or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 27  

post #391 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

I think that the vast majority of men has the same feeling and they mean the same thing when they say "I like women's legs".

 

I disagree. A pair of legs is always someone's pair of legs, and this provides a further context for the attraction. Even in the case of fetishism, which would defined as attraction toward the legs themselves sans woman, there are further accidental qualities which undoubtedly play a role in the individual's fixation.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

There are gay men which feel different toward that statement but they are minority.

 

I don't th---

 

...huh?


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 1:36pm
post #392 of 21760

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Trying to compare commonalities in attraction across groups makes no sense to me. As for the points I'm trying to make, hopefully I can clarify things in the above post somewhat.

 

I'm not saying there aren't important distinctions between groups, but that often times the important distinctions between individuals are "glossed over" by trying to compare large groups to one another (ie. "men" and "women.") Sexual attraction strikes me as something that such a comparison would ultimately disservice.

 

My point in the first place however wasn't quite so poetic. I was really just saying that in sampling a group of women, statistically speaking, one is likely to find more variation within that group than when comparing "women" to "men."

 

Hmm...so to try and put it simply (and please correct me if I am wrong): your saying that when considering attraction, key preferences (or details pertaining to those preferences) may lose relevance when not considered in an individual, personalized context?

I'd agree with that.

post #393 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei View Post

Their camera was never number one, their camera matched up and were on hand with Samsung and other company flagships with a tied rating on most sites for both the 4 and 4S. Megapixels do not equal quality. The Nokia ones now do have better ones so every other brand is now number 2 as of right now.

See bowei, I too can play fanboy! They've had the number 1 cameraphone since Oct. 2010 ever since the launch of the N8. I could also reluctantly say that they started it with the N86 as the first wide-angle lens'd cameraphone (hope to god that my sleep deprived brain and memory serve me well enough). Also in a sense, megapixels do equal quality. It's just all in the execution. The N8 proved that 12MP is doable. The 808 proved that 41MP in a relatively small form is doable. And now Nokia extends the lead, yet again, in phone imaging capability with the Lumia 920, marketing blunder notwithstanding. Sure this time it isn't the OMGhuge sensor used in the 808, but they did something else with it. What else did Apple did other than using sapphire crystal to make the lens and naming them iSight?

So true, Apple isn't really innovating anymore (well... did they ever? I TOO CAN PLAY FANBOY) with the iPhone 5, and since 4S, IMO.

/fanboy

Note that I'm only talkiing about the camera LOL, since that's where most of my focus on smartphone is for some reason. I do think that they did a remarkable job at exploding the smartphone market to Average Joes and Janes. They did an amazing job at getting the OS to feel easy to learn. And thanks to them gaming too seems to expand to be more on the go than just tethered to the TV, a PC or a dedicated handheld gaming device. And reviving, and popularizing the use of a tablet for good or worse.

EDIT: I should also add that I found it amazing that they can cram all the stuff into that small size, of course with the intended general aesthetic in mind. It seems like they make the design on looks first and cram all the electronic bits later as best as they can. Sort of like a not-fail Denon making a not-fail D7100.

Really I shouldn't type arguments and analogies while my brain, and eyes, are begging for sleep.

bizkit, it seems that UM link is nonexistent.
Edited by jgray91 - 9/14/12 at 1:44pm
post #394 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylverant View Post

Quote:

 

Hmm...so to try and put it simply (and please correct me if I am wrong): your saying that when considering attraction, key preferences (or details pertaining to those preferences) may lose relevance when not considered in an individual, personalized context?

I'd agree with that.

 

That's definitely part of what I'm saying, yup. *thumbsup*

post #395 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post


See bowei, I too can play fanboy! They've had the number 1 cameraphone since Oct. 2010 ever since the launch of the N8. I could also reluctantly say that they started it with the N86 as the first wide-angle lens'd cameraphone (hope to god that my sleep deprived brain and memory serve me well enough). Also in a sense, megapixels do equal quality. It's just all in the execution. The N8 proved that 12MP is doable. The 808 proved that 41MP in a relatively small form is doable. And now Nokia extends the lead, yet again, in phone imaging capability with the Lumia 920, marketing blunder notwithstanding. Sure this time it isn't the OMGhuge sensor used in the 808, but they did something else with it. What else did Apple did other than using sapphire crystal to make the lens and naming them iSight?
So true, Apple isn't really innovating anymore (well... did they ever? I TOO CAN PLAY FANBOY) with the iPhone 5, and since 4S, IMO.
/fanboy
Note that I'm only talkiing about the camera LOL, since that's where most of my focus on smartphone is for some reason. I do think that they did a remarkable job at exploding the smartphone market to Average Joes and Janes. They did an amazing job at getting the OS to feel easy to learn. And thanks to them gaming too seems to expand to be more on the go than just tethered to the TV, a PC or a dedicated handheld gaming device. And reviving, and popularizing the use of a tablet for good or worse.
bizkit, it seems that UM link is nonexistent.

****... I should have chosen my words better. I forgot about that wording CRAP... you win this time.

 

Their innovations weren't their innovations half the time but using practices of exisiting ones, however the difference is that their products that contained those innovations succeded. That's the difference.

 

Thanks for quotting me. I was getting sad nobody looked at it.

post #396 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

I disagree. A pair of legs is always someone's pair of legs, and this provides a further context for the attraction. Even in the case of fetishism, which would defined as attraction toward the legs themselves sans woman, there are further accidental qualities which undoubtedly play a role in the individual's fixation.

 

I think that attraction of men toward women's legs has general ( the same) instinct behind it. Individual features play a secondary role. It seems that you don't like common generalizations about genders and sexes and hence are trying to put emphases on individual features which cause attraction.


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 1:52pm
post #397 of 21760
bowei, there was once a rant from MF about smth smth look at the vibe of the thread smth smth and slowly worm your way into the hearts of the regulars. I suggest you should to that too. All in good intention of course. smily_headphones1.gif
post #398 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

I think that attraction of men toward women's legs has general ( the same) instinct behind it. Individual features play a secondary role.

 

One could just as easily say attraction in general has a similar mechanism / instinct behind it. If we're going to specify "legs" at the object of attraction, then we're already getting into the secondary aspect. I can see attraction itself as a universal drive, but "leg attraction" as a universal is silly to me.

post #399 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

One could just as easily say attraction in general has a similar mechanism / instinct behind it. If we're going to specify "legs" at the object of attraction, then we're already getting into the secondary aspect. I can see attraction itself as a universal drive, but "leg attraction" as a universal is silly to me.

 

Why is it silly? It's definitely a universal mechanism. Attraction to women's sexual parts and legs has a universal drive behind it. 

post #400 of 21760
Though slightly off topic, on the topic of attraction I always find myself to be turned off by women that are generally seen as pretty. Instead I find myself almost only attracted by, nerdy girls, glass wearing girls, short girls, and Asian girls. Why this is, I do not know.

It felt very awkward to say this.
post #401 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Why is it silly? It's definitely a universal mechanism. Attraction to women's sexual parts and legs has a universal drive behind it. 

 

Yes, the drive is universal. The attraction to legs isn't.

 

 

One isn't just "attracted to a body" but rather a specific body type when it comes to one's preferences. Same goes for the parts of the body which are known to our sense perception though their accidents. Ie., we never just encounter "a leg." That leg will always have features, and we use those features in determining preference. We aren't attracted to some Platonic form of "leg-ness."

 


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 2:15pm
post #402 of 21760

Unless you're name is Plato.   wink.gif


Edited by TheWuss - 9/14/12 at 2:08pm
post #403 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

Yes, the drive is universal. The attraction to legs isn't.

 

 

One isn't just "attracted to a body" but rather a specific body type when it comes to one's preferences. Same goes for the parts of the body which are known to our sense perception though their accidents. Ie., we never just encounter "a leg." That leg will always have features, and we use those features in determining preference. We aren't attracted to some Platonic form of "leg-ness."

 

I can't speak for other creatures but men do have some idea of legg-ness inserted in their brains. They don't really care about particular shape of a leg, the mere idea of women's legs has something attractive in it.

 

What a sexist I am!


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 2:11pm
post #404 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

I can't speak for other creatures but men do have some idea of legg-ness inserted in their brains. They don't really care about particular shape of a leg, the mere idea of women's legs has something attractive in it.
The last time I checked I'm still a man, and I disagree with that.
post #405 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

I can't speak for other creatures but men do have some idea of legg-ness inserted in their brains. They don't really care about particular shape of a leg, the mere idea of women's legs has something attractive in it.

 

What a sexist I am!

 

 

I suppose one could argue that there is an archetypal quality to legs, as some kind of primordial symbol or something. Genitals have archetypal significance. Feet are seen as stability or the "connection to the earth" according to some anthropologists. I would say in this instance however that the principle attraction is to that idealized concept. When it comes to individual attraction, things get complicated, and I personally *don't* think it's just a matter of attraction to a part of the body in a universal sense, even if the drive behind that attraction is universal. I think the accidents which present to our senses are filtered by our preferences (that sounds a bit too Kantian for my liking, but I'm not going on to say we can't know "legs in themselves" lol).

 

For instance, if someone liked chubby legs, the chubbiness is actually important enough to serve as a prompt of selection, and so the individual with scrawny legs is going to be left out. Even in an evolutionary sense it's not just a matter of archetypal drives by themselves. So-called "secondary features" play a huge role in determining suitability. What seem like details actually mean the difference between successful selection or losing out to competition.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 2:16pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2