fchan

discussion

A question...

Pages:1
1Report
at 6 May 2008: 13:20

Hi,
I just wanted to ask, why do most of us find the stuff on fchan sexually arousing? Are there any psychological reasons for finding sexual arousal in such uncommon things as cartoons, drawn animals, etc.?

I always found this very strange about myself and wanted to know why. Please keep this thread serious, this is a very honest question.

2Report
at 6 May 2008: 13:42

I'm not sure. Everyone's sexual drive functions differently, and fetishes are many, strange, and often unexplainable. Sexuality is a not often explored topic in the psychological world.

3Report
at 6 May 2008: 13:58

Why do I not like pasta sauce?  Just because.

4Report
at 6 May 2008: 14:24

>>1
I'll give you a serious answer on my progression of fetishes. I started out watching Cinemax(or skin-a-max) with my parents late at night but I honestly didn't get why they liked these movies because they were BORING. Then I saw sex in things like Ninja Scroll(anime) but I still didn't quite understand rape was happening right infront of my eyes, I loved the gory scenes though. Then I ran across hentai and at first all I wanted to see were naked women, just boobs, vag, stuff like that. Then as I started scouring the net I saw things that disgusted me. Futanari(women with dicks), yaoi(gay sex) and all kinds of other stuff.

However, naked women soon weren't enough. I started going into other sexual fetishes...first simple things like cumshots, then bukkake, then bondage, then futanari, then yaoi, then furry, then guro, then vore and so on and so forth. Simply put, sex was consuming my life and I was always looking for the next best thing. As to why I am attracted to drawn art...well it's aesthetically pleasing. Art by it's very nature is meant to be aesthetically pleasing, even moreso than life. Porn is usually so fake, terribly acted and often times has elements that are ugly.

Liking something is a matter of availability. If something more visually pleasing was available and you fought through your disgust for it, eventually you'd be attracted to it. Most of what I find attractive today I found absolutely disgusting(enough to gag and sometimes throw up) before. It's kind of like how trainees start out not having killer instict but by the time their military training is over they are ready(not all, but most) to kill kill kill without remorse, without hesitation, etc etc.

5Report
at 6 May 2008: 14:33

>>4
Also, I urge you NOT to follow my path. I've had to fight hard to get over my sexual addiction and it still beats me sometimes. I was masturbating upwards of 5+ times a day and ignoring everything in my life(family, friends, work) to masturbate. Do NOT think it's cool to be like this, because it's not and it's hard to fight once it has a hold over you. Sexual addiction sounds fun but it's no laughing matter and it's fucking depressing as hell. With that said, you can't cut sex out of your life completely either because then you will fall back into addiction. You must find balance.

On a less personal note, sexuality is often times explained by environment + nature arguments. Meaning...the environment you grow up in plus the natural way of things combine together to create a sexuality that makes you attracted to certain things. I had no limitations as a kid and so my sexuality eventually grew to have no limitations. However at the same time too many limitations and you simply end up with someone who ends up hating others for daring to like 'deviant' behaviour, even going so far as to beat the shit out of them.(gay haters for instance) I used to be apart of that whole gay hating group because everyone around me pounded it into my head that hating gays was normal but now I honestly have no issues with them(except gay pride parades, that shit is still stupid as hell)

Natural sexuality can be attracted to anything really is what i'm getting at, it's our environment, the people around us, the rules, etc etc that create limitations as to what we like. If it wasn't for societies 'order' we'd probably all have no problem being killers, rapists, thieves and sex addicts.

6Report
at 6 May 2008: 14:41

truthfully - fur on my skin, claws, paws, sharp teeth, a huge knot throbbing and stuck tightly within me.  those are what turns me on, therefore furry is only logical.

7Report
Bizzle at 6 May 2008: 17:23

Because it's weird, freaky, and has imaginative potential (although this is rarely realized).

>>4
"It's kind of like how trainees start out not having killer instict but by the time their military training is over they are ready(not all, but most) to kill kill kill without remorse, without hesitation, etc etc."

Lol, civilians.

8Report
Bobtard at 6 May 2008: 20:20

>>4

Uh, you watched dirty cinemax movies with your parents? I'm not passing judgment or anything, I'm just saying you can't just gloss over something like that like it's the everyday norm, like "Hey, we had family porno watching sessions just like any normal family, but..." you gotta throw a little explanation out there ya know?

Also, I never got the whole porno addiction slippery slope thing. I mean, I get that someone might get addicted to porn in that they had to keep watching more and more of it, but I never got the "I had to keep looking at weirder and weirder stuff to get off" shit. How does that make any sense? What you like you like. It's not like you see morbidly obese people so obsessed with food that they start eating dog shit for more flavor. That makes no sense, they just keep eating more and more twinkies and big macs, they don't go rooting through rancid garbage dumpsters to find "stronger and stronger tasting food". I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I don't think that what you have is a porno addiction, I think you have some other "affliction" (if you want to consider it a problem) or fetish where you're attracted to novelty. I could see myself being addicted to what I already like and furiously masturbating non-stop to it, but it doesn't seem to logically follow that I would start suddenly beating off to people shitting on each other and eating each other alive or whatever.

9Report
at 6 May 2008: 20:38

Personally, I don't find furry porn that erotic, so I can't really say. It's a matter of taste.

10Report
at 7 May 2008: 00:35

>>8
I wanted to stay up late at night and my parents wanted to watch Cinemax, I was bored as hell by it so I usually ended up going to bed since they wouldn't let me watch anything interesting. I think they basically used it as a tool to get me to go to bed rather than argue with me.

Also, WRONG. You WILL start to look for more extreme stuff if you masturbate 5 times a day. Kind of like how a killer progresses from killing bugs to cats and dogs to humans. It all depends on whether the subject/habit at hand is your LIFE. If you just masturbate casually then of course you won't go looking for 'stronger fetish' material.

To use your fat people eating example...as someone not that interested in food I generally eat the same brand of stuff all the time. However, my friends who are fat and compulsive eaters will buy every variety under the sun, always looking for a new candy to love.

11Report
at 7 May 2008: 00:38

>>10
To simplify my argument...anything you do casually has no possibility of escalating in nature. Anything your life revolves around will eventually consume you more and more. A casual gambler does not have to worry about losing their life savings. A lifestyle gambler has to worry about losing everything and then more.

When I say don't let sex become too important to you and when I say it's a slippery slope i'm talking about treating it like a lifestyle, get it?

12Report
at 7 May 2008: 01:28

>>10

"Also, WRONG. You WILL start to look for more extreme stuff if you masturbate 5 times a day."

Nonono. -You- may have done like so.
You don't master Human psychoanalysis, and I doubt you may have great medical knowledge of the Human body to tell what will happen and how one's body will react.

Let me break you the news that a lot of people (And I'm in the group too) don't need to watch "more extreme stuff", just because they masturbate N times a day, where N can be 5, or even multiples of this number.
Of course, I don't find your logic impossible. It's quite a possible case, since you indeed went from the mild stuff to the extreme, and I believe that you are not the only one in the world.

Don't set yourself as the norm however and think that there is nothing wrong in escalating through all those vicious fetishes. I can go about fapping your said 5 times a day or (much) more and its not because of that that I went to seek a picture for mental satisfaction on a category that I find no attraction for. Yaoi? Vore? Scat? ... sorry, no, that doesn't turn me on, nor now nor ever... so I don't really see how I'll come to look into that as fuel for my masturbation.

13Report
Bobtard at 7 May 2008: 01:43

Some might call me a "porn addict" and I disagree with your argument. Don't go all wise-grandfather "been there, done that" on me. Don't assume everybody else is like you. You should know that that's bullshit. And what's with this "five times a day ruined my life" bullshit? There was a period of time when I was beatin' it 12 times a day and it never got in the way of anything else and I never progressed in any way other than looking at more of the same kind of porn. I didn't go looking at crazy 2girls1cup shit to get off on, I just kept looking at more of the same stuff. As I said before, you probably have a novelty fetish. When one thing loses it's novelty, you look for something else.

I also eat a lot, though I'm not morbidly obese (mainly because of a combination of youth, genes, and exercise), but I do eat A LOT. Yeah, I try new things, but they're only ever variations of the same old stuff. Hmmm, moon pies or twinkies? Big mac or chicken? Different variations of the same flavors: salty and sweet. I never go looking for dog-shit if I get tired of moon pies. If you do have any fat friends that actually go crazy and start eating dog shit and rooting through garbage cans for the hairy scum at the bottom, they're definitely not the average fat guy with out of control food-love.

The difference between watching a chick getting fucked the good ol' fashioned way and watching a chick eat shit is not a matter of degree, it's a matter of type.

"Kind of like how a killer progresses from killing bugs to cats and dogs to humans. It all depends on whether the subject/habit at hand is your LIFE."

If you relate jerkin' off to murdering people one more time, I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're a troll, as I probably already should've. Also, you seem to forget something about most serial killers- they are selective about their victims. It's almost unheard of to have a serial killer that just kills anybody with no regard to race, age, or gender. Hell, they oftentimes get more selective than even those standards.

People like what they like. I like beating my dick to women getting fucked, you like beating your dick indiscriminately to anything odd or novel. If my sex drive ever goes crazy again, you can bet good money that I'll just be jerkin' it to more pictures and videos of the same things more often.


"I wanted to stay up late at night and my parents wanted to watch Cinemax, I was bored as hell by it so I usually ended up going to bed since they wouldn't let me watch anything interesting. I think they basically used it as a tool to get me to go to bed rather than argue with me."

Maybe they wanted to use it as a tool to send you to bed, but something tells me they didn't intend to bore you with it so much as gross you out with them in the same room as you while people were fake-fucking on tv.

If I came off as antagonistic in this message, please forgive me, it's late and I'm so tired that my vision is blurred.

14Report
at 7 May 2008: 02:23

>>12
>>13
I was tired and I didn't take the time to word my post properly, a more accurate response would have been;

"If you find you have an addictive/obsessive personality then you MAY progress into more negative behaviour if you let your life revolve around a certain subject"

People with addictive or obsessive personalities should always be more wary and cautious of how their addiction/obsession is progressing. I simply don't want to see more people go through the same shit I did and so I jumped the gun in my arguments instead of providing a more logicically sound opinion on the matter.

I'm not a troll.

15Report
Bobtard at 7 May 2008: 11:19

"I'm not a troll."

Okay, that's fine, I'm just a bit wary because it happens so often.

Also, the reason I got so riled up on this topic is because I've seen from numerous sources that this is what happens if you look at porn. I've seen it on south park, csi, in publications by both conservatives and liberals alike, and it just came across as anti-porn people pushing their focus-on-the-family bs. I'm not saying it doesn't happen to some people, but when I saw your comments where you pulled all of the classic anti-porn arguments (saying you had to look at heavier and heavier stuff, continuously slipping serial killing in as a comparison to masturbation, and even bringing up how it started to affect your family and life) it set off a few alarm bells that made me think you might be a troll. I've seen so many sources talk about it and yet I know myself and I've known plenty of "perverts" (for lack of a better term) and NONE of them have had this problem. Not that it's impossible, but its just not what happens to everybody who happens to grow a little extra fond of porn as its often presented. I just went off on you because there was finally somebody that seemed to be the embodiment of that argument that I could finally respond to as opposed to some episode of CSI on a TV screen.

P.S. I'm not referring to the infamous furry CSI episode, I'm referring to one where (I can't remember exactly) some guy beat or strangled or somehow killed a girl because he started watching porn and couldn't get it under control. It was like, one minute you're looking at some nice vanilla porn, then you're jerkin' off to the idea of stranglin' the the neighbor lady or some shit like that. They even had a neat little term for it that the Catherine Willows character threw out there to describe it. I wish I could remember what it was.

16Report
at 7 May 2008: 13:01

>>15
I think it all depends on how someone's mind works. Like when they blame videogames for causing school shootings...sure, that argument is valid but ONLY in the case of kids with certain mental problems. I think what it comes down to is most people would rather argue defensively(don't do that or you might end up on a slippery slope) as opposed to (do it all you want and nothing bad will ever happen) but I guess the better way to handle it would be to educate people on these matters to help them learn if they are susceptible to these kind of problems.

It's stupid and illogical to make a standardized set of rules/morals for everyone when only 1 in 1000(or more) will become a killer over videogames or become some weird sex addict. They DO have sex addiction meetings though because it IS a serious problem for a lot of people even if they don't get involved in weirder and weirder fetishes.

17Report
at 7 May 2008: 13:04

Lots of interesting posts here,  Typically I don't take much here seriously but I think I'll give it a shot.  Does furry porn (and regular porn, for whoever it applies) affect your real-life standards for a partner?

I've had a bit of poor experience looking for a fur to be in a relationship in, and based on the stories I hear from furs in my situation, and what I've seen in the conventions I've gone to, the vast majority of people are seeking a real-life equivalent to what they masturbate to in those furry pictures at home-- Twinky skinny, effeminate with a HUEG schlong.  I myself am of average height, shy, with an average body and a mild pudge I've built in the winter lazyness.  The stories I hear from other furs is that they always expect something like this, 'I want a really skinny guy', 'I don't like body hair!' or 'I don't like stretch marks / scars / etc!' the more amusing ones, the furs who are like 6'7" tall saying 'I want a boyfriend who's taller than me!"

So, has the pictures have made you disgusted on what may be common traits on a typical human body?  Or do you still feel you can sleep with yer average person, still?

18Report
at 7 May 2008: 14:43

>>17
I never could sleep with the 'average person' even before I started downloading hentai, furry, etc etc. I have very high standards and i'm not desperate enough for sex, companionship or relationships to lower my standards. I'd rather spend time hanging out with friends, pursuing hobbies and working hard than waste time on something less than what I want.

Let's be honest...quick sex is something that has no large investment(unless you count potential for STDs) but relationships require a huge investment of time and money. If someone isn't what you want in personality, aesthetics, beliefs, goals, etc etc then why settle?

Of course if most people thought like me the population would be dying down pretty quick and only the most genetically perfect people would reproduce because even ugly people wouldn't fuck each other, lol.

To answer your question...hentai, furry and everything else did not create unrealistic expectations, I already had them. I don't expect humans to have furry traits but what I find attractive is skinny/lithe/athletic(not starving), feminine and small breasts(C cup max, if it's a woman)

19Report
at 7 May 2008: 15:03

>>18
Research endangered animals and the trouble zookeepers have getting a female and male to mate. There is no reason they shouldn't mate other than the fact they see a defect in the other they don't like. If it were as simple as getting two people in the same room together then creating a desire for sex there wouldn't be any endangered species anymore.

Simple fact of the matter is all lifeforms that take part in procreation have standards based on genetics that lead them to pick a partner. What some people would call shallow, nature would call natural selection or survival of the fittest. Why should society be able to tell me I need to sleep with a cripple(naturally born) just because they have such a bright and happy personality? Nature tells me to STAY AWAY because nature doesn't want to pass down that cripple gene.

Standards are natural and I think it's impossible to develop an unnatural standard because people know what they like from the moment they start thinking about sex. It's society that is the problem trying to say that high standards are somehow a bad thing which leads to people 'settling' for whatever they can find and just passing along more defective genetic material. Eventually we will be plagued with rampant disease, disability and genetic defects unless we develop some kind of science to fix those things.

Now i'm not trying to argue that I know what's best far as human genetics go but I don't think anyone can argue it's a good thing to pass along genes making people more likely to get cancer or be born without limbs. That would just be politically correct oversensitive nonsense. Are some of you honestly trying to tell me you wouldn't like to be strong, beautiful, intelligent, free from all genetic defects and be as close to perfect as possible? I'm not saying clones...i'm saying...things EVERYONE agrees are undesirable get weeded out.

20Report
at 7 May 2008: 15:29

>>17

Erotic material, of any kind, never came to alter my standards/expectations in real life whatsoever... but, that may be because I'm someone who's more inclined to admire someone's personality in first place and only then their physical appearance (I won't say that I don't have some minimum standards set, however).

I mean, suuure... I see some lovely anthro art there, porn or otherwise, that gave me that feel that I'd be quite pleased with an adult (human-sized) anthropomorphic cat as intimate company, but I keep quite a line between what's fantasy and what's not, so, I wouldn't have my said standards altered by something that doesn't apply to real life. As to actual pron, it doesn't change my expectations neither since we're talking about humans amongst humans, psyche once more comes first for me.

>>19

"Are some of you honestly trying to tell me you wouldn't like to be strong, beautiful, intelligent, free from all genetic defects and be as close to perfect as possible?"

Individually speaking, I'd actually skip the possibility of being ... "perfect". I may not be all that strong, or pretty, or smart... but I'm content with what I am. If others aren't, I ceased to care about a good while now.

Imagining this in a collective, much wider scenario though... it could need thought. I mean, currently you have differences between people that provokes some conflicts, perhaps all people being more alike would avoid the said conflicts, but anyone who for some reason was "sub-par" then it would be even more cast aside.

21Report
at 7 May 2008: 16:20

>>20
The only problem with being 'content with what I am' is that a lot of people use it to justify morbid obesity, racism, hate, etc etc. They COULD and SHOULD try to educate themselves for instance but instead they choose to be happy with their ignorance and hatred of another race or group of people. You should never stop striving to be the best you can be in all aspects of life. Confidence is different than willful and happy ignorance/laziness.

I'm not accusing you of these things, merely pointing out that the argument you just provided is often used to promote, encourage and justify negative behaviours. Many people I argue with on this subject tend to have a gigantic list of faults they are happy to have because it's too much work to improve themselves physically and mentally.

22Report
at 7 May 2008: 18:23

bah, I've been fapping daily for a decade now, and I don't feel any urge for any significantly "harder" material. I've liked furry, wincest and loli for as long as I can remember and conversely, never liked scat, futanari and yaoi and still don't! :3

23Report
at 8 May 2008: 01:38

>>21

Umm, well, yeah... point taken.
I do believe that my flaws (because I just have to acknowledge I have them) aren't all that serious, although I'd appreciate to correct a minor thing or two. I think that I am allowed to be content with what I am without being a murdering symbol of the standard that should be Human kind.

Figure that I shouldn't be talking like being on a throne about other people who are not as "lucky", in this case some of the points that you mentioned, but I wasn't actually seeing things through that point of view. I mean, true... if I say that I am content with being myself as I am, perhaps everyone should have the same right... but I wasn't contemplating such cases as being content also in "their ways". (Although I can't really imagine someone, say, suffering from morbid obesity and being content with it)

Now, thing is, physically those problems could probably be weeded out of the gene pool. But can you control mentality?
I almost fear that people would have to be brain washed or something to keep a close-alike mind set where all the "bad stuff" (standard for which varies currently with each person) was purged out.
Considering some stuff that goes on through the world, one view of it says it wouldn't be a bad idea, on the other side though, restraining the line of thoughts of people collectively could make things a tad dull... I mean, imagine that the Church or something decided what were the right morals! :P (Not trying to stir up something there, but just a comparison of this chaotic world and the Church's typically utopia-like vision of the world)

24Report
at 8 May 2008: 11:55

>>23
You live in a country where you don't have to daily fear whether some other country is going to nuke you today just because you are a certain race or religion. You don't have to deal with army invading your village, killing and raping your parents and then forcing you to join them to go do the same to others. You live a 'easy' life so it's easy to criticize a utopia as being 'dull' or taking away freedom.

Regardless, i'm not saying that the 'utopia' should be controlled by the church or government. I'm saying that simply...physical defects everyone can agree are actual defects should be weeded out. As for mental defects, there are several good articles out there that argue individuality would not be erased if we got rid of certain mental defects that lead directly to such acts as murder, rape and hate. I suggest you read those articles.

The fact of the matter is most of the world's current problems are caused by the fact a small number of elite who are intelligent, charming, etc etc run the world and many of them see fit to let the people suffer. If people were on the same level as them it's very unlikely they'd let themselves be taken advantage of. The real problems coming out of a genetically modified society would be....who the hell would be a janitor anymore? We'd have to make robots for all the mundane jobs and we'd all need to have ridiculously great educations to do new jobs because smart people find no satisfaction in minimum wage work.

OMG MATRIX FUTURE

25Report
Bobtard at 8 May 2008: 13:15

I think people often get 'perfect' and 'generic' mixed up. A perfect world could not, by definition, be boring (it wouldn't be a perfect world then now would it?). Same thing with porn stars, people say they don't want perfect looking porn stars because they look like barbie dolls or like they're made of plastic somehow, but they don't mean perfect, they mean generic. People seem to think that the bad stuff is what makes life interesting. I would like to know just who the hell came up with that bullshit. When I go to an amusement park, the fun part is riding the rides, not waiting in line for three hours only to have the ride break down right before you get on, then having the whole park shut down because of of a thunderstorm. I understand where people like something to go wrong or chaotic in boring situations just to break up the monotony, but the situation that was boring wasn't perfect, because it was boring. You're talking about trading in a boring imperfect world for an exciting imperfect world, not a perfect world for an imperfect world.

Besides that, moving back to how this topic arose from a question about why you spank it to furries (somehow), I'm not sure I buy the mess about looking for good genes when looking for a mate. Like most things in evolution and biology, I'm certain it's messier and much more banal than the explanation of us having some built in "good genes" detecting software. We're probably attracted to some early inputs+simple built in desires we gained from childhood experience that we get a boner over once we hit puberty that, in general, has a tendency to point enough of us in the right direction to produce enough good offspring. It may be only 1 out of 30 people actually ends up selecting a mate with good genes based on this biological method, but that works well enough for biology (the same way we produce millions of sperm cells per load instead of just making a few cells that are really good at swimming and navigating). This is, of course, all speculation on my part, but that sounds more likely to me based on what I've seen in biology than the idea that some unconscious and incredibly complicated and highly specialized equipment evolving and developing, without help from the environment and the individual's learning capacity, in each embryo.

26Report
Bobtard at 8 May 2008: 13:42

Also, regarding the better genes comments. "What's on the inside" despite how campy it sounds to cynical people, actually is quite relevant to biology and good genes. According to the runaway sexual selection theory of human evolution, if it wasn't for some apes a few million years ago choosing "what's on the inside" over good looks and strength, human beings wouldn't even exist. "Athletic humans" are a joke as compared to other animals, especially within our own close evolutionary "family". If a chimp is a high school jock, then Arnold Schwarzenegger (the one from twenty years ago anyways) is the extremely smart but nerdy kid with limp noodles for muscles that doesn't seem to hit puberty until 20. I'm not saying that your being attracted to good looking people is wrong, I'm just saying that phrasing it in terms of it making better biological sense doesn't quite work. I agree with the other part of the message about not settling for something you don't want if you're putting a lot of time and effort into it.

27Report
at 8 May 2008: 14:39

>>26
That argument only holds water if you believe we evolved from chimps and that humans are a direct result of 'whats on the inside' procreation...as if chimps were even capable of making such decisions to further their own intelligence. Fact of the matter is we know very little about how evolution works and how certain species came to be. Most evolution that happens is so mysterious that even our best theories tend not to explain things well. Your argument is like saying some single cell lifeform somehow made concious choices to evolve into multi-celled organisms and so on so forth until we end up with what we have today.

As for the argument that even the strongest human is weak in the wild...that is so wrong it's unbelievable. A strong human + tools(even rudimentary ones made in the wild) can easily dominate ANY species on the planet, especially when you factor in the group pack structure. We have ingenuity and intelligence and puts us far above any animal. Wolves on their own aren't that formidable but put them in a pack and they can take down bison that would DESTROY a single wolf on it's own.

Let's go to another argument...technically speaking sharks are 'stronger' and 'more dangerous' than a dolphin. Yet the dolphins can use their group structure and intelligence to KILL sharks with no tools. Sharks are typically afraid of dolphins for this reason and try to avoid confrontations with them. The dolphins can use their group structure and intelligence to decimate a shark.

28Report
Bobtard at 8 May 2008: 15:32

"As for the argument that even the strongest human is weak in the wild...that is so wrong it's unbelievable. A strong human + tools(even rudimentary ones made in the wild) can easily dominate ANY species on the planet, especially when you factor in the group pack structure. We have ingenuity and intelligence and puts us far above any animal. Wolves on their own aren't that formidable but put them in a pack and they can take down bison that would DESTROY a single wolf on it's own."

How is this disagreeing with what I said? I said we weren't athletic. By "whats on the inside" I was referring at least partially to intelligence. Humans, as far as raw athletics goes, are a joke in comparison to other apes. I thought I made it PRETTY FUCKING EXPLICIT that I said we had more brains than brawn. Yeah, you factor in intelligence, which is, by the way, "on the inside", and humans dominate. What did you think I meant by "on the inside"? I was challenging the notion that good genes meant physically fit and well shaped people and saying that "what's on the inside" was more than just the campy children's story thinking that cynical people and pessimists often make it out to be.

"That argument only holds water if you believe we evolved from chimps and that humans are a direct result of 'whats on the inside' procreation...as if chimps were even capable of making such decisions to further their own intelligence. Fact of the matter is we know very little about how evolution works and how certain species came to be. Most evolution that happens is so mysterious that even our best theories tend not to explain things well. Your argument is like saying some single cell lifeform somehow made concious choices to evolve into multi-celled organisms and so on so forth until we end up with what we have today."

Way to completely mangle what I actually said. I never said they planned their own evolution out. I said they chose to mate with other apes (not chimps, chimps are our cousins, not our ancestors) that had more brains that brawn. Please try to read what I've said next time.

You don't think a female ape ancestor of ours would be smart enough to see a cleverness in a potential mate? Animals, especially apes, aren't nearly as dumb as you make them out to be. Once more, just so you won't miss it, I didn't say they planned their evolution out, I said they chose their mate. They thought the smart guy was sexier than the muscle head. That's all I was saying.

Go look up runaway sexual selection as it applies to humans. Evolution isn't all dumb luck and, believe it or not, we understand evolution better than you suggest.

29Report
at 8 May 2008: 22:39

The whole idea of selecting a mate based on physical/beauty standards leading to some sort of positive genetic outcome is further lampooned when we consider where the standards that most folks in the modern culture consider appealing come from:  Media inundation. 

The standard of 'beauty' in western culture isn't based on fitness or health, it's based on cosmetics and impossible-to-meet ideals of body type, most of which are very unhealthy/dangerous to the individuals in question. 

In other words:  Healthy women are considered "too big/fat" by the ideal of beauty in our culture, so seeking that ideal would be detrimental to our species, if everyone sought it. 

Not that the other extremes are better, of course - obesity is already a huge problem, without the whole genetic-thyroid dysfunctions being further spread via breeding.  :P

30Report
at 9 May 2008: 08:54

Probably exposure to Disney cartoons when young. I think all those bodybuilder people who take it to extremes had the same sort of thing, but with superhero type art from comic books / gi joe etc instead. I really think its that simple. There is hardly any anthropomorphic art before the 20th century, not even in old porn or hindu temple art etc, the closest anything came was pictures of people having sex with donkeys or a marmoset or something.

31Report
at 9 May 2008: 11:50

>>29
If someone is stupid enough to be brainwashed by the media they probably shouldn't be procreating in the first place. I don't find what's depicted in the media to be sexy or desirable because I know it's all FAKE and/or unhealthy. Lack of knowledge on health and fitness is part of the cancer killing this country and leading women to depression trying to reach beauty that is impossible to obtain(even skinny models are airbrushed to take MORE off their body)

Neither extreme is a good thing but I still stand by the argument that choosing a mate based on both physical and mental superiority is the best method of maintaining genetic quality in future generations(aside from genetic modification if we ever let religion stop holding us back)

32Report
Bobtard at 9 May 2008: 13:02

>>31


Oh god, but you wouldn't believe how many people base their idea of sexiness on what they see in tv commercials. I don't even mean in some subconscious brainwashed way either, I mean actively embracing the fact. I had a female friend who's boyfriend's cousin was riding along in the car with them and he called her fat. She's involved in a shit load of sports and always eats healthy, if I were to post a picture of her on here (which I won't obviously) I'm fairly certain none of you could ever see how anybody would think she's fat. She told him that that's the kind of shit that makes chicks anorexic, and he just replied "Good." Not to mention, just swing on by any ebaumsworld video or gallery with chicks that look like they weigh about 90 lbs and see the flood of people saying "they're ugly" and "they're too fat". Any of you who think that the people may have just been joking around obviously haven't been by ebaumsworld. And that's a good thing, never head by that wretched shithole. Ever. I've thankfully been able to avoid the site for a good six months.

33Report
at 9 May 2008: 13:08

>>32
Their stupidity doesn't make my points any less valid though. Once again, people like them shouldn't be procreating and I hope they die alone so they don't pass their stupidity on.

34Report
at 9 May 2008: 13:32

>>33  Stupidity isn't hereditary, alas.  Even smart people produce stupid children.  And sometimes there are really smart people who I think are lying about who their parents are, because I find it hard to believe people _that_ stupid could spawn offspring _that_ smart. 

35Report (sage)
at 9 May 2008: 17:33

>>1
Everything is a potential turn-on to humans. Goats (male and female), used gym socks, soiled panties, Barbara Bush, sewage baths, defenestration, disemboweling, finger painting... The list is almost as extensive as the number of people. It's a sort of Rule 35: no matter what the subject, somewhere someone is furiously masturbating while thinking about it.

The question shouldn't be "why?" when humanity is involved. It should be, "why not?"

36Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage