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 29  

post #421 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

It can't be all biological or individual if it shifts over time & location, can it?

 

I think the social and biological aspects play a role in shaping the individual's disposition, certainly.

 

 

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.

 

 

Not true. Even in a model like that which focuses on evolutionary drives, males are selective for certain traits equated with fertility in their partners, such as certain body types and a certain age range.

 

Furthermore, even granting your incorrect statement, how does attraction to legs play into wanting to spread one's seed as much as possible? In your system that's already a detail, so we're talking about details of details.

post #422 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

You know, I'll keep my eyes on you my friend. You have been making recommendations to your left and right, playing mister niceguy with everyone, but I think you're up to something here.

 

More like "on to something" than up to something ;).

post #423 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

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.

 

I think we're coming at this from two different angles and having a hard time because our assumptions and common knowledge don't match.  Do you have any background or experience in science?  I'm not trying to name call or anything but this is mostly about the process of science rather than just the facts of science which is you get in most basic classes.  I'll try to explain exactly what I'm proposing more clearly.

 

Something I was taking for granted earlier was that different scales of resolution require different models.  What works for one doesn't work for another.  I'm not trying to explain something as specific as an individual's sexual attractions with just genetics and in utero hormone levels.  What we can do is link those things with the probabilities of certain quantifiable outcomes and by doing that we've shifted the focus to a population rather than an individual.  Applying those kinds of models to an individual just doesn't work, even for hard determinists, because of incomplete information.

 

If you're dealing with an individual person then you should treat them like a person.  Talk to them.  Analyze their behavior in the context of relevant psychological and sociological models.  Don't make decisions about an individual based on inferences from a population.  There are too many confounding factors for it to work.

 

I'll try and explain a bit more in responding to the points below with an explanation of how how thing should go, ideally at least.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

1.) I tend to see attraction as too individualized and holistic a phenomena for anything meaningful to be gleaned by simply observing the frequency with which certain aspects appear across groups.

 

I don't mean this to be some grand theory of sexual attraction.  Separating turn ons and turn offs, counting their frequency in a survey, and looking for correlations is only the very first step.  You don't just do one survey, declare the results to be sacred, and build from there.  After the first results are in it needs to be analyzed for interesting correlations.  An independent team needs run the same survey and get similar results.  Someone also needs to devise some kind of test that requires the first survey results be accurate in order to succeed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

2.) For instance, one person saying "I like women's legs" may not necessarily mean the same thing as someone else's saying it. There are too many variables and different contexts: ie. muscular legs, chubby legs, thin legs, pantyhose, certain acts involving said legs. The network of interconnecting signifiers is far too vast.

 

3.) Also attraction toward another person is often more than the sum of its parts, and also depends on context. For instance, I may like this particular girl's legs but not legs in general.

 

Experiments are often hard to properly control in the social sciences.  Ambiguity of language is only the start.  That doesn't mean it can't be done to a reasonable degree with the proper protocol.  If different people run the same survey or experiment over and over again but get conflicting results then we'll know that either there isn't any correlation to find or that the protocol isn't good enough and nobody will bother trying again unless they think they have a better protocol.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

4.) Furthermore, we can know that someone prefers X, but why they prefer it is something else entirely. Knowing specific attributes is only part of the equation.

 

Yep.  Figuring out what is the first step though.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

5.) Something is inevitably lost in reducing attraction down to a set of preferences.

 

I think I mostly agree with this one

 

I don't think we're ever going to have the ability to perfectly quantify such things so something will be lost.  I don't really think it matters to what I was proposing.  There's already a degree of uncertainly to everything in science.  All you can do is reduce it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

6.) Gender is not the same as biological sex. It's a complex phenomena involving biological, social, and personal factors. Using a biological / evolutionary model to explain attraction in women and men gets into questions of how one is classifying "women" and "men." Are we looking at biological sex only? What about biologically intersexed individuals? Do we ignore gender altogether, or do we admit we're applying a model which cannot account for it and axiomatically rule it out? What about transgendered individuals? Etc.

 

Yep.  That's a complicated issue too.  It's best to start with the easy stuff, see where the model breaks, and then try and modify it so it works in the new situation.  Since our primary sense is sight I'd start with "gender"="sex"="appearance of primary sexual characteristics", exclude any ambiguous samples from the data set and go from there.  Once it works for that data set we can work to keep expanding it to encompass more observed phenomena.

 

That's how physics works too.  Magnets and electricity became electromagnetism and light became just a type of electromagnetic radiation.  Even today our model of gravity is incompatible with quantum mechanics but that doesn't stop GPS satellites from working.  They rely on both general relativity and quantum mechanics for their operation and work just fine.  Even though neither model is complete they both work well in their own domain.

 

To compare the study of human sexual attraction to the study of physics we're currently just playing around with lodestone and telling everyone else how cool it is.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylverant View Post

 

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?

 

How is it that I agree with this too...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

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

 

...but we're still arguing...


Edited by maverickronin - 9/14/12 at 3:49pm
post #424 of 21760

Wow, what a thread explosion.  eek.gif  I'd think that I would be used to it by now, but nope.  Okay, gonna do the coffee/cigarettes thing to wake up a little bit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

My brother had a girlfriend who was bi but (according to her) 90/10 towards women and we used to talk about 'chicks' almost like she was one of 'the guys'...

 

Do you happen to remember if there were similarities during the discussion of "chick" anatomy as opposed to persons as a whole?  I've never spent a considerable amount of time talking to a homosexual woman about what she likes in a woman compared to what I like to a woman, hence my original question.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barleyguy View Post

I think the other extreme is women that are attracted to "butches".  I have a gay (or slightly bi) female friend whose girlfriend is a muscular warehouse worker who dresses in men's clothes.  She's attracted to women who are as manly as possible.

 

Okay, so this I find interesting.  I find myself attracted to the physical features that I personally associate with femininity (e.g. ample breasts, long hair, slender and more curvaceous proportions as compared to men, etc.).  And while everyone has their own tastes, it has been my experience that many heterosexual men can easily relate to the same.  Some guys I talk to like "sportier" girls (i.e. girls with a leaner build).  But that nearly always reflects their desire for a mate that cares for physical fitness as much as they do.  I've never actually run across a heterosexual guy that likes masculine features.  So I'm curious to know how why some homosexual women fancy those attributes.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

This is definitely one of those cases of more variation within groups than between groups.

 

I imagine there's some overlap; why wouldn't there be?

 

Not sure how similar my own preferences are to some of you guys', but I'd imagine there's some overlap there as well.

 

Right, so while not universal in any sense of the word, commonalities would seem to abound then.  This is what I would rationally expect. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I've mentioned it before but I think that the between/within groups distinction is a little misleading.  It needs to be broken up by prevalence of specific attributes in each group.  I don't mean to criticize you or expect you to have that kind of data off the top of your head though.  I just think that a large enough sample to cut through the noise of individual preference might reveal some interesting, but subtle, differences.  Given the current genetic and developmental hypothesises for sexual orientation I think it would make sense if there was a great deal of overlap but not a complete overlap of preferences.

 

Wait, I thought Muppet was saying that there was a good deal of overlap between homosexual women and heterosexual males.  Starting to get a little lost.  confused.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

The discussion of attraction reminds me of a saying I heard a long time ago, that when translated into English went something like:
For every trashcan, there is a lid.

 

I like lids, personally.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

Also I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of applying purely biological models of sexual attraction to groups based on a factor that isn't purely biological, ie. gender. 

 

Fair enough.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizkit View Post

Huh......?
Maybe it's because of the Asperger's thing or that I've spent the far too many years in third world countries, removed from the human experience, but you completely lost me with that last paragraph.

 

Definitely lost now.  confused.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post

Hey Diary thread members, I have just completed a post I believe is worthy of this thread. I got bored after typing about performance and thus just summed up this and that but here:

 

I didn't read it yet because I'm just barely waking up - but I do believe that is the longest post I have ever seen you make, ever.  smile.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I'm not saying you were trying to mislead anyone but I see people use that phrasing a lot.  Sometimes they are tying to mislead others and other times they use it innocently and with good intentions but then leave them selves open to attack.  I don't know if you meant it this way or not, but it implies that there are no important distinctions between the groups by glossing over the details.

 

This makes no sense to me at all.  I thought we were talking about commonalities in the first place.

 

I know you don't like 'reductionism' but...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

4.) Furthermore, we can know that someone prefers X, but why they prefer it is something else entirely. Knowing specific attributes is only part of the equation.

 

Sure.  I was wondering was whether there was a prevalent commonality of preference at all.  I didn't want to presume there was before jumping to the hows and whys.

 


 

As for ever post thereafter, seriously getting lost.  Gonna have to go back and re-read after I fully wake up.  I have a super-long wake-up cycle.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I would go so far as to say that common sense is an oxymoron. biggrin.gif

 

Going by the cynicism of the day, yes. wink.gif


Home of the Liquid Carbon, Liquid Crimson, Liquid Glass, Liquid Gold and
Liquid Lightning headphone amplifiers... and the upcoming Liquid Spark!

post #425 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

Do you happen to remember if there were similarities during the discussion of "chick" anatomy as opposed to persons as a whole?  I've never spent a considerable amount of time talking to a homosexual woman about what she likes in a woman compared to what I like to a woman, hence my original question.

 

The discussion of anatomy was more explicit than I believe the TOS will allow.  Her tastes were plenty feminine but she didn't like the over-the-top "bombshell" caricature of femininity that some guys like.  Her taste in women was more conventional than mine at least...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

Okay, so this I find interesting.  I find myself attracted to the physical features that I personally associate with femininity (e.g. ample breasts, long hair, slender and more curvaceous proportions as compared to men, etc.).  And while everyone has their own tastes, it has been my experience that many heterosexual men can easily relate to the same.  Some guys I talk to like "sportier" girls (i.e. girls with a leaner build).  But that nearly always reflects their desire for a mate that cares for physical fitness as much as they do.  I've never actually run across a heterosexual guy that likes masculine features.  So I'm curious to know how why some homosexual women fancy those attributes.

 

since I have a pretty wide range of body types I'm attracted to.  I like everything from nearly androgynous (remember my avatar is actually a girl...) to the very beginning of the OTT huge breasts, pencil-thin waist, only-exists-through-surgery-or-photoshop type mentioned above.

 

I think that some girls look good wearing guys clothes but my tastes don't get any more 'masculine' than that.  Maybe it's the contrast that I like.  I'm not really sure.

post #426 of 21760

Here's a video for the video/camera enthusiasts out there. A rather amusing video too

 

post #427 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

The discussion of anatomy was more explicit than I believe the TOS will allow.  Her tastes were plenty feminine but she didn't like the over-the-top "bombshell" caricature of femininity that some guys like.  Her taste in women was more conventional than mine at least...

 

Since I have a pretty wide range of body types I'm attracted to.  I like everything from nearly androgynous (remember my avatar is actually a girl...) to the very beginning of the OTT huge breasts, pencil-thin waist, only-exists-through-surgery-or-photoshop type mentioned above.

 

I think that some girls look good wearing guys clothes but my tastes don't get any more 'masculine' than that.  Maybe it's the contrast that I like.  I'm not really sure.

 

Or the variety perhaps? smile.gif


Home of the Liquid Carbon, Liquid Crimson, Liquid Glass, Liquid Gold and
Liquid Lightning headphone amplifiers... and the upcoming Liquid Spark!

post #428 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/15/12 at 5:15am
post #429 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

Here's a video for the video/camera enthusiasts out there. A rather amusing video too



Ha! Love it!

It's a good thing that wasn't a camera phone - the seagull probably would have dropped it in the ocean if a call came in...
post #430 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgray91 View Post


Wow. That made my night!

Mr Barnatt is one good dancer. I just kind of wished he had more moves ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

Never really liked Oasis (Cool Britannia anyone?), but I think this is a brilliant song:

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

No.

I don't like Oasis too much either, but I can't deny the fact that they have been one of the more influential bands, dare I say in the history of music?

 

As for the stone roses, I really liked the first song. It did remind me of several bands, strangely enough one of them are the jeans team. I think it may be because jeans team does (or did) synthpop influenced by post-punk/new romance/etc. and that the first song kinda reminded me of that kind of music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardgedee View Post

Awesome! Crossing fingers...

Thank you my friend. I'm keeping positive about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

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

I think so too! :)

post #431 of 21760

.


Edited by music_4321 - 9/15/12 at 7:46am
post #432 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

You know, I'll keep my eyes on you my friend. You have been making recommendations to your left and right, playing mister niceguy with everyone, but I think you're up to something here.

So, today I received an email from them, pretty much saying that the recruiter and CEO of the company thought well of me and my skills and would make the recommendation to the board that they'll hire me. :)

 
Hey congrats! That sounds fantastic. Fingers crossed!
----
Re: the gender discussion, I think it's interesting to compare it to the discussion about furries we had earlier. Sexual attraction to characteristics seems to originate as much from broader biological function as much as personal preferences. While fetishization is a particular kind of arousal, I do think that its notable that fetishes seem to develop over time from external influences. (I don't believe anyone is 'born this way' into a gas mask fetish for instance). I think that fetishes and inhibition do point towards normal modes of sexual behaviour - we have reasons to find things erotic, and they are a product of biological function and context. The brain is plastic enough to develop some pretty convoluted sexual routines as far as I can tell. I myself like all kinds of guys... but I have a real attraction towards androgynous guys who I find both awesome and intimidating. :P
 
-----------
 
On a vaguely related note, I went to a furry pub meet up last night (and will go to one today) to conduct some interviews. The diversity of responses was pretty amazing, and pretty much out of 6 different interviews I got 6 different responses with only a few common elements. (I would go further but I have to pack up and go to centennial park to see the fursuiters!) Some interesting fursonas I met: a yoshi, a werewolf, a dingo.
post #433 of 21760
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post
On a vaguely related note, I went to a furry pub meet up last night (and will go to one today) to conduct some interviews. The diversity of responses was pretty amazing, and pretty much out of 6 different interviews I got 6 different responses with only a few common elements. (I would go further but I have to pack up and go to centennial park to see the fursuiters!) Some interesting fursonas I met: a yoshi, a werewolf, a dingo.

 

Sounds like some pretty interesting research.

 

Also, what color yoshi?  The blue ones were my favorite since they could fly.

 

Sorry couldn't resist...

post #434 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_4321 View Post

 

Must be getting a bit older than I thought — I generally think I still have a pretty good memory!  :)  But out of curiosity, do you happen to remember roughly what it was in the other thread I said you were over-simplifying?

 

If I recall correctly, it was a brief comment I made about orthodoxy in religious belief.

post #435 of 21760
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

 

I think we're coming at this from two different angles and having a hard time because our assumptions and common knowledge don't match.  Do you have any background or experience in science?  I'm not trying to name call or anything but this is mostly about the process of science rather than just the facts of science which is you get in most basic classes.  I'll try to explain exactly what I'm proposing more clearly.

 

...but we're still arguing...

 

I have a background in social science and statistical analysis, basically what I studied all throughout my time as an undergrad. For a while I was considering becoming a psychometrician, and I've studied test construction and data analysis. I understand how the process of science works. I am not arguing that attraction can't be studied in the framework of scientific investigation. I'm saying that I personally don't think much meaningful information can be gleaned from examining broad patterns of attraction across groups.

 

Within the field of social science, there has been an ongoing debate between the loci of such things, be it in the individual or the social. My advocating an individualist approach to attraction isn't necessarily "unscientific" if that's what you're implying. I could sit here and come up with experimental designs, gather and analyze data, reject or accept my null hypotheses while looking at individuals within groups versus variables across groups. I'm not advocating a rejection of science by any means, though I do think there is a remainder that escapes the purview of science, or is at least very difficult to investigate scientifically in a meaningful way. I think this remainder that escapes the symbolic order, our systems of logic, is part of what makes "love" interesting. Oh, but we were talking about sexual attraction, not "love." Perhaps that's what's tripping everyone up: the division is a little blurry at times depending on who you ask.

 

Not to get all unscientific on you again. I ended up dropping the pursuit of social science for certain reasons, and that is probably coming through in my operative logic [or lack thereof] here.

 

I admit, I'm probably too much of a medieval poet for us to see eye-to-eye. But yes, I am [vaguely] familiar with how science works.


Edited by MuppetFace - 9/14/12 at 6:44pm
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