Saravan
Savant
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 926
But it is.Ok cool, but again, this is a D2 remaster of the original. Not D2 ching-chong & tranny edition.
Yes, yes it is.
But it is.Ok cool, but again, this is a D2 remaster of the original. Not D2 ching-chong & tranny edition.
You both fail to acknowledge that many people are attracted to fatness in particular (chubby chasers) or don't mind it if it happens to arise. My current ...something is not the fittest person in the world, but I still think he's the most attractive man I've ever seen even though I'm not usually attracted to fat people. Something is "considered" attractive only within a culture and there have been many eras in which chubby women were considered peak sexy. The point of the "fat activists" is not to force people to think they are attractive, but to combat the discrimination faced by fat people that have real consequences. For example, doctors are more likely to dismiss a patient's symptoms if they are fat and only give the advice to lose weight without further investigation. I feel like this is a particularly American issue, however, as the obesity rates there are staggering. I don't see much fat activism here in Germany while I see anti-racism and anti-homophobia activism all the time.
Even though I like men as well as women, I don't think my sexuality works any differently than any other person's
It's more likely that those have been artifically put on the forefront. The vast, vaaaaaaaast majority of sex is performed without procreation and attraction doesn't work the way you seem to think.
Are you talking from the point of evolutionary psychology? A field famous for being rife with pseudoscience and untestable hypotheses? I specifically did not mention it until now because it's an intellectual dark hole that neither one of us can get out of and it will just amount to arguing about the validity of the discipline.
Have you never been in situation where you don't immediately physically like a person but then find out they are smart/funny/charming/caring/etc. and developed feelings for them either way? It certainly seems that way.
What you are proposing also fails to account for same-sex attraction and the mechanisms involved or the abundance of non-procreational sex techniques in any group.
See, your case obviously is different, as, being attracted to the same gender, your analysis of other peoples' appearence is completely bereft of the natural procreational considerations. That being said, your taste in men is apparently shit anyway. Beggars can't be choosers, I guess.
Oh, right, you are rationally analyzing reality, while all of us are living in a dream.
What I meant by "you fail to account for same-sex attraction" is that the model of attraction you propose falls apart immediately.
And on top of that fails to take into account people who aren't attracted to the mainstream ideal (like the example of chubby chasers I gave).
I also don't think
I also don't think gay attraction is somehow fundamentally different than the straight one, as in the inner mechanisms and psychological reactions.
Your claims simply don't make sense and can't explain anything when we zoom out from straight men attracted exclusively to skinny women.
And on top of that fails to take into account people who aren't attracted to the mainstream ideal (like the example of chubby chasers I gave).
I also failed to account for JarlFrank and his foot fetish. So what? I never aimed at making a comprehensive model. Obviously there are cases in which other attractors prevail over procreational considerations. This, however, does not mean that procreational considerations shouldn't be accounted for in any such model. Nor does it mean that they aren't present for the vast majority of population (cishet, I believe, is your term for them).
"I also don't think" is not really a solid ground for making such statements. You need actual hard data here. Not conjecture.I also don't think gay attraction is somehow fundamentally different than the straight one, as in the inner mechanisms and psychological reactions.
By "I don't think", I'm judging it from my own experience. I don't experience attraction any differently between sexes when I like the person. I register the differences between a man and a woman, but I don't experience those differences when it comes to my attraction to them. If that makes sense. I also don't think the way people process attraction on an internal level can be measured in any way for there to be hard data, you just have to ask them."I also don't think" is not really a solid ground for making such statements. You need actual hard data here. Not conjecture.I also don't think gay attraction is somehow fundamentally different than the straight one, as in the inner mechanisms and psychological reactions.
Classic double standards, why am I not surprised?There are many reasons why a shirtless guy isn't considered exploited, but the quick answer is that it's all about framing and how our culture perceives men, their bodies, and their sexuality.
Reminded how game journos gushed over shirtless boys in ff 15 while screeching about mechanic girl cleavage.Classic double standards, why am I not surprised?There are many reasons why a shirtless guy isn't considered exploited, but the quick answer is that it's all about framing and how our culture perceives men, their bodies, and their sexuality.
Because of Lust?Btw do they castrate paladins?
Such was my point, yes.I also don't think the way people process attraction on an internal level can be measured in any way for there to be hard data, you just have to ask them.
Those double standards exist because our society is extremely gendered and there is really no way around it atm. According to the discourse, this particular double standard exists because men's bodies are framed (in popular media) as either powerful or funny, never sexy, while women's bodies are specifically put there in order to be sexy or funny because they are not sexy. This gets internalized by people as being a woman's only valuable asset.Classic double standards, why am I not surprised?There are many reasons why a shirtless guy isn't considered exploited, but the quick answer is that it's all about framing and how our culture perceives men, their bodies, and their sexuality.
NEW TRAILER! GET HYPED!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111>caring about the looks of 2d pixel characters in a hack n slack 600 APM clickfest lootpinata autism game
>yeah ok, sure lol.
This gets internalized by people as being a woman's only valuable asset.
It's a fucking fantasy game. They are pixels not women. Just like in Hatred you "kill" pixels. Damn game should be on GOG!Lacrymas said: ↑
This gets internalized by people as being a woman's only valuable asset.
Old D2 is like Street Fighter 3 (possessing those traits) when it comes to animations compared to D2R's Mortal Kombat (
Indeed, but most fighters do. Perfect stand-in for D1 too. What KoF98 lacked in fluid animation, it made up with in art, personality, and style, while also being the patrician's choice of its genre/seriesOld D2 is like Street Fighter 3 (possessing those traits) when it comes to animations compared to D2R's Mortal Kombat (
And they both suck compared to KING OF FIGHTERS 98 (Diablo 1).