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 28  

post #406 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


The last time I checked I'm still a man, and I disagree with that.

 

Unless women's legs are not chubby and somewhat ugly a man can feel attraction to many shapes of women's legs. Long legs, shorter legs, black/white skinned legs, muscular/less muscular.

 

I think that women generally have tendency to individualize their attraction unlike men. 

post #407 of 21760
I take some time away, I had to go get my car add-ons fitted, and 160 posts... really? tongue.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Unless women's legs are not chubby and somewhat ugly a man can feel attraction to many shapes of women's legs. Long legs, shorter legs, black/white skinned legs, muscular/less muscular.

I think that women generally have tendency to individualize their attraction unlike men. 

I admit, I like more muscled and rounded thighs, over twiggie-thin ones. They just look healthier.
Edited by Magick Man - 9/14/12 at 2:31pm
post #408 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/14/12 at 4:22pm
post #409 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by compoopers View Post

So one of my favorite bands, The Avett Brothers, released a new album this last Tuesday.
I was a little disappointed by the album because it is a step away from their roots, I suppose. The Avetts are known to be particularly raw in their folk/bluegrass roots and I derived great pleasure from that rawness. Sadly, their latest album has strong signs of a cleaner, more produced sound. Or something along those lines, so to speak, you could say, yadda yadda.
Listen for yourself.VSDoesn't the second feel so much more... genuine?
Or am I just being dumb and not accepting that a bands sound will change?
The part that bugs me the most is that I actually like the songs. Just not the way they're mixed. The instruments are pushed to the back, the voices to the front. Harmonization is tuned to be perfectly balanced, instruments are mixed to sound perfectly cohesive, electric-type sounds are being introduced rather than their old acoustic sound...
Get off my lawn music producers!

 

I actually like the new, more polished sound as well. Seems to me like a deliberate step towards a broader audience, but thankfully without compromising the quality of their songwriting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Now, this was a great band and though short-lived, they were in a different league. Love these two tracks:

 

 

 

 

Thanks for this, music, an amazing debut album that still sounds fresh after more than 20 years! smile_phones.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Yeah, congrats Coq de Combat, that sounds really promising.

 

x2, fingers crossed...

 

 

Don't know if Magazine have ever been mentioned here in the diary threads. Anyway, they've probably been my favorite eighties band, so here are two live tracks:

 

 

 

 

Now by contrast, two tracks by much more recent bands that I happen to like a lot:

 

 

 


And last not least, a pretty good new take (imo) on an old classic:

 

post #410 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Unless women's legs are not chubby and somewhat ugly a man can feel attraction to many shapes of women's legs. Long legs, shorter legs, black/white skinned legs, muscular/less muscular.

 

Having known several guys with huge leg fixations, I can't say I find what you're saying accurate in the least. One guy I knew loved scrawny legs and hated chubby legs. Another guy was the exact opposite. Also not all men are even attracted to women's legs, or women, so it being a "universal drive" is questionable. 

 

The very fact that you're saying "unless they're not somewhat ugly" pretty much invalidates your claim that the accidental qualities don't play a primary role.

 

I'd also like to point out that the standards of beauty have changed in society over the years, and that a chubbier body type was seen as more attractive and fertile before, whereas now thinner body types are more popular. It also varies culture to culture.

post #411 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 What seem like details actually mean the difference between successful selection or losing out to competition.

 

Yeah but male's sexism is not selective. He wants to spread his semen to as many women as possible. So details don't play such a big role.

post #412 of 21760
What about the social aspect of attraction - doesn't the general perception of what is considered attractive change based on the social norms at that time and in that place? I'm thinking of some of the extreme examples such as African neck rings & lip plates or Feudal Japan, or even the figures represented in Renaissance artwork. It can't be all biological or individual if it shifts over time & location, can it?

Edit: MF just mentioned what I'm saying while I was typing...
Edited by billybob_jcv - 9/14/12 at 2:33pm
post #413 of 21760

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. 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.


No, that is not what is being conveyed here. Saying that attraction among men is an animalistic instinct equivalent to all men is wrong. Your trying to remove the human component to all of this, and that isn't fair. All men do not think alike, and one's personal feelings are definitely a key part of physical attraction. This will lead to very different preferences from person to person, which can not be measured (or compensated for) accurately in gender-divided groups.


Edited by Sylverant - 9/14/12 at 2:34pm
post #414 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

Yeah but male's sexism is not selective. He wants to spread his semen to as many women as possible. So details don't play such a big role.

Don't lump me into that. I'm weird, but I have to love someone before I dive into bed. And I'm very choosy about the loving thing.
post #415 of 21760

...


Edited by Sylverant - 9/14/12 at 3:18pm
post #416 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

-- You, MF, are rationalising a bit too much for my liking. Things are more simple than that, but I'm convinced you need to grow older to see (even) more clearly what I mean and what already part of you knows. These more 'simplistic' explanations often come with age / (more) experience

 

 

Hey now, in the last thread you were telling me I was over-simplifying another matter. So maybe I'm averaging out at this point? : P

post #417 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

What about the social aspect of attraction - doesn't the general perception of what is considered attractive change based on the social norms at that time and in that place? I'm thinking of some of the extreme examples such as African neck rings & lip plates or Feudal Japan, or even the figures represented in Renaissance artwork. It can't be all biological or individual if it shifts over time & location, can it?
Edit: MF just mentioned what I'm saying while I was typing...

That's a fact. Classic beauty is a larger woman, what many now would call a "BBW". Things are swinging back that way now, which I think is better. For a while there, unless a chick looked anorexic she was considered fat, and that's absurd.
post #418 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Don't lump me into that. I'm weird, but I have to love someone before I dive into bed. And I'm very choosy about the loving thing.

Didn't Stephen Stills already address this issue?
post #419 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylverant View Post

Quote:


No, that is not what is being conveyed here. Saying that attraction among men is an animalistic instinct equivalent to all men is wrong. Your trying to remove the human component to all of this, and that isn't fair. All men do not think alike, and one's personal feelings are definitely a key part of physical attraction. This will lead to very different preferences from person to person, which can not be measured (or compensated for) accurately in gender-divided groups.

 

Should we talk about sexual attraction or personal holistic attraction? These are different and coexist. I may have a sexual attraction to a woman but at the same time I may not like her as a person. And vice versa I may like a woman as a person but at the same time I may not feel sexual attraction to her.


Edited by mutabor - 9/14/12 at 2:50pm
post #420 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

Didn't Stephen Stills already address this issue?

Eh, no thanks. That's not me. I've had a couple ONS and I felt disgusted with myself.
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