NationStates Jolt Archive

Havent we as a species evolved beyond such simplistic classifications for people?

or have you just not all caught up yet?

Havent we as a species evolved beyond such simplistic classifications for people?

or have you just not all caught up yet?

I guess you are simply ahead of our time... :rolleyes:

Havent we as a species evolved beyond such simplistic classifications for people?

or have you just not all caught up yet?


No, thank God some of us still use our brains and classify people according to what they are. Not some rose-colored version of the world where we all live in Disney World and everything is happy with flowers, and birds, and trees, and little rabbits and frogs with funny hats.


Where liberals can cry "Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the magical man from happy land! In a gumdrop house on lollipop laaaanne."

I guess you are simply ahead of our time... :rolleyes:

ya, ive know that for a while

but this is something so simplistic. Aside from obvious biological differances, any "differance" between a consious man and woman is mearly A)choice or B)personality.

we as a species can go against our nature and change our basic instincts, man and women is superficial.

Sigh.

What next, it'll be offensive to refer to someone as a woman, and the correct term is "feminine choosing individual?"

Those "biological differences" lie at the heart of human relations. You can't just ignore them because you now see transsexuality as 100% natural and think 'man' and 'woman' is archaic. So no, we haven't 'evolved' past the 'need' to call a spade a spade.

There are obivous differences between men and women. Men tend think logically and Women emotionally. Also ofcourse Men & Women are physically different. Men tend be stronger and bigger, women tend be beautiful, but not as strong. Men and Women should have equal rights in the society, but
they aren't physically and mentally same. Neither is better however in my opnion both have their pros and cons. Then again there are muscle and scientist women, as there are girly boys, but that isn't normal. That doesn't mean they are bad, they should have the same rights as everyone else.

i say if women want to lower themselves to our level there completely welcome ;)

Sigh.

What next, it'll be offensive to refer to someone as a woman, and the correct term is "feminine choosing individual?"

Those "biological differences" lie at the heart of human relations. You can't just ignore them because you now see transsexuality as 100% natural and think 'man' and 'woman' is archaic. So no, we haven't 'evolved' past the 'need' to call a spade a spade.

i think you are missing the point, im not advocating that. To determine anything as Male or Female is too simplistic as our culture has evolved past the need of such ancient classifications

what terms do you suggest we use instead?

i think you are missing the point, im not advocating that. To determine anything as Male or Female is too simplistic as our culture has evolved past the need of such ancient classifications

Eventually though men and women aren't mentally that different. There are obivous physical differences. male or female isn't too simplistic. Majority of people are raised as either male or female and that works fine. Why change something that works ?

but this is something so simplistic. Aside from obvious biological differances, any "differance" between a consious man and woman is mearly A)choice or B)personality.

Maybe, I know this might be too simplistic a hypothesis for your clearly transcendent consciousness, but maybe the classification 'Man' and 'Woman' refer to those 'obvious biological differences'. As in, biologically different = not the same = classified differently.

I don't see how the topic title (Men Vs. Women) has anything to do with the topic. o.O; Just because men and women are acknowledged as different, doesn't mean they are in direct competition. Hell, I acknowledge asians and african-americans as being different. That doesn't mean I'm comparing the two against each other. o.o;

Eventually though men and women aren't mentally that different.

Thats my point

There are obivous physical differences. male or female isn't too simplistic.

ok, so characterizing people into catagories that dont really matter, as you just said above, is just plain ludicris then. Simplistic was the nice word.

Majority of people are raised as either male or female and that works fine. Why change something that works ?

nazism worked

obviously it doesnt work, people question and have horrible psychological trauma because of these classifications. Just look at the 14 year old who wants to be a girl.

I never really plan on starting threads, as that wold oblige me to stick to them till they are locked or forgotten.
So out of curiosity, can you change the title of a thread?

I don't see how the topic title (Men Vs. Women) has anything to do with the topic. o.O; Just because men and women are acknowledged as different, doesn't mean they are in direct competition. Hell, I acknowledge asians and african-americans as being different. That doesn't mean I'm comparing the two against each other. o.o;

ya, i like doing stuff like that

same as how my thread on technocracy was started with an abstract quote from einstein about the role of government in science

ARgh! Some 14 year old wants to be a girl so you advocate eliminating the whole differentialization between male and female?

XX and XY. Different. What would be the POINT of changing it? Not that you'd ever have a chance in hell of doing so, I'm just wondering what your goal here is.

nazism worked

If you define 'worked' as destroying its own society and leading to its conquest by foreign powers, thus causing great misery to all living in that country, then, yes, Nazism worked.

ok i only see one problem the fact that im expected to do wieghts everynight (which i do and hate) and the fact that every girl in my school is on a diet those are the only problems i see.

Just look at the 14 year old who wants to be a girl.

Then duh, he is a girl then. (or at least, hopefully, he will be).
"Male" or "Female" are chosen titles of the person who is being assigned the term.

Of course, I have no right to designate myself female sometimes and male other times.

If I chose the term "female" everytime I felt like being a feminine, things would be pretty confusing.

And if everyone changed their designation daily, it would make polling and other gender base situations impossible.

ok i only see one problem the fact that im expected to do wieghts everynight (which i do and hate) and the fact that every girl in my school is on a diet those are the only problems i see.

So don't do weights. And definitely don't go for diets, the whole concept of dieting seems to me to be intrinsically leading to anorexia and bulimia. I think people need a prescription to go on a real diet, not just a hankering to be thinner, but thats just me.

I don't think people should think these things so seriously. I agree that sexual classifications are complete bullshit. They are just products of society, but for the sake of stability we need them. Everyone has right to choose their own way. You should be able to accept yourself as you are, even if there are classifications.

ARgh! Some 14 year old wants to be a girl so you advocate eliminating the whole differentialization between male and female?

XX and XY. Different. What would be the POINT of changing it? Not that you'd ever have a chance in hell of doing so, I'm just wondering what your goal here is.

Im not arguing that we eliminate the differences physically between male and female. im not looking for some androdgenous asexual species.

My goal is to eliminate a outdated way in describing people. Calling someone a girl comes along with certain perceptions. These perceptions are wrong because aside from basic and superficial physical diferences, there is no difference between male and female.

ARgh! Some 14 year old wants to be a girl so you advocate eliminating the whole differentialization between male and female?

XX and XY. Different. What would be the POINT of changing it? Not that you'd ever have a chance in hell of doing so, I'm just wondering what your goal here is.

There's also X, XXY, and I think XXX.
I don't really recall all the variations.

Simply put though, making entire different designations for combinations of common designations is stupid and causes all sorts of trouble.

Which is why all this junk about Hispanic-[Ethnicity], Non-Hispanic-[Ethnicity], and Hispanic aggravates me so.
For that matter, Hispanic isn't even a race. There are only three races, and people should quit messing with them: Mongloid, Negroid, Caucasian.

Choose one, and get used to it. Or select other. I have various different "ethnicities" in my bloodline, I choose to be designated by one race. And I feel relieved that I'm special enough not to be categorized by people.

I'm used to having to select other, and/or "just picking" the "best choice".

People have to learn that designations implemented on them by society don't define who they are.

They also have to inversely learn that their ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc, also do not define who they are.

Note: The example of the (very recent) change in racial designation is only one of the many aggravating things. I took an PSAT once with 30 different designations for Christianity, and not even one for Hinduism or Atheism.

If you define 'worked' as destroying its own society and leading to its conquest by foreign powers, thus causing great misery to all living in that country, then, yes, Nazism worked.

you obviously know what i mean

once again ill rephrase for the stupid semantics people here:

"Discrimination worked for thousands of years, and it isnt until now that we look back on those times that we understand the flaw"

yeah but it would ruin a bunh of jokes and i love comedy so its cool because comedy rocks ;)

Im not arguing that we eliminate the differences physically between male and female. im not looking for some androdgenous asexual species.

My goal is to eliminate a outdated way in describing people. Calling someone a girl comes along with certain perceptions. These perceptions are wrong because aside from basic and superficial physical diferences, there is no difference between male and female.

Trouble is, it's only outdated to you. To the rest of us it's pretty accurate. Just because you see physical differences as superficial doesn't mean they aren't important - police reports for example. It helps narrow identity down by 50% of the population. I mean, "armed suspect" could be nearly anyone, "armed female suspect" eliminates roughly half.

Eliminating the distinction from our language would only serve to confuse people even more than they are already, which would be bad.

Then duh, he is a girl then. (or at least, hopefully, he will be).
"Male" or "Female" are chosen titles of the person who is being assigned the term.

Of course, I have no right to designate myself female sometimes and male other times.

If I chose the term "female" everytime I felt like being a feminine, things would be pretty confusing.

And if everyone changed their designation daily, it would make polling and other gender base situations impossible.

i disagree. whatever he wants to be, he will always be male regardless of physical changes he gets done to himself.

I think you all took my reference to him in the wrong way. I think its stupid for someone to be concerned about this, since there is nothing that a woman can do that a man cant (Pregnancy and physical things aside)

The fact that his mind puts such a HARD distinction between man and woman is bad and that is what i am against

Im not arguing that we eliminate the differences physically between male and female. im not looking for some androdgenous asexual species.

My goal is to eliminate a outdated way in describing people. Calling someone a girl comes along with certain perceptions. These perceptions are wrong because aside from basic and superficial physical diferences, there is no difference between male and female.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

What I mean to suggest is that renaming the rose doesn't change what it is, nor would renaming men or women. The preconceptions aren't attatched to the name, but to the gender itself.

I don't think people should think these things so seriously. I agree that sexual classifications are complete bullshit. They are just products of society, but for the sake of stability we need them. Everyone has right to choose their own way. You should be able to accept yourself as you are, even if there are classifications.

agreed, people should accept who they are, not based on their sex.

Individuality is bigger than your penis.

There are obivous differences between men and women. Men tend think logically and Women emotionally. Also ofcourse Men & Women are physically different. Men tend be stronger and bigger, women tend be beautiful, but not as strong. Men and Women should have equal rights in the society, but
they aren't physically and mentally same. Neither is better however in my opnion both have their pros and cons. Then again there are muscle and scientist women, as there are girly boys, but that isn't normal. That doesn't mean they are bad, they should have the same rights as everyone else.That's one of the oddest posts I've ever seen. In talking about phyiscal differences between men and women, you zip straight to areas of statistical generalisation, like "tend to be bigger and stronger" and leave out things like form, figure, sexual organs and ablility to create babies.

i disagree. whatever he wants to be, he will always be male regardless of physical changes he gets done to himself.

I think you all took my reference to him in the wrong way. I think its stupid for someone to be concerned about this, since there is nothing that a woman can do that a man cant (Pregnancy and physical things aside)

The fact that his mind puts such a HARD distinction between man and woman is bad and that is what i am against

Why can't he become female?

Apparently, scientifically his brain is designated as female (which really is all that should matter, as the brain is the concious being), and, if he wishes, he can become phyically female if he wishes.

Note, I'm calling him female because that is how he identified himself as.

If a man came to me and identified himself as female, I would accept it and go on interacting with her. Simple as that.

Trouble is, it's only outdated to you. To the rest of us it's pretty accurate. Just because you see physical differences as superficial doesn't mean they aren't important - police reports for example. It helps narrow identity down by 50% of the population. I mean, "armed suspect" could be nearly anyone, "armed female suspect" eliminates roughly half.

Eliminating the distinction from our language would only serve to confuse people even more than they are already, which would be bad.


once again, im not advocating that. THERE ARE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

i am saying is that the only distinction people should give them is in things like that police report. descriptive based on physical characteristics.

Female and male mean far more than just weather someone has a penis or vagina, and that is what i believe is wrong

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

What I mean to suggest is that renaming the rose doesn't change what it is, nor would renaming men or women. The preconceptions aren't attatched to the name, but to the gender itself.That'd be true, except that they changed the term "refugee" to "asylum seeker" and "handicapped" to "disabled" because of the negative connotations, and hardly any (white) person uses the word "negro" anymore. They were changed because there actually were preconceptions attached to the names.

Although "Person of the feminine persuasion" does sound absurdly Monty Python.

Being female, male or just plain human always has more connotations than having a vagina, penis or opposable thumbs. That's just how language and culture work.

Why can't he become female?

Apparently, scientifically his brain is designated as female (which really is all that should matter, as the brain is the concious being), and, if he wishes, he can become phyically female if he wishes.

Note, I'm calling him female because that is how he identified himself as.

If a man came to me and identified himself as female, I would accept it and go on interacting with her. Simple as that.

you dont even understand what the term male means then.

Scientifically, male = XY female = XX

there are others, but they are annomolies and therefore dont get their own catagories.

Even if a man gets a sex change their genes are still XY. therefore scientifically he is male. He may wish to be female, but failing a complete change to his genetic code, he is male.

You are addressing the exact issue that i am addressing though. Since a "womans" mind can be in a "mans" body, why then is it a womans mind? isnt it still just a mind?

we classify certain personality characteristics with gender when they shouldnt be. personality and gender are unlike things

That's one of the oddest posts I've ever seen. In talking about phyiscal differences between men and women, you zip straight to areas of statistical generalisation, like "tend to be bigger and stronger" and leave out things like form, figure, sexual organs and ablility to create babies.

Also because he ridiculously assumed that it was unusual to be a female scientist. Women are genetically and statistically more intelligent than men (though probably not as mentally stable [zing!]), and without the whole gender barriers still seen throught the world, there would be an equal if not greater number of women in science.

laughs @ "muscle and scientist women"

I also would like to point out the term "girly boys". It's really quite stupid.
Are you saying guys who are sensitive and who like the arts?

Well,of course,when we say a person is a man or a woman,we are simply saying what their sexual organs are,whether they have the ability to make babies and a sort of criteria to what they should be like(Such as high or low voice,shape of body,etc.).Of course,there are exceptions,like bisexuals.

People should just accept who and what they are.

Being female, male or just plain human always has more connotations than having a vagina, penis or opposable thumbs. That's just how language and culture work.

500 years ago being female meant a lot more than it does today.

Why do you think we should stop now?

That'd be true, except that they changed the term "refugee" to "asylum seeker" and "handicapped" to "disabled" because of the negative connotations, and hardly any (white) person uses the word "negro" anymore. They were changed because there actually were preconceptions attached to the names.

Although "Person of the feminine persuasion" does sound absurdly Monty Python.

I don't know who actually held preconceptions based on the wording, but I still use both refugee and handicapped, and don't feel any different in reading/hearing "asylum seeker" or "disabled". With no disrespect to anyone intended, it seems pure ignorance that the same person by a different name is now different. It reeks of political correctness.

ugh. gender classification arguments.

i miss the good old days when men were men, women were sex toys, and transexuals were beaten upon discovery.

:eek:

you dont even understand what the term male means then.

Scientifically, male = XY female = XX

there are others, but they are annomolies and therefore dont get their own catagories.

Even if a man gets a sex change their genes are still XY. therefore scientifically he is male. He may wish to be female, but failing a complete change to his genetic code, he is male.

You are addressing the exact issue that i am addressing though. Since a "womans" mind can be in a "mans" body, why then is it a womans mind? isnt it still just a mind?

we classify certain personality characteristics with gender when they shouldnt be. personality and gender are unlike things

He may still be a man genetically, but besides that, he is a woman.
You must never allow yourself to dictated by genetics.

All things considered, there is no reason why he can't simple say "I'm female, though technically I'm male," then when filling out forms, designating himself as female.

If ever there were a question of his genetic gender, it would probably be in situations regarding science, and not in designation or psychology.

500 years ago being female meant a lot more than it does today.

Why do you think we should stop now?

Because when we fill out forms, it is something necessary to know.

It is a step that can't be bypassed or overlooked. It is simply something that must be done, and not obsessing about.

Besides, gender is hardly ever the focus of such designations, and when it is, it's for scientific research, that either uses or doesn't need philosophical/psychological same gender variations in it's calculations.

ugh. gender classification arguments.

i miss the good old days when men were men, women were sex toys, and transexuals were beaten upon discovery.

:eek:

True...apart from the sex toys thing.

meh...

these conversations are getting too serious...

I like women because they are warm and cuddly, they are the more caring and cautious, the softer and the more sensual. Woman needs man and man needs woman no matter what guises that may take, or what perceptions people may choose to have of one or the other. Who doesn't want what the other sex can offer? Im not talking about the almighty slap and tickle mind you (not that i mind the fuzzy bits), but a level of companionship, trust and togetherness that can only be felt by two people loving, and even moreso by two people in love.

So i shall take the woman i love in all her glory, so shall you and those next to you, and lets end this debauchery once and for all.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

That'd be true, except that they changed the term "refugee" to "asylum seeker" and "handicapped" to "disabled" because of the negative connotations, and hardly any (white) person uses the word "negro" anymore. They were changed because there actually were preconceptions attached to the names.

Although "Person of the feminine persuasion" does sound absurdly Monty Python.

Just thought I'd point out there is a subtle difference between the terms "refugee" and asylum seeker". "Refugee" usually refers to someone who has fled their homeland for whatever reason, while "asylum seeker" refers to someone who seeks asylum (surprisingly!) after fleeing their homeland.

ugh. gender classification arguments.

i miss the good old days when men were men, women were sex toys, and transexuals were beaten upon discovery.

:eek:


i miss the days when the grass was green
the sex was dirty
but the air was clean

;)

not all this intolerance people, arent we smarter than that yet? :confused:

Also because he ridiculously assumed that it was unusual to be a female scientist. Women are genetically and statistically more intelligent than men (though probably not as mentally stable [zing!]), and without the whole gender barriers still seen throught the world, there would be an equal if not greater number of women in science.

laughs @ "muscle and scientist women"

I also would like to point out the term "girly boys". It's really quite stupid.
Are you saying guys who are sensitive and who like the arts?

As i expected you misunderstood me. The natural gender specifics differences(such as sex organs) are too obvious to be mentioned. By "girly boys" i refer to men who tend to be more like women, but not necessarily trans-sexual.
It doesn't have anything to do with arts and stuff. I don't personally believe that mental differences are genetic, but most of us are raised to be either male or female. I never said that men are more intelligent than women.
Men just tend to think more logically and women more emotionally and that is a fact, but it might be because of the society. Not a genetic difference. I used bad examples i know, but that doesn't really change the things. Atleast in here it's unusual for a woman to be scientist and it's VERY unusual for woman to be body builder. That's what society thinks, because majority of the people are raised either as men or women.

meh...

these conversations are getting too serious...

I like women because they are warm and cuddly, they are the more caring and cautious, the softer and the more sensual. Woman needs man and man needs woman no matter what guises that may take, or what perceptions people may choose to have of one or the other. Who doesn't want what the other sex can offer? Im not talking about the almighty slap and tickle mind you (not that i mind the fuzzy bits), but a level of companionship, trust and togetherness that can only be felt by two people loving, and even moreso by two people in love.

So i shall take the woman i love in all her glory, so shall you and those next to you, and lets end this debauchery once and for all.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:


good show. :D

He may still be a man genetically, but besides that, he is a woman.
You must never allow yourself to dictated by genetics.

All things considered, there is no reason why he can't simple say "I'm female, though technically I'm male," then when filling out forms, designating himself as female.

If ever there were a question of his genetic gender, it would probably be in situations regarding science, and not in designation or psychology.

no, because you are classifying his personality. You can't classify a mental personalality or consiousness as male or female as it is built compleatly by the individual based on their upbringing.

If we removed male and female from the way we classify peoples personalities he wouldn't think he is female. He wouldnt question it, because it is something so simple. He is obviously a man, no matter what.

good show. :D

any time comrade.
;)

strange how the same chaps seem to be doing all the talking in whichever rooms in enter, perhaps it is that these conver-stations lend themselves to a particular kind hmm...

well, no matter, i just wish people would talk faster, otherwise this tends to get boring.

but this is something so simplistic. Aside from obvious biological differances, any "differance" between a consious man and woman is mearly A)choice or B)personality.

we as a species can go against our nature and change our basic instincts, man and women is superficial.[/QUOTE]

If you're thinking like that, then why can't we say things like
"That isn't an animal, it is a living thing that has chosen to be a female of it's unconsciously chosen species." ?

If you can't classify things by how they are constructed physically, then how do you classify them? Do you do it by their thoughts? If so, how do you know what a single-celled organism is "thinking"?

You can't say that it is insulting to women to be called women. If they didn't want to be called it, everyone would be called one thing, not male or female but a person, or one set name for both sexes.

but this is something so simplistic. Aside from obvious biological differances, any "differance" between a consious man and woman is mearly A)choice or B)personality.

we as a species can go against our nature and change our basic instincts, man and women is superficial.

If you're thinking like that, then why can't we say things like
"That isn't an animal, it is a living thing that has chosen to be a female of it's unconsciously chosen species." ?

If you can't classify things by how they are constructed physically, then how do you classify them? Do you do it by their thoughts? If so, how do you know what a single-celled organism is "thinking"?

You can't say that it is insulting to women to be called women. If they didn't want to be called it, everyone would be called one thing, not male or female but a person, or one set name for both sexes.[/QUOTE]

heh heh,
since a single celled organism is asexual im not sure that that applies but good point nonetheless comrade.
;)

If you're thinking like that, then why can't we say things like
"That isn't an animal, it is a living thing that has chosen to be a female of it's unconsciously chosen species." ?

If you can't classify things by how they are constructed physically, then how do you classify them? Do you do it by their thoughts? If so, how do you know what a single-celled organism is "thinking"?

You can't say that it is insulting to women to be called women. If they didn't want to be called it, everyone would be called one thing, not male or female but a person, or one set name for both sexes.

holy fuck, i serioously cant believe that I have to spell this out again

I OBVIOUSLY SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS AND MEN HAVE A PENIS.

i dont want a name for both sexes. im saying personality is more complex than A or B.

If you're thinking like that, then why can't we say things like
"That isn't an animal, it is a living thing that has chosen to be a female of it's unconsciously chosen species." ?

If you can't classify things by how they are constructed physically, then how do you classify them? Do you do it by their thoughts? If so, how do you know what a single-celled organism is "thinking"?

You can't say that it is insulting to women to be called women. If they didn't want to be called it, everyone would be called one thing, not male or female but a person, or one set name for both sexes.

holy fuck, i serioously cant believe that I have to spell this out again

I OBVIOUSLY SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS AND MEN HAVE A PENIS.

i dont want a name for both sexes. im saying personality is more complex than A or B.[/QUOTE]

yes yes yes

and as much in man is ape and much in ape is worm much in man is still worm

so i will use my worm for the best possible function i can think of! meh!!!!

(sort of a rip on the old Nietzsche if you caught it)

lets not get too serious, lets just get a bunch of horny girls and guys together for a massive....

oops thinking out loud again....

heh heh,
since a single celled organism is asexual im not sure that that applies but good point nonetheless comrade.
;)

Well, you knew the point i was making, eh?

why is this so serious? is this all not just a game of simple pleasures?

Well, you knew the point i was making, eh?

why is this so serious? is this all not just a game of simple pleasures?


yes comrade, yes, a game of simple pleasures, but a serious game of simple pleasures

Oh jesus, not this friggin hippie shit.

There are men, then there are women. We have different bodies and different minds (you know what I mean). The people who switch their gender, in my mind, have a serious problem.

yes comrade, yes, a game of simple pleasures, but a serious game of simple pleasures

ahh, touche. i'm just thinkin' we could all be a little bit more laid back about this whole thing. or maybe i'm the only one who feels like this...
ahh well, all goes to show that i'm obviously not "playing the game" and taking it with enough sternness.
well i just want a bit of old fashioned fun!

So to clarify, the author of this topic believes that there are differences significant enough between people of the same gender that warrant the insitution of a new form of nomenclature, BUT doesn't believe that transexuals should be able to designate themselves of the gender they [believe] are supposed to be.

Genetics have a definite part in defining personality. Genetics determine the amount of hormones and chemicals released in the brain. I think genetics will determine some things, like agressiveness or passiveness, smart or stupid, funny or somber. Of course your upbringing has a lot do with it, you can be born aggressive and be brought up to be passive, but there will always be that potential there.

In my opnion you can designate your sexuality what you think fits you best. You shouldn't think these things too seriously. Even if there are all those classifications, one should be able think himself as an invidual and accept it if he's different than others. Human sexuality is a complex thing, even with today's knowledge we can't fully understand it. You should forget all the psychological crap written about sexuality, they are just theories.

ahh, touche. i'm just thinkin' we could all be a little bit more laid back about this whole thing. or maybe i'm the only one who feels like this...
ahh well, all goes to show that i'm obviously not "playing the game" and taking it with enough sternness.
well i just want a bit of old fashioned fun!


i too want good old fashioned fun, is it my fault that my definition of good old fashioned fun involves 3 girls, a crock of maple syrup, a whip, some fuzzy handcuffs and myself?

off topic, but im at work so WHEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:fluffle:

all this time i beleived it to be so simple,
if it hangs down - boy
if its tucks upward - girl

and then i kissed her and realized that the lump in her panties was not just an illusion

WOOOOOOO :eek:

might go and see a doctor hmm comrades?

There are obivous differences between men and women. Men tend think logically and Women emotionally. Also ofcourse Men & Women are physically different. Men tend be stronger and bigger, women tend be beautiful, but not as strong.
Seriously, I doubt us men have a monopoly on logic. Most of my fellow men suck at logic. I also don't think that women have a monopoly on emotional intelligence. They do tend to express themselves more freely, but that's cultural, not natural. You also say that women tend to be more beautiful than men. I'm guessing here that you're a straight man (like me) or a gay girl, because this doesn't sound very objective. I think that men and women both have beauty in equal measure.

Seriously, I doubt us men have a monopoly on logic. Most of my fellow men suck at logic. I also don't think that women have a monopoly on emotional intelligence. They do tend to express themselves more freely, but that's cultural, not natural. You also say that women tend to be more beautiful than men. I'm guessing here that you're a straight man (like me) or a gay girl, because this doesn't sound very objective. I think that men and women both have beauty in equal measure.

strange, i dont recall seeing anything in the argument that mentioned a monopoly, only tendancies - in which case i at least will have to concur for the most part with these points as made in the previous discourse.

Seriously, I doubt us men have a monopoly on logic. Most of my fellow men suck at logic. I also don't think that women have a monopoly on emotional intelligence. They do tend to express themselves more freely, but that's cultural, not natural. You also say that women tend to be more beautiful than men. I'm guessing here that you're a straight man (like me) or a gay girl, because this doesn't sound very objective. I think that men and women both have beauty in equal measure.

Yeah i'm a straight male that's kinda biased. I kinda miss-spoke however, must be the lack of sleep. Anyway as i stated it earlier, i don't really believe women and men have really any major NATURAL mental differences. Men and have women have(aside obvious differences) only some major NATURAL differences in a way the body is build. Most of people are however raised as either men or women. That affects heavily on their personality. Then there also hormones which affect too, but not so much. Also when i say to think logically. I don't mean person has to have a good sense of logic, but tend to wiev things from logical wievpoint.

There are major mental differences between men and women. In evolution, men and women evolved to fulfill different roles in keeping the species alive. We evolved -- so not all of the differences are cultural, many are genetic.

Often, little boys will pick up sticks and pretend they are swords or guns. Little girls are generally attracted to dolls and babies. This is before they have been really exposed to culture which would bias them in that way.

Look at other species. Female Lions, to take an extreme example, have very different mindset than male lions. You would be hard pressed to find a species which doesn't have major differences (not only physically, but in terms of behavior,) between the sexes.

If one looks at statistics, women behave very differently than men. Men commit far more crimes. Women are much more likely to vote Democrat. Those are just two examples.

So seeing as men and women are different, it makes sense to categorize them, yah?

Anyway as i stated it earlier, i don't really believe women and men have really any major NATURAL mental differences. Men and have women have(aside obvious differences) only some major NATURAL differences in a way the body is build.
Well, since the brain is part of the body, then natural differences in this body part can lead to natural mental differences.

It not only can, but it's a scientific fact that it does. Men and women have natural mental differences. Deal with it :D

That said, culture also affects who we are. And how we are raised can even have an effect back on nature!

Saing that our gender and sexuality is something we chose is plain bullshit. We are all different that way, some can change more freely. Others don't. I have a female friend who is a lesbian. She was raised in a very christian home, treated as a girl all the time. Yet, she became what she is, and guys turn her off just as much as they turn me off. It's all natural, in the sense that it's part of nature, but it's unnatural in the sense that it's not common.

Yes, this men vs. women thing is all to Vandreadian. As for the differing behavioral tendency claims, that's just a justification for gender rôles by claiming that women have a natural tendency to stay at home and raise children.

There are obivous differences between men and women. Men tend think logically and Women emotionally. Also ofcourse Men & Women are physically different. Men tend be stronger and bigger, women tend be beautiful, but not as strong. Men and Women should have equal rights in the society, but
they aren't physically and mentally same. Neither is better however in my opnion both have their pros and cons. Then again there are muscle and scientist women, as there are girly boys, but that isn't normal. That doesn't mean they are bad, they should have the same rights as everyone else.


bullshit.

This coming from a man. I think women are the most beautiful creature in all creation. Some women forget that. That's my only problem with them.

me i love women hey i'll gladly give them equal rights as long as they will take up the bad and the good what i see is women who will only take the good then when the bad comes they well quit but thats my opinion and im naive