore their bossing, but much less cute on closer acquaintence. But most importantly he doesn't believe in true love as a concept. He's from a culture where you find someone suitable (or your family finds them) and then you just do right by them, and he feels that's the best approach. I admire that in many ways, yet I still believe in true love as an essential selection criterion for my own self. I want to be loved like that, and will love that way in return.
I realize this seems kind of crazy to get that deep into thinking about things before a first date but I've discovered that my heart is very serious and permanent, and so I don't date anyone that I don't already really like a lot. I try to be more careful with my heart now.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
PSI, I think you said what the rest of us were trying to say.
-Trevor
Edit: ak - so it would be safe to say you don't like bossy, dominant men?
Sorry, just being difficult - I understand the concept. Honest.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't know. I used to distinctly have a "type" of eye candy I tended to drool at.
My boyfriend, while not unattractive doesn't fit that "type" at all. Now over the years I've been with him I've acquired a secondary "type" of guy that I will take a second glance at that is built more like him.
However if it is for straight eye candy I will always choose the first type. It doesn't make me love my boyfriend any less. Those people don't have his mind and soul. But the people that I'm viewing as eye candy I'm never going to meet or have a chance to find out what their mind and souls are like anyway. So why does it matter that I'm objectifying them?
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
ak, that doesn't seem weird. For all the talk about physical preferences and everything, I turned down every guy who asked me out until I met Jes. It was only because I knew none of them were serious enough and I didn't want a boyfriend, I wanted a husband. That's a lot of pressure for most guys!
quote: PSI, I think you said what the rest of us were trying to say.
Psssh, yeah. And it only took me forty thousand words to do it.
<--bad at writing
[ July 23, 2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
So ak, why is intellect different from appearance? Tease it apart, and truly show me why it's okay to judge on one, but not the other.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yeah, Sveta, you wouldn't be thinking that about anyone specific. You'd be thinking about who they were as a person. Which is why it feels wrong to me to say, "I like guys with junk in the trunk" or anything of that sort. It's the same idea as saying you like or dislike different nationalities, or races, or religions. It just feels nicer to judge people individually for themselves, taken as a whole person, than for those qualities.
[ July 23, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, I know you like Brando because he's a kind spirit. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The point is - dislike a person individually, but don't make sweeping generalizations.
I am comfortable making generalizations until proven wrong, but I don't base those generalizations on physical appearance, generally speaking.
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
dabbler, intellect taken alone is the same way. I would feel it was nice to say I loved someone's devastating intelligence, but not nice to say that I'm only interested in intelligent men, for example.
Taking that from the other perspective, if I thought someone wanted to date me because they were looking for a girl with an very high IQ, I would find that quite off-putting.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I would feel it was nice to say I loved someone's devastating intelligence, but not nice to say that I'm only interested in intelligent men, for example.
Isn't it different to say "I'm attracted to intelligence" and "I only like intelligent men"?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hmm. After breaking off a relationship with someone that it was just too hard to have a conversation with I did once say “I will never again date a man who whose ACT or SAT score wasn’t at least half of mine.”
I may not have stuck to it (moot point now) but I did say it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> This post is to try and answer the Brando question.
<Pandy I really only like because of his junk in the trunk. I can admit that privately here to you. Just don't let him know that, okay?>
I don't like actors either until I get to know them as people, or rather until I get to know their characters as people. I remember long ago when Mel Gibson was much admired, I couldn't see why at all from stills. I am usually rather delayed in my exposure to pop culture. Then I saw Hamlet and really fell for his Hamlet. I'd read the play several times before, yet Mel Gibson's Hamlet was very attractive as a person. Then later I saw the first Lethal Weapon it was the same guy. Still very interesting and attractive, at least to the extent we could know him.
Brando's looks are not at all what made him a star. Looks don't make people stars in general, I don't think. Many are fairly ugly until you get to know them through their work.
Again, it feels to me to be fine to say "Brando was very attractive because of that certain animal luxury he had, that powerful but languid air of masculinity." Not so nice, though, to turn it around and say "I love guys with big pecs."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Again, it feels to me to be fine to say "Brando was very attractive because of that certain animal luxury he had, that powerful but languid air of masculinity." Not so nice, though, to turn it around and say "I love guys with big pecs."
Okay, sounds good.
*ahem*
Tall guys are attractive because they are tall. How's that?
And I agree. Pandy's got it goin' on. I saw the picture of his cyber hug. It was the cutest thing I had ever seen. I almost died of cuteness.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
quote:Isn't it different to say "I'm attracted to intelligence" and "I only like intelligent men"?
Sveta, yes, it's somewhat nicer that way. And I sure am not saying that I never say anything vulgar. Things I say myself don't ever seem to strike me as being so bad, I guess.
I guess the parent/child test is the best way I've found to tell. If I said something that I wouldn't much like to hear my mother say, or my nieces, for instance, then that ought to tell me something.
That and turning it around, I guess. Whenever I've heard a guy say "I like xyz in a woman" it makes me feel objectified, regardless of whether or not I have the quality in question, or even whether or not the person speaking is someone I would ever consider dating. Even if they were married or something. It just feels offensive.
[ July 23, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> Pandy does indeed have it going on. Part zen mystic, part uber-hunk-amid-the-bamboo. All the chicks dig his foundation!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Can we share him too? Or we can take turns with both.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ah, <pause to wrestle with feelings of severe pandy-jealousy>, but of course Ro-Pandy bestows his affections however he may choose. I merely pay him my obeisances and profound respect and gratitude as is natural for all thinking feeling beings. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Okay....does that mean I can snuggle with him?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But for a romantic relationship, which is at least in part built upon chemistry, it would seem that there needs to be some physical attraction.
The wacky thing about me is, if I am attracted to the persons insides, I pretty much always become attracted to their outsides, no matter what their flaws. There does seem to be a stereotype that women in general are better at doing this than men; That men can do it to some extent too, but not to the same extent. I don't know how true it is or what, and I would be interested in the input of the minds of Hatrack.
I have said this before, but I have had the experience in my life of being *powerfully* attracted to men that women considered ugly. Ugly enough to deter them from having romantic feelings for them. While I was still aware of their physical flaws, they were really able to "get my motor running" so to speak.
I think men have a harder time with that because their sex drives are more visually based than that of women. Does this bother me? Yes, yes it does. 'Tis the way of things.
That does not, however, mean that I do not have a physical ideal. My physical ideal happens to be tall, slender, dark hair, and striking, even exaggerated, facial features, like: expressive eyes, strong eyebrows, large nose, etc.
Glasses also are a turn on.
Basically, I think nerds are hawt.
Oh, and the "ugly men" in the above example did not fit the above description very well.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<wrestles some more>
But of course! Ro-Pandy is his own master. Whatsoever he deemeth meet, then that shall be done.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Bev- Do you think it matters that I fell in love with the back of my husband's head?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
PSI
Dudette, that's awesome! I'm gonna remember that.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*amens glasses*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ugly and attractive are highly relative standards.
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
beverly, I am the same way about liking the looks for the person. I think the real truth is that everyone is that way. A corpse is not attractive to anyone. Nor are store manniquins. The reasons bodies are attractive at all (think about it, they are animated piles of what will eventually be rotting garbage) is because of the people who inhabit them. I've noticed that when I like someone, I start liking more and more everything around them, in proportion to how close it is to their essence.
Like their shirt that they'd worn a lot might be fairly attractive, while their favorite book from childhood would rate even higher. A drawing they made once and didn't put much thought into might be only moderately interesting. A lock of their hair, now you are talking highly fascinating. And so on. Their hands, wow. Every time I like a guy I really start liking the particular way his hands look.
Once (and this is really weird) I allowed myself to fancifully imagine a guy I was crazy about online was actually a computer program, a secret AI project. After about a week of that idle fancy, I had to stop it because I found myself becoming attracted to sheet metal sprayed with gray epoxy paint. Seriously!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You would have to see the guys I am talking about. I doubt anyone would find them attractive, strictly physically speaking.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
ak, a man can be a lot more powerfully attracted to a nameless pile of flesh than a woman can, IMHO. As long as that nameless pile of flesh is sexy. Why else are men more likely to oogle photos of women than women are to oogle photos of men?
But that is totally different than being in love with someone, though.
On being attracted to a visualization of hardware, isn't the human imagination amazing?
[ July 23, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
There's a Hindu story about a beautiful and wise young girl who was pressured by a man who wanted to marry her because of her beauty. He was very powerful and she found it harder and harder to put off his increasingly demanding and coercive attentions. Finally she agreed she would meet him in 2 weeks time at a certain place. During that 2 weeks she took strong purgatives, and did not eat or sleep. She kept all the vomit and stool that she produced from this in jars. At the appointed time she appeared, haggard, gaunt, and sunken eyed, at the place arranged. She was so ugly that the man didn't recognize her. He asked her if she'd seen the girl for whom he was waiting, and was shocked when she told him it was she. He asked her what had happened to her beauty, and she pointed him to the jars. He looked inside and was repulsed. But then he finally understood, because of her great wisdom in showing him, and was enlightened.
I think the story ends happily. The enlightened man now fell in love with the girl for her own self, her strength and wisdom, and understood his unfitness for her as a mate. He was humbled, but then she genuinely grew fond of him and they married and lived happily ever after. Sort of a Pride and Prejudice story, now that I come to think of it. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
beverly, that may be true of some men, being attracted to pretty girlflesh, but not all by far, thank goodness.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That is a really cool story. I have never heard it before.
Edit: You're right, that is way too sweeping a generalization for me to make. Sorry, all.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> On the human imagination, I feel certain that the same process is the only reason blobs of carbon compounds in certain configurations can take on such an appeal.
And many guys do seem to say visual cues matter a lot to them. Yet I feel positive the same principle must apply in every case. Otherwise no guy would prefer a real wife over an Inflatible Girlfriend (tm).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
[tongueincheek/] It is true that an overwhelming number of men marry imperfect, flesh-and-blood women over Inflatable Girlfriend (tm) [tongueincheek/]
But of course, men are also far more than a sex drive and their sex drive is far more than just visual cues. I still stand by my belief that for men *in general* the visual cues are more a part of the sex drive than for women. (Accepting exceptions)
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, I've yet to see the inflatable doll capable of scratching my back.
Which, while isn't strictly sexual, feels pretty good nonetheless.
And I'm sorry, if all I wanted was a physical release, masturbation does wonders. But there is something to be said for an interactive sexual experience.
And we haven't touched on the cuddling factor which, since nobody here knows me, I'm not ashamed to admit I enjoyed..
-Trevor
Edit: I think it's more or less commonly accepted that men are visual while women prefer more emotional or mental stimulation. Exceptions abound, of course.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
And even guys who objectify women greatly, for instance guys who hang out in strip joints and habitually pick up girls for brief liasons. They still know the difference. (I've noticed this from things I've happened to read or hear.) They will say things like, "this was NICE girl p_____, not stripper p_____". They are just very confused about where the value lies, where it originates. It's certainly not in particular shapes or visual images or even in particular sensory input.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I have to disagree that the feeling of cuddling or having your back scratched is pleasing, apart from the person with whom these things are shared. If you had a slave to do these things, or else paid someone to do them, they would become of low value to you. If someone you loathed did them, you'd cringe in distaste.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I think it's more or less commonly accepted that men are visual while women prefer more emotional or mental stimulation.
I thought so too. But whenever I suggest this, people seem to disagree with me. Some people get mad. I think it's because people think this is a negative thing and therefore don't like to openly acknowledge it in mixed company.
It doesn't mean that all men are predisposed to picking up hot chickies for one-night-stands. It effects every man in an individual way and they choose how they deal with their own sex drive.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ak - if you pay someone to cuddle with you, it's not cuddling. If it's someone you loathe, it borders on a criminal offense.
Cuddling requires a certain emotional context - otherwise it's not the same.
As for scratching my back - paid or slave, I'd probably still enjoy it. That's not nearly as intimate, but enjoyable nonetheless.
Bev - everything I have read about the differences in arousal suggests or outright states that men prefer visual, like porn. Women, by comparison, find porn a little dull but enjoy a good romance novel because it stimulates the imagination.
Standard disclaimer - there are always exceptions to every generalization.
-Trevor
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
So again it's the person that counts. Not any particular visual or sensory stimulus.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oy. Generally speaking, a majority of.
So yes and no. Certain individuals will differ, but speaking in a broad context, men are this and women are thus.
-Trevor
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
A good man will not let the visual aspect of arousal rule him. He will take into account the whole person. But the power and influence of that visual arousal still exists. They choose how they deal with it after the initial impact is made.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It doesn't mean that all men are predisposed to picking up hot chickies for one-night-stands.
Nope, it's other things that predispose us to that. Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
*wonders if he should link to pandy photos to show what the ladies are talking about* Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No! It's me and Tatiana's secret!
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
Ok, but myr and ronnie have seen his pictures too. So you all may have competition.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
PSI![[Razz]](tongue.gif)