CuriousLord
Posts: 3911
Joined: 4/3/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji Okay. Varies significantly with gender. Now, I think it has been clearly shown that breasts do not vary hugely based on gender - anatomically, they are identical. The only difference is that they are often larger and formed differently on women who happen to be lucky enough to be thin and have big gazongas. While not hugely different, they tend to vary enough to discomfort many. In addition, you're considering it from a more-than-average scientific point of view; for most, it's a matter of looking, something something that strikes one as plainly different, and then concluding. And while you are more technically correct, for those concerned with morality and emotions, this is a big difference. Even if such individuals are basing their ideas in a visual misinterreptation, there remains several points from which to consider: -They may be mistaking magnitude, but they are correct as to the different natures. -Their emotions, even if based in something that was incorrect, need be taken into account, as they are part of society. quote:
ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji That, however, is hormonal, and both versions can be created through pills, surgery, or just shitty genetics. As can genital reconstruction. quote:
ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji So is a woman's ass, which is often nice and round and smack-as-you-tell-her-to-bake-you-a-pieable, sexual as well? If it indeed varies with gender, then, yes, it is. (I haven't observed enough asses in recollection to be able to know this empiracly.) I would point out that "sexual", in these cases, should be considered as a 'degree-to-which', as opposed to a boolean. (Instead of, "Is it sexual? Yes or no?", it should be, "How sexual is it?" After this point, individuals may have varying opinions on what is too sexual, and what is fine- which is a case study onto itself. One I'd like to be able to discuss with a surficient study group.) quote:
ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji Or hands? I mean, if we accept the idea that body modification of various forms is allowed, because the definition says "gender," not "sex," then soft hands with thin fingers should be a feminine trait as well. Yup, hands could be considered slightly sexual. I believe this is an example of a slightly sexual trait that most probably wouldn't find overly sexual for general display. quote:
ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji All I'm saying is, I'm done with this shit. Bah. That's a shame. You made some points and didn't seem upset about things (besides this). Well, peace.
|