We all see those magazine stands in petrol stations, convenience stores and the like (racks of racks). The magazines with names like 'Ralph', 'Zoo' even 'Girls gone Wild' (whooo-hooo!). They feature (in case you live under a rock) provocative pictures of nude and semi-clad women, along with a few lowbrow articles.

The claim is that these magazines are the equivalent of the female lowbrow zines like Womans Day or Cleo. But the content is very different there are rarely any shots of provocatively posed, well-honed young men. Stories about the lives of celebs and recipes are very tame compared to the raunch in Ralph.

My question is why?

Would sexy magazines aimed at women sell? I rather doubt they would sell at the same rate as the men's zines, if at all. I don't think I would buy one.

What do other people think?

Dear Fractelle,

Women have typically been portrayed either as
sex objects, in an attempt to market various
products to men, or as domesticated housewives,
in order to market home-maintenance products
to women.

Why do these magazines target women? Because market
research has shown that one of the most effective
ways to reach a male audience is by a seductive
or smiling female. These magazines sell - big time.

The females are gorgeous - and attractively
"packaged." They fulfill the male fantasy. Imagine
a guy can collect these glossies - and make a montage
out of them on a wall in his home, if he so chooses.

I'm actually speaking from experience here. Don't
laugh, but I actually did that as a surprise "gift,"
for my husband for his Birthday one year. It took me
a little over a year to collect these "pin-ups," (I
had friends helping), mainly from Playboy and Penthouse.
But the look on his face was worth it!

That wall has long gone - however it was a great
talking point while it lasted.

Foxy

My you are always surprising me. I'm sure your husband adores you.

My reason for asking about equivalent raunchy magazines for women, was on the Susan Boyle thread a number of male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way, that the male desire to see naked ladies was equal to women wanting to see naked men. Quite frankly I found these claims to be laughable.

If their claims were true, one would expect that the capitalist society we live would respond by producing as many raunchy magazines for women as there are for men. But I can't think of any - maybe there are some in sex-shops, but I am reasonably sure those zines are aimed at gays.

I am aware that there are brothel services and strip clubs for women, but the number of them are far eclipsed by the plethora of such services for men.

I don't really care that men are more visually cued for sex than women and that for women to be sexual is a little more complicated - there are evolutionary reasons for this. However, where it causes problems is when women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here. Men and women are entitled to equal rights and responsibilities, but we are not exactly the same, anymore than all men are a single homogenous group and ditto for women. What I found astounding was the denial that the image of women is portrayed as sexual more than the image of men is.

We see women draped seductively over everything from cars to beer, for a reason, the advertisers want to sell to men. I admit that advertisers are starting to realise that women buy cars and drink beer but most advertising is still dressed up with a beautiful woman.

However, if I make the above claims I am subjected to attack, innuendo and outright insult. For stating the truth no less.

I just typed "sexy magazines for women" into Google and got 4 hits, whereas typing "sexy magazines for men" garners 149 hits. Hardly a groundbreaking discovery - but why are women's desires not catered to the same extent as men? There would be money to be made. Its the 21st century and still the male gaze dominates our society.

I suspect that you already answered at least one of your questions, Fractelle.

>>why are women's desires not catered to the same extent as men? There would be money to be made<<

I refer you back to your opening post.

>>Would sexy magazines aimed at women sell? I rather doubt they would sell at the same rate as the men's zines, if at all. I don't think I would buy one.<<

Your best bet for an answer to all this is a female anthropologist, who could perhaps explain in coruscating detail how men have evolved with different mental wiring to women.

Beyond that, I have nothing to offer on the topic of "Men's" magazines. The last time I bought a magazine in this genre was when I was fourteen, and my brother charged me sixpence 'cos he was fed up with me borrowing his.

I do think it might be worth asking that anthropologist, though, how close to the truth it is that "these magazines are the equivalent of the female lowbrow zines like Womans Day or Cleo". We may find that they satisfy similar corners of the brain, or something like that.

'male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way'

I was still waiting for the evidence of this on the other thread. I think most if not all posters said they DO assess women in a sexual way. Didn't stop you deciding they were 'dishonest' and telling porkies though.

I even clarified myself after this accusation, and stand by my assertion, that while I do look at and admire women in a sexual way, I do not categorize women into those I believe to be f*ckable and those who I believe are not.

'that the male desire to see naked ladies was equal to women wanting to see naked men.'

Actually that wasn't said at all either. People said women notice mens appearance and judge them on it as much as men notice womens appearance and judge them on it.

But you go on and make up your own story. It's good you have your own thread now to discuss your confused comprehension of what some of the male posters were saying.

Pericles

Thank you for your considered response.

Probably I have already answered my own question - that the magazines simply wouldn't sell.

Maybe I didn't give the attention to your posts on the Susan Boyle thread that they deserved given your response here.

I was absolutely gob-smacked at the claims by Graham. And I would've had serious words if this thread had not been approved. I didn't expect anymore than I got from Houllie or Col - they're rather obvious. But I let their responses affect me.

I guess we still have a long way to go though, just because male and female brains are wired a little differently doesn't mean that women have to always be evaluated on appearance as to their intrinsic worth. I still believe that most men see women as people, with exceptions like religious leaders, a few too many politicians and those men with self esteem issues.

I took the test linked to below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

Turns out (according to this test) that my general pattern of thinking is ever so slightly skewed towards male pattern thinking - whatever that means. It was fun to do although I think there are too many variables to take the results of a single test too seriously.

I'd be interested to find out other people's test results.

Graham Y: 'Of course I check women out.'

Pericles: 'doubt you will find anywhere a denial from me that I "look, appraise and evaluate". My partner even compliments me upon the discretion with which these actions are accomplished.'

Col: women check blokes out and judge us just as much as we judge them.

CJ: despite being a man who shamelessly delights in 'appraising' the female form

Myself: Just who was 'trying to claim that they don't assess women's appearance'? Personally I 'assess' womens appearance

Where are all these men who 'denied assessing women in a sexual way'?

Fractelle, you may say 'most men see women as people', and that's great if it's true you believe that, but when you assert that in a whole audience every male who sees a woman performer instantly goes over her in his head and categerises her as 'f&ckable' or not, it lends to a very different opinion of men.

Thanks for an original and interesting thread topic, Fractelle - something sorely missing from OLO these days.

I don't think men's and women's magazines can't be compared accurately without taking into account the different priorities of the sexes when it comes to mating. Men are attracted to the physical appearance of women, so magazines aimed at us contain appealing images of women. Likewise, women place more emphasis on emotional and commitment vales than sheer physicality, and women's mags are full to the brim with stories of romance and true love.

For those reasons, I think Cleo and Vogue can be compared fairly with Ralph and FHM (though not Zoo, which takes the low road of puerile shock value for its teenage readership.)

I must, though, take issue with your assertion that the articles in men's mags are "lowbrow". Men like sport and cars and military stuff. Articles on such topics are no more lowbrow than the endless cycle of "how to know if your man is cheating" pieces in women's mags.

Remember, too, that Playboy's popularity was built primarily on pictures of naked women, but secondarily on the consistent good quality of its articles, and the new generation of men's mags are nowhere near as explicit in their images.

*We may find that they satisfy similar corners of the brain, or something like that.*

I think that Pericles has it about right, yet once again. Every
Saturday I pick up my weekend papers from the newsagent, where
they are put away for me. On the cupboard door they usually
hang the latest Cleo poster. So for some amusement I tend to
read out aloud the subjects covered in this week's Cleo,
from how to use the internet for sexual pleasure onwards.

The 50 something year old lady who serves me usually blushes in
all colours :) I claim to be innocently reading the Cleo
poster, but some female customers start giggling and say
that I would not want to know what they really are thinking
about :)

So I can only conclude that many women prefer to read about
things to get their thrills, wheras men can perhaps be more
visual and also a bit more open and honest.

Cleo would not be publishing this stuff, if some women did not
pay good money to read about it.

Dear Fractelle,

I'm glad that I can surprise you.

I surprise myself at times.

I remember Cleo's first centrefold - I think
it was of Jack Thompson - that left me all hot and
bothered. But then, so did some of the more realistic
photos of women in Penthouse - which I found more erotic
and not "plasticky" like the ones in Playboy.

One of my favourite photos is the one by Annie Leibowitz,
of Joko (fully clothed), and John Lennon
next to her, naked. Loved it and had it mounted on my
study wall.

Aside from magazines - I do have a certain
liking for nudes, as well as other works of that ilk.
For example, - Norman Lindsay's, "The Sphinx,"
Gustave Klimt's work. And of course there's Georgia O'Keefe's
erotic flowers. Then there's Michelangelo...

Now I'm drooling.

I've been thinking about the mens magazines/womens magazines thing and wondering if there is not something just a little more basic about this whole question of most women not being particularly excited at the thought of a mag that had pictures of naked men in it.

I once saw a photo that had apparently appeared as a centrefold spread in a women's mag. It showed an entire football team naked. I laughed until I cried.

Now, I apologise deeply to the men who are reading this: I am not saying the male body is ridiculous. But the censorship is.

Its against the law to portray an erect penis, yeah? So what we had in this photo was a whole mob of buff, beautifully proportioned guys with their flaccid bits dangling paley and - and this is the point - disproportionately in the wind, or plopped onto a tree-trunk and looking for all the world like some species of witchitee grubs!

C'mon: - I'm pretty sure most men who saw it would have thought it funny too.

Yet, had these blokes been shown um..at the top of their form, so to speak, I defy anyone to laugh. It would have been sexy. And yep! Just as some women feel inadequate faced with photos of other naked women, some men would feel inadequate or self-conscious about their own bodies in comparison to photos of other guys more beautifully wrought.

When guys look at stick-pics, such is the anatomy of the female form that she is ALWAYS ...well...ready for action. But when women look at male nudes they are, because of the law, most definitely NOT in a state of readyness. They look kinda vulnerable, and childlike and yes, according to how they are placed, kinda funny. The very antithesis to sexual fantasies.

So perhaps the dearth of comparative magazines for men and women has more to do with the laws of the land, and less to do with gendered differences?

I'd say the publishers ARE catering to women's and men's different desires quite well, men tend to want such rags, so they are provided, and women want other things, and they get them. Whenever I look in a news-agents, I see far more mag's for women than men, by quite a degree, covering evey possible subject women seem to be interested in.
Ever looked in the mag pile in any public place, quacks office etc, you rarely find anything other than womens mags, don't you?
Why would they publish men's style mags for women, or women's style for men, they know there's no money in that approach.
Offhand I'd say most of the posts here make valid points, and don't seem all that far apart overall, it's mostly in how they've been phrased.

>>>We may find that they satisfy similar corners of the brain, or something like that.*<<<

Both Pericles and Sancho made this point.

At first glance this appears true. Both types of magazines are light weight with short pithy articles that are easy to read.

BUT (deliberate big BUT) (and a pun now I think of it), women are sexual beings too. Duh.

Now I may be completely wrong, BUT I very much doubt that New Idea has found use by women as a masturbatory aid. Whereas I am 100% sure Penthouse, Ralph etc have been. Willing to bet my last $ on that.

I think Romany has made a great point that the permissable photos of men have a bashful look to them - not remotely sexual or arousing, in fact, as Romany said, laughable.

Also Sancho made comment that the articles catered to the sexes. I say they cater to stereotypes. For in depth articles on cars, I recommend Wheels over Ralph, for some entertaining but substantial human interest reading Harpers Bazaar is hard to beat. And I'd just like to point out that my last discussion thread was about vehicles.

Contd

*BUT I very much doubt that New Idea has found use by women as a masturbatory aid.*

Perhaps not New Idea, but Cleo certainly goes into detail about
how women can get their rocks off, care of the internet. Do not
confuse the two.

I buy such unusual papers and magazines as the Economist,
Weekend Financial Review and Weekend Australian, but I once asked
my newsagent what sold most. Girls buy New Idea, boys buy the
Auto Trader.

But it seems that you and Romany want real stick books for girls!
Would you buy them? There are plenty available for gays, so
why don't you buy those? I find it hard to believe that if
girls were keen to spend their money on stick books for girls,
that some enterprising entrepreneur would not have picked up the
trend and taken your money.

*When guys look at stick-pics, such is the anatomy of the female form that she is ALWAYS ...well...ready for action.*

Well perhaps, perhaps not :) Desmond Morris was a pioneer in all
this stuff and he explained that in nature, when females are keen,
their labias swell up and turn bright red or pink. Given that
human females cover up those bits, instead pouting lips have
been claimed to be sexy, women even have botox treatments to
have that look. Then they cover their lips with bright red
lipstick!

So every time I now see a female with bright red lipstick, I have
a bit of a chuckle :)

Contd

Its the pictures between the pages that are the defining difference, the airbrushed, silicon enhanced sexually ready babes. And for women, pictures of celebs and promos for movies, tv soaps. I dunno, but I feel kind of gipped. I admit that in my teens and early twenties I did read the Cleos and the Dollies, mainly because I didn't know very much. These magazines told me how to apply makeup and attract a man. Something that young women want to do, just as much as young men want to attract women and for the same reason..

What Might Work

I don't see why nudes of men can't be arousing for women instead of laughable. Presenting women as sexual is very easy - but it is not so easy to depict men as sexual. We'd probably need a little personal info about the male being depicted, he would need to convey more than just sexual readiness - we (women) need to know a little bit about the personality, even it is illusionary. I do casual work as a film extra/actor and I know it is possible to convey a world of meaning in a single glance.

There wouldn't even need to be the numbers of different men as there are women in the nude mags, just higher quality photos, some kind of visual dialog that women can relate to and a sense of connection to the male nude.

http://elizabethdarvill.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/hughjackman.bmp

Tell me Romany, Foxy does the image above make you laugh?

Yabby - if you had simply waited for the rest of my post you wouldn't look quite so ignorant now.

Warning! Warning! About to point out bleeding obvious:

Women are not Gay Men. If you require more explanation ask your partner, you might even learn something.

Dear Fractelle,

Does the image of Hugh Jackman make me laugh?
No. Smile - maybe - but for the right reason!

And talking about arousal - the pictures
in magazines like, "Men Australia," of
those "cute" boys actually does nothing for me.

On the other hand - the following website:

http://www.hollywoodgrind.com/david-beckham-emporio-armani-underwear-ad-is packing/

Does quite a lot!

So, I guess it's all subjective.

Ah Fractelle, according to Romany it seems that the witchity
grubs were the problem, but not according to you.

I mentioned to a female friend recently that women were not
the easiest creatures to figure out and she responded by saying
that even she, did not understand herself.

Perhaps I'll just go by the bright red lipstick in future :)

Fractelle,

While it is true that men and women differ in their expressions of sex however anthropologically speaking this is demonstrably a cultural effect rather than a biological one. As are the differences of gender choice of sexually stimulated material.
I am loathed to wallow in unqualified generalities as your question seems to be but I would suggest a few contravening facts for you consideration.
There are wiring differences between men and women but it isn't as prominent than one might think. That is apart from males drive to promote his genes and women to ensure the best genes for her offsprungs.
It is a commonly observed point that at gender specific strip shows it is the women who are shall we say more aggressively involved i.e. Col etc. are essentially right women do check males out but express it in different ways.

I suggest you consider why male homosexuality was for many year but lesbianism wasn't.
Apparently the legal biases are based on Judeo/Christian mores but when Queen Victoria was consulted on the laws of prohibition she refused to accept that women would engage is such acts but had knowledge of men doing so.

The idea of cultural influence on issues like this are supported by many primitive tribes where sexuality is equally solicited or even some where the women take the lead.

On an even more biological basis the Bonobo lives in groups that are largely matriarchies and sex is so widely practised and with combinations that would offend our current moral perspectives.

I would agree that both Sancho and Pericles have accurately describe the nature of our culturally dominated views on sex are expressed. One should be careful not to confuse the cause with the effect as you seem to be doing here. Consider both facts that men aren't all the same neither are women but most of all don't confuse your experiential knowledge on others.
I would submit your stated relationship may be the exception rather than the rule this *observation does not offer any prejorative conotations.*

Sorry if it offends if so it is unintentional

Yabby, Yabby, Yabby, - steady on, ole son. How on earth did you extrapolate this "But it seems that you and Romany want real stick books for girls!" from my post? Ho hum - yet more wild guesses about my sex life, it seems!

So o.k....now for those at the back who weren't paying attention:- Fractelle commented on the fact that there appears to be a disproportionate amount of nudey-cutey type mags for guys, where an Internet search brought up the grand total of 4 for women.

Without taking any particular stance on hitherto propounded reasons for this I merely wondered if consorship regulations which conspire to rob the male nudes of thier sexuality - to the point where, at times, they become risible - may be a contributing factor?

That's all. No admissions about personal needs/wants/likes/desires. No stated preferences. No word at all in fact on whether I admire or condemn, lust after or am appalled by, the nude in any way, shape or form.

Just the confession that a particular photo shoot I once saw missed the mark so much it ended up being funny.

And anyway "stick mags for girls"? Given the reason such publications got the name in the first place I question indeed whether such a thing is biologically possible!

But now, moving right along...yeah. I consider the images provided by Foxy and Fractelle provocative.

But, I ask myself, does this in fact move the discussion along in any way, though?

*Ho hum - yet more wild guesses about my sex life, it seems!*

Romany, that is highly unlikely, for I could pass you in the street
and not know you from a bar of soap.

Silly me, I read your first post and got the impression that
you wanted pictures of men "ready to go", not just with dangling
"witcherty grubs."

I think your first mistake was to assume that a naked female
is "ready to go". Clearly not, for they still have headaches,
they still say no, they still are amazed when men sleeping a few
inches away from them, have sexual urges.

So a naked female is a bit like a naked male, naked, but not ready
to go at all alot of the time.

Therefore my assumption, that you were after a stickbook. For it
is stickbooks that go into the more sexual aspects, ie. erect penises,
swollen nipples, swollen labias or even an enlarged clitoris.

But then perhaps being female, you also simply changed your mind
between your first post and second post. That is of course a well
known female attribute :)

Dear Romany,

You asked whether mine and Fractelle's provocative images
move the discussion along? Gawd, I hope so!

The point was that the male doesn't necessarily
have to be naked for women to get aroused.
That's part of the point that Fractelle was making.
Magazines for women of naked men - don't
sell - the publishers still don't get what actually
turns women on. It's not about naked apendages either -
even erected ones.

It is subjective. Very, - we want "real" men. Not
male models - not men who look "cute," air-brushed
and sun-tanned. If there was a magazine out there
with guys like - David Beckham, George Clooney,
Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig et cetera. Simply being
themselves - yeah, I reckon I'd buy that mag.
I'd bet most women would. You don't need to show
your rear end or be "buck naked," (unless you're a
porn star), to be sexy.

Arousal is after all in your mind - isn't it? Or at
least that's where it starts, and goes from there.
So its a matter of "different strokes, for different
folks." It's whatever your fantasy happens to be, - and that's
not the same for everybody. We can't generalize about
all men or all women. Although most men do appear to
like their females "ready for action," as Romany described.
Hence the popularity of men's magazines that sell - big time.

Women would possibly also buy men's magazine's if the
right formula was found - with the right appeal. My theory
is - "make it earthy," and see if it sells.

Foxy - you misunderstood - or I wasn't being clear. I meant does the fact that I, personally, find the images provocative move the discussion along.

Yabby had for some strange reason assumed that because I posited another possible reason for the lack of women's magazines that equate to Zoo etc., I personally was possessed of an urge - shared by Fractelle - to read/buy stickbooks. And that I was posting to lament this fact.

I was responding to him by trying - and obviously failing, judging by his next post - to explain that I was hazarding an objective question as my contribution to the topic, not being personal. Thus, I went on to try to illustrate that my personal preferences would not provide a particularly pertinent post to further the discussion.

Yabby - What? Where did I change my mind?

And I think perhaps I was being too delicate. My point was: physically a women does not have to be in a state of arousal herself for the sex act to take place. The vagina is always penetrable.

Conversely, a man has to be in a state of arousal to be able to contribute to the sex act. Pictures of naked men, however, in comparative mainstream magazines, show them in a state where the sex act is not possible.

Therefore a picture of a naked woman, headaches and mental attitudes notwithstanding, depicts a sexually available being.

A picture of a naked man does not show a sexually available being.

I was wondering therefore if this biological fact had any bearing on the difference in attitudes towards pictures of nudity and, hence, the different composition of men's and women's mags.

If that is not any clearer then its time I went to bed. These days I am so tired I sit and weep from exhaustion at times. Perhaps I should not even try to express myself clearly at all. Its obviously not happening.

It would be interesting to see a study of what (apart from the obvious) is advertised in the various 'men's magazines', in comparison to what is advertised in 'women's magazines'. Not only as to the variety of products, but as to the proportion of sales volume generation that can be attributed to particular magazines, or even this genre of magazines.

Not that I have consciously thought about it before, but now that you mention it, I would have thought (if I had) that 'men's magazines' catering to the visually-cued presumably largely male readership would be the last place you would try to advertise anything other than sex, or sex aids, itself. The content would surely be a distraction from the advertising, rather than a subliminal cue linking sexual phantasy/gratification to the purchase of an advertised product.

It would also be interesting to know, of the numbers of magazines of this genre displayed in outlets, what proportion get returned unsold to the publishers/distributors. This ratio to be compared to both those of 'women's magazines' and other magazines (eg. bike mags) which attract a significant female audience. Also, a study of the amount and nature of product advertising in 'women's magazines' using visual (or textual) cues that would seem to be directed toward men.

Could the 'men's magazine' genre be a smokescreen or diversionary action for what may really be desired to be going on, advertising-wise, subliminally or otherwise, elswhere? Often the distributors of the 'men's magazines' and all others are the same. So is it an overall marketing of advertising that is the distributor's focus, with this genre existing only to ensure its content does not distract readers of the more general interest magazines, was it to otherwise have to appear there as its only outlet?

Do men's magazines only exist because of a level of illiteracy amongst males? I guess I am supporting the view sexual desire starts in, and is sustained by, the imagination. And for that, word pictures seem so much better suited, IMO.

Helpful?

I did a test recently at work, inspired by this topic. The toilet block always contains at least one copy of Zoo or Ralph or Streetcar that seems to get changed irregularly but fairly frequently. By the time it gets thrown out it usually look pretty dog-eared and tatty. What all these mags have in common is a set of short articles/stories with a lot of lowbrow jokes and pictures of cars and women.

I thought I'd see what would happen to a copy of Wheels.

Apart from one or two articles, it was left well alone. the difference is that wheels is analytical (minimally, but it's there), articles are often lengthy, it doesn't contain women much and there are no jokes.

The toilet block is shared between my business and a heavy engineering manufacturer. That business employs about a dozen or so boilermakers, welders and labourers, few of whom I suspect, got passing marks in English at school before going off to do their apprenticeship.

Is it really any surprise, as Forrest says, that these people like to look at the pretty pictures? If I did a similar test in the toilet block of a professional chambers would the result be similar? I'd suggest that is very unlikely.

Comparing the reading interests of professional feminists with working class men is fatuous, I'm afraid.

As this nation is moving swiftly towards a "female professional/male tradie" model, I'd suggest that perhaps the sales of Ralph/Zoo are likely to remain steady or climb, while those of the less low-brow men's magazines will inevitably wither.

We've already seen the converse phenomenon in women's mags, with Cosmo/Cleo and their upmarket clones taking over from Women's Weekly/Womans Day/New Idea.

Well I am a women and I don't buy women's magazines and to answer Fractelle's question, nor would I buy a nudie male magazine aimed at women.

Would many women? Given we make up 50% of the population it would be hard to generalise within such a non-homogenous group even if we are all wired somewhat to our gender biology as examinator stated.

It has nothing to do with sexual appetite more that I would rather the real thing than a picture. I guess sexy pictures might stimulate the mood for sex a bit, but not enough to go out and buy a mag. I would get as much satisfaction from viewing nudie females as nudie males for some reason and I am pure heterosexual.

I used to read New Idea, Women's Weekly many years ago before they turned into celebrity gossip rags with shallow content and ambiguous sensationalist headlines.

I read mainly political/current affairs focussed papers and magazines, and for personal reading stick to Earth Garden and Grass Roots and books of all persuasions.

Dear Romany,

Sorry for misunderstanding, and thanks
for explaining. It was a late night
for me as well.

Intresting comments from Forrest and
Antiseptic.

I don't buy Cosmo/Cleo, although I'll flip
through the pages in doctor's offices etc.

What I do treat myself to every now and again is
Vanity Fair - which I enjoy. Now if they had
centrefolds it would be just luverly.

So what that says about my taste, I'm not sure.
I guess it probably confirms that I need more than just
provocative pictures as you suggested.

Given this discussion, when I picked up the papers today, I spotted
a copy of "Zoo", so I bought one!

Frankly its alot tamer then I had expected. No girls even topless,
all wearing bikinis or underwear. So it could not even be defined
as a "stickbook".

Lots of jokes, lots of cars and bikes, lots of amusing stuff,
like "The 10 funniest ways to spend Rudd's 900$.

Adverts are for Optus, JB Hifi, Samedi energy drink,a new Channel 10
cooking show, then pages of ads for chat lines and hot videos for
peoples phones.

There is a "housewives corner" kind of section, so you are all free
to send in photos of yourselves in bikinis. Mind you, most of
those are 18-24, so you might just be considered over the hill :)

Thank you to everyone for the thoughtful and provocative responses.

Humans can't simply be categorised into the generalisations I deliberately made. However, I had to start somewhere and I don't think I am wrong in saying generally men are easily aroused by just the sight of female flesh, whereas women need a more emotional connection.

Nor am I wrong in saying that women's appearance is usually evaluated first, by men and women. Just think of how much attention has been given to the clothes Michelle Obama wears. This is the culture we have created: men are more visually aroused and our books, films and advertising reflect this. Most publishing firms, film makers and advertisers are owned by men. It would be amazing if the reverse was true - that the female gaze would dominate when business and politics are still controlled (for the most part ) by men.

It is interesting that I aroused such hostility on the Susan Boyle thread for even raising this truth about our culture.

And thanks to Yabby, I now know what a 'stick mag' is and no, I wouldn't buy one. Nor do I think there is a market for a magazine based only around pictures of sexualised males and, considering Forrest's point, I wonder what would be advertised? Gels to tighten one’s vagina?

Cont'd

Cont'd

However, to assume that an increase in photos of men such as Hugh Jackman, George Clooney looking seductive, is not possible, is to ignore the visual aspect of female sexuality. We are visual creatures too, we just need some context, men we can somehow relate to.

As the female gaze takes in more than mere physical appearance, is it just too difficult to consider the sexual needs of women? Or simply because we are accustomed to the magazines as they are, we do not demand any more than they deliver? The women’s magazines still sell regardless. We women think we’re lucky if we see a shirtless Beckham. Men would demand their money back if Penthouse featured only articles.

Yes, our sexuality is more complicated but no less demanding. Once aroused we are as focused as men on our sexual needs. However, we need to feel more engaged and in connection with our partner. Otherwise, it is simply easier to masturbate. How does that saying go? "Women need to feel loved to make love and men need to make love to feel loved."

Is it possible to meet halfway somewhere? Acknowledge that although mere appearance of flesh inspires male desire, but that the flesh so lusted after, belongs to a living and feeling human being; a mother, a sister or a daughter?

Or even after the beauty has faded, that the human being is still there, be she 8 or 80?

Nice summary, Fractelle.

I'd just like to question one line.

>>This is the culture we have created: men are more visually aroused...<<

Is this "culture" or is it an evolutionary trait?

Have we created it, or does it - so to speak - create us?

Now that, my dear Pericles is the conundrum.

My best guess is that it is a combination of both - biology and culture.

Respect.

Pericles, Fractelle and all
This has been answered already it is a combination of both sheer nakedness isn't the turn on i.e. or every doctor or nudist (naturist) would be in a constant state of arousal.

Like I said beauty is in the mind of the beholder.
Which western man wants his woman to have a stretched neck or a lip like a duck, tattoos from head to toe etc. ?

In truth the most sexy are those who have some measure of clothing. I'm more turned on by a woman in a sexy neg than in in the buff in prelude to whoopee. Most women prefer the mystery of some clothing. Hence most picies of men for women are with the genitals covered unzipped jeans with a spray of perspiration.

The best strippers never take it all off but its the way they take it off that gets the effect.
As a child I fancy Audrey Hepburn but where and when did she disrobe? She was in her words a skinny chicken.

Get real folks the genitals of both sexes aren't something I want to hang on my wall as art or something of beauty. In PNG as a youth I saw my share of nude nubiles but rarely did it excite me but I will admit to seeing one with a wet top swimming with me that caused me to swim into colder water.

Clearly then it is the context and that includes the cultural aspects.

Examinator, Fractelle:-

Damn right. Horrifyingly, somewhere Col gave his recipe for his perfect woman and buggered if I didn't fit the specifications!

Now, without resorting to personal comment, one only has to read his posts and mine to imagine what a nightmare that would be.

While being specific on the physical (height, weight etc)what he didn't factor in (and why are we not surprised) was character, culture, beliefs etc.

While our Col is not reticient about what he considers his prowess in sexual matters, one could safely assume that a five minute conversation between the two of us would soon have that particular male gaze directed on the nearest means of escape. ( will not be ungallant and mention, in this instance, anything whatsoever about the female gaze in such a scenario!)

Examinator

This thread was started in reaction to the assertions made on the Susan Boyle thread that men do not place more importance on visual appearance of women, than do women.

So I decided to discuss how the sexes do respond to images of each other - the differences and the similarities. To claim that the male gaze does not dominate our culture is either myopic or deliberate. I accept (with misgivings) that some women are happily complicit with the male gaze, being as critical of women's appearance as men - but they are the minority. But the prevalence of the male gaze does mean that women judge themselves harshly and find faults – even the most beautiful. This creates self esteem issues which is detrimental. The same problems are now occurring to young men, but plastic surgery, anorexia are still primarily female issues.

I agree that beauty is on the eye of the beholder. I was simply stating facts while trying to steer a path free of emotive response in order to have a calm discussion that did not descend into gender warfare. That there are plenty of intelligent, thoughtful men who do not fit the lowest common denominator, is true. But the men's mags, advertising etc suggest that more change is required to create a world where women feel welcome and are not intruding into some boys club. Which is why I am happy to consider anything you write as I know it is not from a knee-jerk reaction to "woman states opinion - must be feminazi".

Dear Fractelle,

One has only to look at advertising to see
that what you're saying is valid.

As I've
stated in other threads - market research
has shown one of the most effective ways for
advertisers to reach a male audience is to
associate a product, however remotely, with
a seductive or smiling female.

Ian Robertson confirms this in his book,
"Sociology," " The sexuality of
women is exploited by having glamorous
models stroking new automobiles, cradling
bottles of whiskey, or being sent into raptures
by the odour of a particular after shave.

Advertising directed at women, on the other hand,
shows females delighted beyond measure at the
discovery of a new instant soup, or thrilled into
ecstasy by the blindness of their wash. In fact,
the vast majority of TV adds that use women models
are for kitchen or bathroom products..."

I think to fully appreciate the implications
of these stereotypes as Robertson points out,
"try substituting men for the women on the
screen the next time you watch TV ads, and note
how demeaning the portrayals would be."

Fractelle:"create a world where women feel welcome and are not intruding into some boys club"

Given that consesnsus view is that the difference you've been discussing here appears to be a basic difference between the sexes, why is it up to men to change? Why should it not be the responsibility of women to accept that some men are like this, just as you expect men to accept that women have certain "hard-wired" responses?

As I've pointed out previously, these magazines are overwhelmingly aimed at relatively poorly-educated, blue-collar men, who make up an increasingly large part of the male workforce. If women want to have dominance in the professions as they have now achieved, numerically anyway, perhaps they have to accept the consequences of "dumbing down" the male population?

Fractelle's opening post concluded with this question:

"Would sexy magazines aimed at women sell? I rather doubt they would sell at the same rate as the men's zines, if at all. I don't think I would buy one. What do other people think?"

I'll take this opportunity of reminding all that another line from the song from which Fractelle has taken her topic title says "[Hey, good lookin'] Wouldn't ya like to know what's goin' on in my mind?". It seems implicit that it is accepted by both men and women that men are generally susceptible to flattery offerred by a woman. In the context of the song (and the likely context of its singing), the question/offer as to what may be going on in the mind of the singer is simply a polite/impudent statement of the fact that, in general, men have absolutely no idea what goes on in a woman's mind.

Even though they have been told! "Hey, big spender! ..... Spend a little time with me."

The 'men's magazine' genre sells propaganda, and Fractelle has been buying it!

Fractelle rails against the domination of society by the male gaze. She rails particularly about 'the age of invisibility'. She asks ".... why are women's desires not catered to [to] the same extent as men? I can only ask: what is it that women, or perhaps Fractelle in particular, desire, that can be catered for in the print/pictorial medium, that is not available? I suspect that it may relate to issues of power and recognition. Apropos of that, I can only think Fractelle has had her eyes shut, for she appears to have failed to recognise the flagging of a turning point during the progress of this thread in the gender war she has been long fighting.

Let us imagine Fractelle attracts and holds a man she desires. He then goes blind. Is Fractelle suddenly less attractive, although, to him, now invisible?

*But the prevalence of the male gaze does mean that women judge themselves harshly and find faults – even the most beautiful.*

Err hang on Fractelle, don't blame men yet again.

Last night there was a programme on tv about botox. 300$ million
of it a year used in Australia, often by very young women.

They want to feel better about themselves, they say. They are
seemingly self critical of the tiniest of details, which few
men would even notice.

Women can also be extremely bitchy and critical about each other,
as they see each other as competition and rip each other apart
visually. If a really pretty girl walks into a pub, notice the
scowl she often receives from those women with partners in the
pub.

I once had a fling with a German woman in her fifties, who in her
younger years would have been extremely attractive. She'd had
affairs with globally known politicians, powerfull businessmen
etc. Her bathroom was littered with every potion seemingly ever
invented, to try and bring back her youth. She was clearly
pissed off that her power to wrap men around her little finger and
do as she pleased with them, was fading. Age was catching up.

Some women will use their looks as a way of achieving power and
status in this world. When it finally fades through old age,
its a sad story indeed, for many simply cannot cope.

Don't blame men for that.

Foxy,

Advertising directed at women generally depicts men looking stupid. Where does that leave your argument?

Yabby,

I agree. You don't see women complaining in the nightclubs of the world receiveing free drinks and never being refused entrance at the door. Then once they get older, the sour grapes set in. They complain about being ogled, then complain that they are invisible when they stop being ogled.

Forest,

'The 'men's magazine' genre sells propaganda, and Fractelle has been buying it!'

Exactly. That's why she imagines every single man in an audience of thousands who lays eyes on any female performer is sitting there thinking to himself whether he'll put her in his 'f*ckable' category or not.

'...in the gender war she has been long fighting. '

What Fractelle fighting a gender war? No. Only bullys like Antiseptic fight gender wars. Sweet innocents like Fractelle discuss prominent societal issues that are important to women.

Antiseptic,

'why is it up to men to change?'
Stupid question. Women are the victims. Any nice normal man would accept this. Actually your post sounds bullying to me. Are you trying to silence Fractelle? Maybe you're a troll.

Errr.... Forrest.

I suspect you may be thinking of the wrong song.

>>I'll take this opportunity of reminding all that another line from the song from which Fractelle has taken her topic title says "[Hey, good lookin'] Wouldn't ya like to know what's goin' on in my mind?".<<

The song from which the exact quote comes is Hank Williams' "Hey Good Lookin'" from 1951:

"Say hey, good lookin'. What ya got cookin'?
How's about cooking somethin' up with me?
Hey, sweet baby. Don't you think maybe,
We can find us a brand new recipe?

I got a hot rod Ford, and a two dollar bill;
And I know a spot right over the hill.
There's soda pop and the dancing's free
So if you wanna have fun, come along with me.

Hey, good lookin'. What ya got cookin'?
How's about cooking somethin' up with me?

I'm free and ready, so we can go steady.
How's about saving all your time for me?
No more lookin'. I know I been cookin'.
How's about keepin' steady company?

I'm gonna throw my date book over the fence,
And buy me one for five or ten cents
I'll keep it 'till it's covered with age
'Cause I'm writin' your name down on every page.

Say hey, good lookin'. What ya got cookin'?
How's about cooking somethin' up with me?"

In "Hey big spender", from "Sweet Charity" - which is a whole different ballgame - there's no "Hey, good lookin'..." to be found.

Just:

"I could see you were a man of distinction,
a real big spender, good looking, so refined"

In the context of the point you were making, the innocence of Hank Williams is a different proposition to the... errr, proposition made by the "hostesses" in the Fandango Ballroom.

Romany

This 24 hour curfew between posts is a pain in the arse. I had this reply ready early this morning.

A big thank you Col, for proving my point about the male gaze. 'Woman as specifications for car'. Well at least he is open to the shade of duco, I mean colouring. All set out with a sense of entitlement that only someone accustomed to being in control would expect.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2694&page=0#60943

And I don't qualify – I'm too tall, yippeee! Romany, you better watch out, if he ever sees you...if you ever see a man who resembles Ronny Corbett kicking his supposed inferiors from his path as he makes a beeline for you, well, you've been warned.

Foxy

I agree that advertising uses such stereotyping which really insults the integrity of both sexes. I think I needed a copy of Ian Robertson's book before starting this thread.

Forrest

I thought I had a handle on your first post, but you have lost me on your latest. I am always happy to learn, what is it I have my eyes closed to?

Yabby

If you believe that the “male gaze” does not dominate media, that's fine – although there is no evidence for that belief – quite the contrary. This NOT a blame game, I have repeatedly stated that the reason for the reality of a media dominated by men is that it is largely controlled by men. It is a fact. Unless more people speak out about it and put forth a female perspective nothing will change.I have also noted (repeatedly) that some women are indeed complicit with the stereotyping of women.

I am not at war with you. I just don't agree with you. I have set out very clearly my reasons.

Cont'd

A-Septic
This is not about whether a man has a PhD or is a labourer. Some of the most decent men I have ever met have not been through the auspices of Uni and some of the worst have held high positions in academe. It is not about class – if that is the point you are making.

I have never claimed victim-hood either, I am just discussing how how society is structured, how much of that is due to the present culture and how much is instinct (evolution).

An interesting article on how media stereotypes both men and women in linked below:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/sports03/papers/mmcconnell.html

Please, instead of just responding in knee-jerk fashion, consider the article and the impact it has an everyone's mental health and well-being.

Dear Houellebecq,

Actually, as Ian Robertson points out in his
Sociology text, "what is remarkable about
advertising is how little gender stereotypes
have changed over the past quarter century."

Robertson tells us that, "Men are the voice of
authority on 80 per cent of TV commercials,
including those directed at women."

"A barrage of advertisements still portray females
as simple-minded creatures, bickering endlessly over
which toothpaste or fabric softener is better."

I'm not trying to be contentious here or get into
a discussion with you about gender inequalities.
Simply stating relevant facts that have proven to
be true by market research and prominent sociologists.

You of course are welcome to disagree with them.

Foxy,
Excellent point!

*I agree that advertising uses such stereotyping which really insults the integrity of both sexes.*

Oh deary me, where is your tolerance, people?

Give advertisers their due. Nobody studies what works or does
not work, what sells or does not sell, more then they do.

Every little detail is analysed to the endth degree. If these
ads were putting off consumers, clearly they would not buy
the products.

Humour plays a huge role, but some people are even insulted
by humorous adverts.

Well, you can't please all the people I guess. If it works
for 90%, the rest really don't matter.

If adverts were insulting to a large % of men or women, clearly
companies would not pay millions of $ for these campaigns, for
they would not notice increased sales.

Perhaps some by nature, are just more inclined to nitpick then
others :)

Dear Yabby,

This isn't about nitpicking.
As Fractelle pointed out in her earlier post -
it's about the way things are. Men control
the media. That's a fact. It's not about
blame, or gender inequality. Every society
categorizes its members according to sex,
treating men and women in different ways and
expecting different patterns of behaviour
from them.

You actually need to read Fractelle's posts
and understand the points she's raising.

*Men control the media.*

Foxy, both men and women work in the media. The media
gives people what they want, or they would not watch or
listen.

Consumers ultimately control advertising, for if the ad
does not work, if consumers hate it, they won't buy the
product.

I do read Fractelle's posts and I think she nitpicks
far too much :)

Yabby

If you think I nitpick too much, why do you even bother with my discussion threads?

You always start from a basis that I am blaming all men, I have never held all men to blame, I have regularly stated that there are many terrific men who see women as people, not objects. I have also stated several times that there are women who support the status quo, the male gaze, they are to be found in all areas of business. It is also true that the majority of businesses are owned and controlled by men. For example, many of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers reflect whatever political bandwagon he happens to be on.

I agree with Foxy, I don't think you read my posts or you just skim. But I can't prove that. But how you respond to what I have written suggests the latter. Whatever.

There are people (male and female) who do engage with the discussion and I appreciate the comments.

Fractelle:"his is not about whether a man has a PhD or is a labourer."

It is when you;re talking about his choice of reading material. See many labourers reading Quadrant, do you? What about New Scientist or SciAm? Black + White? I could go on. Their relative "merit" as people in your view is not at issue, it's their relative level of education that has the big impact on that choice.

Fractelle:"I have never claimed victim-hood either"

LOL

Fractelle:"how society is structured, how much of that is due to the present culture and how much is instinct (evolution)."

And what do you think is the conclusion to be drawn from your enquiries?

Foxy:"Men control the media. That's a fact."

No, it's not, it's your claim. There are many more female journalists in Australia than men. The ownership may be vested in a man, but that's an historical hangover. There sheer number of deliberately and wilfully and frequently mileading anti-male "stories" and "opinions" that are published suggests that the overall effect is that the output of the traditional media is predominantly controlled by women.

What is your basis for your claim?

* I have never held all men to blame*

Very true Fractelle, so you blame most men. Somebody has to point
out the flaws in your thinking, so I respond for that reason.

The media is alot more then Rupert Murdoch. I spend a dollar a day
on Select TV. That includes BBC TV, CNN TV, Bloomberg TV. All
global channels.

All those channels are littered with women at every point, from
journalists, commentators, billions of $ Super Fund managers,
chairpersons of debates, analysts, State Governors, magazine
publishers, women everywhere.

Perhaps you just need to look around more to see what a huge
share of the media market, women actually participate in,
at every level.

Pericles,

You bring a sudden sense of deja voulez vous to this thread. (Deja voulez vous: the sensing that one has mistakenly propositioned the same woman twice)

Again you wax lyrical. Again you prove that not only can your mind's ear distinguish between the voices of Doris Day and Theresa Brewer, but also between the lyrics of Hank Williams and Dorothy Fields. Morituri te salutamis.

I will not seek to minimize the now all too evident fact that the music playing inside my head is from the wrong score sheet. But I will state, without any quaver in my voice, that both pieces involved propositions. Without getting too crotchetty about it, that should be near enough to be good enough, shouldn't it? Its hard to use the written word to convey an auditory memory to help communicate a visually-cued psychophantically admiring male gaze to where its meant to go: hardly surprisingly, there can get to be mixed messages. I know, some women wont have a bar of this as an explanation. I guess I will just have to face the music, or will it be the canticles?

Fractelle has already been on about the dearth of Handel in this thread. I can hear the chorus from the oratorio 'Bronwyn the Hammer' already, if I'm not mixing my scores up yet again, sung by the choir of the Cysters of the Coup de Grace:

"Thine be the blame here, cold and heartless man
Thinking you could understand us? For that you'll now be damned!"

BTW, at the end of each line on all my score sheets there are two little blank boxes. One is marked 'f', the other 'n/f'. Given your evident musical knowledge, can you tell me what they might be for? They don't seem to make any difference to the quality of the music.

Fractelle,

You missed it twice! Each time it was Antiseptic who said it. Each time posted adjacent to one of mine. Perhaps you need to implement the general implications of what you twice missed in your particular circumstances.

'I have regularly stated that there are many terrific men who see women as people, not objects.'

Except 'every' man who saw the performance by Susan Boyle apparantly. They all categorised her as non-f*ckable the instant they saw her didn't they? Not only do this massive audience of men all categorise her this way, not one man could possibly be attracted to her enough to 'f*(k' her, according to old Fraccy. These men have based their decision on whether they would sleep with her instantly, because looks is the sole reason men use in choosing a sexual partner.

Even if it is 'proved' men are more aroused by visual stimulation than women, that leaves Fractelle with the dubious logic jump that men base their decisions on sexual partners *Solely* on this form of arousal. I believe it comes from her opinion of men as somehow inferior 'shallow' or 'base' beings when compared to women, the more virtuous creatures. Those uncomplicated beasts, 'making' women look the way they want them too. For no man has ever partnered up with a woman unless he considers her stunning, no matter what her other qualities.

One could just as easily say women need to be less competetive if they're so affected by competing for the 'male gaze'. You don't see men who spend so much time competing with each other, having strokes from stress climbing the corporate ladder saying it's those nasty women making us compete for their attentions.

In summary, if say, Antiseptic had said a similarly large group of women had all categorised a male as non-f&ckable the instant they found out he was a garbologist, I can only imagine the response he would get.

Dear Houellebecq,

I don't think that Fractelle is saying that all
men are aroused by visual stimulation, or that
that's the only criteria that get's a man's interest.

However, you must admit that visual stimulation
plays a big part in the reason men like Hugh
Hefner are billionaires today. Or do you really
believe his empire was built on the fact that men
bought his magazine solely for the articles?

Foxy

Exactly.

Pericles

Thanks for edifying Forrest on the message contained within "'Hey Good Lookin'". I wouldn't describe Hank's lyrics as reminiscent of a more innocent time, rather a reflection of its era and appears a bit naive today.

A-septic

It is interesting to note that any search combining women and business owners invariably nets more information on small business than for large businesses, especially at a corporate level.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbytitle/F2FF2CA4C1C1D192CA2573CC0012FE7E?OpenDocument

“Men are far more likely to be owner managers than women. In August 2006, more than two-thirds (70%) of owner managers of incorporated enterprises were male (down from 73% in 1992), as were two-thirds (67%) of owner managers of unincorporated enterprises (down from 68% in 1992).”

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/3D34EB400B78894BCA2568A900136279?OpenDocument

“At February 1997 there were 846,300 small businesses in Australia. These business were operated by 1.3 million people (849,600 males and 462,300 female operators), an increase of 4.8 per cent since the previous 1995 survey.

The number of women business operators increased by 9 per cent however, only 10 per cent of small businesses were operated by an individual female or predominantly by females. By comparison 37 per cent of small businesses were predominantly male operated.”

So a search on women CEO's found the following:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fewer-women-holding-top-company-jobs/2008/10/2

“It shows the proportion of women senior executive managers - who directly report to the CEO - has declined to 10.7 per cent from 12 per cent in 2006 and is lower than in 2004. The number of women in these positions has fallen to just 182, down from 246 in 2004. While the size of executive management teams has fallen, women's representation has fallen faster.”

Cont'd

Cont'd

Few female leaders also limits the diversity of women in power in the workplace. It is generally the 'Maggie Thatchers' who grace the halls of power and they more likely to be female versions of the alpha-male. In fact, they can be a woman's own worst enemy. However, the style of our adversarial system of promotion tends to favour both males and females who are naturally autocratic. The phenomena of the workplace psychopath is now well documented.

Then there is the so-called lipstick business femme, I submit Chrissy Hefner as an example of female exploiting female, and why not? She's making mega dollars, while dear old dad can sit by the pool, surrounded by a bevy of 'beauties' (if you are into silicon and heavy makeup) and fool himself that these lovely laaaadies think he is the sexiest thing since money was invented.

Solution: Promotion of males and females who have EQ's as high as their IQ's. Our corporation world is currently an empathy free-zone. I doubt the current GFC would've occurred had our corporate leaders had a little more heart, nor would our young people be exploited as objects. If you don't like the idea of your daughter being exploited, well if trends continue exploitation can happen to your son too. Anorexia in young men is happening now

Dear Fractelle,

Perhaps if we live long enough we'll see
true liberation from the restrictions of
gender. When all possible options would
be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than their biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

You can only hope.

*Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than their biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.*

Foxy, the market is already gender neutral, 50% of
consumers are women.

Anyone can have a good idea, mortgage the house, risk
their neck and run their own business. Gender has
nothing to do with it. Women can choose or not choose
to take that risk, it is up to them, as it is up to
men.

Much of business is gender neutral, for it's based on
performance. Top analysts on Wall St are often women,
they stand or fall by their predictions. Every day people
of both genders predict what will happen. Those who are
correct on more then chance, make a fortune. Gender has
nothing to do with it.

What we do have however, is have a great many people in life
who fail, who then search for an excuse to blame their
failures. Its easier to blame others, then to admit that
they simply don't have what it takes.

Once again, the market is there for anyone, of any colour,
of any gender, to show their abilities. Consumers will
decide if they have what it takes or not, by voting with
their wallets

Dear Yabby,

Women occupy very few high-paying positions:
only 8 of every 1,000 employed women holds a
high-level executive, managerial, or
highly paid administrative job. Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales.

It is not a level playing field - and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.

Women may be more than half the population,
but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.

Corporate leadership is a kind of old-boy network,
there is no old-girl network to speak of.

And as we know there are still many men who feel
a woman should be at home, or in bed, or having
babies - rather than hiring, firing, and ordering
men around.

Also, part of the problem is that women are taught
from childhood to be nice, to defer to men, to listen
to them without interrupting, to be supportive rather
than competitive.

The few women who rise to the top tend to be those
who have learned to behave in some respects as an
"alpha male," as Fractelle has pointed out. Because
that's what the corporate world understands. Other
women, whose management style is less abrasive and
more caring - won't get a chance at the higher levels of
the corporate culture.

Anyway, we've argued on this topic many times before
without making any progress, I suspect it's going to
be the same - this time around.

Dear Yabby,

Women occupy very few high-paying positions:
only 8 of every 1,000 employed women holds a
high-level executive, managerial, or
highly paid administrative job. Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales.

It is not a level playing field - and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.

Women may be more than half the population,
but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.

Corporate leadership is a kind of old-boy network,
there is no old-girl network to speak of.

And as we know there are still many men who feel
a woman should be at home, or in bed, or having
babies - rather than hiring, firing, and ordering
men around.

Also, part of the problem is that women are taught
from childhood to be nice, to defer to men, to listen
to them without interrupting, to be supportive rather
than competitive.

The few women who rise to the top tend to be those
who have learned to behave in some respects as an
"alpha male," as Fractelle has pointed out. Because
that's what the corporate world understands. Other
women, whose management style is less abrasive and
more caring - won't get a chance at the higher levels of
the corporate culture.

Anyway, we've argued on this topic many times before
without making any progress, I suspect it's going to
be history repeating itself again this time around.

*Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales. *

Foxy, the CEO of Australias largest bank, is a migrant
female, who started off as a bank teller. She earns
millions.

Even my ex, bless her heart, had the ability to sell
herself to employers and show them that she was value
for money to the company. They paid her far more then
I ever thought she was worth lol.

Stop blaming men, because some women fail. It is
up to each of us to use our skills as we see fit.

*and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.*

They are as capable as men are. Unless you are
implying that they don't have the smarts, which I doubt.

*but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.*

They are free to stand for election. Let the shareholders,
many of whom are women, vote on it.

*The few women who rise to the top tend to be those
who have learned to behave in some respects as an
"alpha male," as Fractelle has pointed out*

Err so what? Business is not like the old ducks knitting
club, where we all tell each other how we feel about things
today and then clap our hands, singing Kumbaya.

If you'd seen the cute new blonde banking analyst on Bloomberg,
who is knocking their socks off, she plays the game her way.
But she produces results, nothing else matters.

Yes some women fail, so the problem must be men. All quite
simple really.

yabby:"the problem must be men"

The problem must always be men because "girls can do anything", we've been told so for years.

Besides, we all know that women are always victims of ruthless men; why even a CEO on millions would no doubt be getting paid even more millions if she was a man - it's discrimination, is what it is. It's all those jealous, talentless men on the board who picked her for CEO just getting even because she's better than them. Men are like that, you know - always trying to work out ways to keep women down, especially the smart ones.

Foxy is normally a very sensible, readable poster but she's easily caught up in the "woman as eternal victim" hysteria. It's funny, but don't, for pity's sake, laugh.

The only people talking about 'women as victims' in this discussion thread has been from a few male posters.

Everyone else have discussed the gender imbalance in many areas of our culture such as media, with which I commenced this thread. I have also suggested changes to the status-quo by changing the criteria by which we select leaders. There are men and women who are compassionate and capable of leadership. However, at present, the system supports the psychopath be they male or female.

Perhaps those who scream loudest that males are being unfairly targeted are the ones who least want change. They are happy that our leaders in politics and business are all about power and not concerned with the well being of all people.

Early in this thread I set a link to a simple little test which determines whether a persons abilities, aptitudes and thinking patterns are more 'male' or 'female'. Human ability follows something of a bell curve with the female and male extremes at either end with the rest of us falling somewhere in the middle. I am sure that the very manly Yabby and A-septic would definitely fall closer to the 'male' end of the curve, so they would not have to fear that they are somehow 'emasculated' by having feminine abilities such as facial recognition.

"Some researchers say that men can have 'women's brains' and that women can think more like men.

Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test, a series of visual challenges and questions used by psychologists in the BBC One television series Secrets of the Sexes:

* Get a brain sex profile and find out if you think like a man or a woman.
* See if you can gaze into someone's eyes and know what they're thinking.
* Find out why scientists are interested in the length of your fingers."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

You have nothing to lose, why not find out just how butch you really are?

And don't forget to measure your fingers - I'll tell my size if you tell me yours.

What a disappointment.

>>Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test<<

All that, and I came smack in the middle. Big fat zero. How humiliating.

Mind you, I did get some pretty spectacular scores along the way - 20/20 on the angles, 71% on "spot the difference", 11/12 on the 3D shapes. Blew it badly on the empathy bits though - 5/20 on the empathy score and 5/10 on the "eyes". I know someone who would say "quelle surprise" at those last two.

Great fun though, thanks Fractelle.

My fingers stay secret, though. There has to be some mystery in a relationship, you know.

Pericles

I'm glad you enjoyed the test, all I wanted was to include some levity in this topic.

Sounds to me like you're one balanced individual.

They should include a test for humour - one of the most valuable qualities for either sex.

I was really bad at "eyes" but fared better on the "empathy".

As for finger length, well, mine was a surprise... not sure what to make of it...

"Returning to article one of the memorandum ...."

Fractelle:

"I just typed "sexy magazines for women" into Google and got 4 hits, whereas typing "sexy magazines for men" garners 149 hits."

Being ever one to check, on occasions, some of the premises upon which an argument may be based, I sought to replicate Fractelle's feat. So I clicked on 'File' on my Firefox browser display, and selected 'New tab'. In the untitled new tab that opened I clicked on the Google search icon in the little search pane at the top right of my screen. Up came the Google search entry page. I was (as ever) ready to go.

I just typed 'sexy magazines for women' into the pane, and clicked the 'Google Search' button. The search was set to the default 'the web', not 'pages from Australia'. I did not include the search term within quotation marks, double or single.

The first Google page of search results told me I was seeing results 1 - 10 of about 1,810,000 for sexy magazines for women.

Having secured a very high score on that page of the little test (to which Fractelle gave a link) in which one had to identify all the items which had been moved when compared to a remembered display, I immediately noticed that there was a slight discrepancy of 1,809,996 between Fractelle's claimed results and mine. Unwilling to believe Fractelle could possibly be in error, I tried the same search in 'pages from Australia'. In this latter search I got results 1 - 10 of about 24,900.

What had she done?

I tried including the search term within double quotation marks. No results at all for 'pages from Australia'. From 'the web', I was seeing results 1 - 5 of 5! That's how she did it! I quickly checked ""sexy magazines for men"", and saw results 1 - 10 of about 132. Yep, that was how she must have searched. The discrepancy between her 149 and my 132 results clearly only reflects the number of such magazines recently having ceased publication.

Quandary!

TBC

Continued

The quandary is whether to allow this discovery as to Fractelle's search methodology to remain uncommitted to cyberspace, to allow this veritable amethyst, this purple jewel of diligent detective discovery, to possibly forever escape notice within the OLO firmament, or not. An immensely stressful situation. (Note to self: always be prepared to take Fraccers absolutely literally in future, especially with respect to inverted commos. Winning in debate to her is everthing.)

As at many such times, training and inculcated discipline take over. The body reacts automatically. Fingers type. Words appear upon the page in meaningful comprehensible order. The electronic page before me tells me what I think. The truth comes out before my eyes!

The times they have been a changin'! I wade through shards of shattered glass ceiling, stunned by the change to the built environment that I see. I look down and see that I have been cut by glass so sharp there was no pain when it happened. (Mental note: I must put some antiseptic on that cut soon.) The implications of the decline in publication of 'sexy magazines for men' in just six days from 149 to 132 titles, coupled with the 25% increase in titles of 'sexy magazines for women' in the same period, is indicative of the rapidity of the change. More evidence for global warming, I suppose.

Here and there amidst the debris lie the broken bodies of some of the vanguard of the SS, the Seiling Shatterers, distinguishable by their black armbands. The wounded, unknowing of the outcome that has been achieved, cast about for someone to blame for their condition: for all their one-time fearsomeness, it is impossible not to feel some pity for their plight. Imagine fighting, and winning, in such a battle to find that the building itself has been condemned, is unsustainable.

I gaze upon the scene.

Unbelieving, I search for explanation.

I question whether in the use of her search result statistics Fractelle has committed a breach of online trust. Could she have been tr......? I stop myself. Mustn't use the 'T' word.

Foxy,

'I don't think that Fractelle is saying that all
men are aroused by visual stimulation, or that
that's the only criteria that get's a man's interest.'

Well that's the logical conclusion from her words. EVERY Man seeing a performer and deciding instantly, without even speaking to her or hearing her speak, that they would not f*!k her. Seeing her is the only criteria needed. Even worse, every man has sex on the mind, and they even feel the need to categorise women as NOT fuckable. I mean, I can understand the odd attracted man thinking he'd like to do so, but even those not attracted aren't indifferent, they actually feel the need to denigrate her as unworthy of ever being f*)ked. In Fractelle's world it's definately the only criteria that matters.

I noted also in the other thread, Fractelle used the phrase she 'Knows Men'. Now, imagine if someone said they 'Know asians' or the 'know black people', or they 'know jews'. Fractelle reduces men to this 'other', based on a group of guys she knew who worked out her bra size.

Forest,

'The wounded, unknowing of the outcome that has been achieved, cast about for someone to blame for their condition: for all their one-time fearsomeness'

That's very well written.

I'm still waiting for any actual evidence of the other premises upon which Fractelle's argument was inspired. Namely,

'a number of male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way'

(Perhaps that 'number' was 0?)

I really think one should look on this supposed difference and think, why are women so nasty that they refuse to seek out naked pictures of men. To deny men the ego trip of being desired and ogled in this way. To deny the beauty of the naked male body by their indifference. To refuse to 'sexualise' us.

I think we still have a long way to go before we reach some equality in the worshipping of the male body.

Not at all Houelles. I'll have you know that I have had some jolly good fun worshipping the male body for many years.

Please don't make such erroneous statements. For all its funny shape, its sticky out bits are quite utilitarian!

(For starters I need somewhere to hang my handbag...)

Dear Yabby, Antiseptic, and Houellebecq,

Gentlemen, no one is claiming to be the "victim,"
here. The facts that I've presented were obtained
from sociological studies.

As I pointed out in a previous post - you don't have to
agree with these facts.

However, we all know that social inequality
exists when some people have a greater share of power,
wealth, or prestige than others.
Such inequality is as old as
society itself., and throughout history it has been a
constant source of tension.

Men and women are treated in different ways
and different patterns of behaviour
are expected from them.

Anyway, I really don't have anything more that I can add
to this discussion. I don't want to go over the same old
theme of gender inequality that we've hashed out in previous
threads.

As for not finding male centrefolds attractive?
Now that's just plain stirring.
Re-read my posts - and take a look at the web-site
I gave.

Sorry Ginx, I'm not quite sure I understand.

>>For all its funny shape, its sticky out bits are quite utilitarian! (For starters I need somewhere to hang my handbag...)<<

If you are able to hang your handbag on it, Ginx... why would you?

Forrest

I just tried the google search again as: "sexy magazines for women", no double quotes (across the web)and this time garnered 5 entries. And I have to agree that does seem low. So i tried again without any quotes and got 1-1,940,000 - which does seem a little more realistic. For men I got (without quotes, across web) 1-2,090,000. I would've expected a greater disparity, after all one doesn't see alot of raunch for women in the local magazine racks. Maybe you have to go to Canberra ;-)

Therefore I did not intentionally try to play with the stats - why should I? I know full well that there are those he seek to denigrate me any way they can.

We do live in a world which is dominated by the male POV. And it is changing, very, very slowly. Part of the reason is it is hard to even discuss the topic - look at the disparagement the some male posters come out with - makes one question why they are soooo defensive? Afraid that the female gaze will be turned on them? It always has been we women just don't make as much noise about it.

Anyway, I do notice that you have declined, thus far, to take the brain test. Only Pericles has shown the courage of a true statesman - just like his namesake.

I think this topic has been covered fairly well looking at it from cultural as well as biological aspects. All I have managed to prove is that on some topics some people will not look at all sides, like religion and politics, guess this is why those topics used to be banned at dinner parties.

Thanks to all, especially those who tried to bait me, heh heh - nice try but, er, no cigar.

PS

Ginx it is a free world and you can hang your handbag where-ever you like, however I suggest a place that is less likely to drop your bag on the floor.

Foxy,
You're some woman!

Dear Psychophant,

More please!

*Men and women are treated in different ways
and different patterns of behaviour
are expected from them.*

There you go Foxy, one of the things which seems
to differentiate women from men. Women seem far
more concerned what others think.

One of the smartest guys around and a great entrepreneur,
was a bloke called Robert Holmes a Court, who sadly
died in his 50s.

When Robert went to America and did a deal on steel,
where he picked up a cool 200 million $, the Americans
told him "You don't know the rules Mr Holmes a Court"

Robert replied "The Viet Cong did not know the rules
either and look what happened to them!"

One of the qualities of many entrepreneurs is not worrying
what others think, but focussing on what they think and
why, then risking everything based on those beliefs.

Now perhaps more men then women have the aptitude to be
great entrepreneurs. Many women simply are not interested,
they would rather focus on their kids and raise a family.

That does not mean that there is inequality or that life
is not fair, just that people are different. So what?

I did the test and scored 50, which apparently makes me pretty typically male. Did well in most aspects, but I completely blew the rearranged objects thing - which of course increased my 'maleness'. I probably would have been somewhat more androgynous if I hadn't been multi-tasking (!) when I did that bit. Anyway, I beat Pericles, who is clearly something of a nancy boy.

Psychophant,

You're some sock puppet!

Foxy,
You're more than a woman to me!

"If you are able to hang your handbag on it, Ginx... why would you?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 30 April 2009 3:23:37 PM"

"Ginx it is a free world and you can hang your handbag where-ever you like, however I suggest a place that is less likely to drop your bag on the floor.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 30 April 2009 5:06:52 PM"

Ahhh my dears, I can answer you both very simply.

I am delighted to be past it, BUT I have every expectation that when He looks at ME, HE is not past it.

...........Which gives me somewhere to hang my handbag.

(Thanks both for the giggles!!)

1) Server error.

Dear Sychophant, ooops, I mean Psychophant,

Why?

LOL. This is nothing more than a female troll. If a man says I love you for your heart and sole, he's the best guy in the world, but if he says your got great hooters, hes nothing more than a sexist pig. Lets just go back to the beginning. Man needs woman and woman needs man.

Anything else is just a, well a natural survival joint agreement. You cook and bare me with child, and I,ll will catch and kill for you to feed the latter. Religion has another view. Rib's anyone?

This is just a test for us isn't it?

Psychophant! Stay off the drugs.

EVO

Fractelle,

'Only Pericles has shown the courage ...'
Courage? Bahaha. This from someone who couldn't bring herself to admit that she wrongly called a bunch of posters dishonest. Comical Ali would be proud of your efforts.

I actually did do that test, but didn't tell you because I didn't want you to get a wet spot. I don't like to encourage your googling, everyone play by Fractelle's rules style. Were you an only child?

Like that little barking dog guy, I did poorly on the rearranged objects thing, but more because it looked too much effort. Same with the thinking of words, as I thought one could just write elephant 30 times and get a good score. I did very well on the rotating shapes in the mind, but that's probably because I am a tetris freak.

Psychophant,

I like your work. We need more quality posters like yourself.

EVO2,

'If a man says I love you for your heart and sole, he's the best guy in the world, but if he says your got great hooters, hes nothing more than a sexist pig.'

Haha. That's like the difference between sexual harrassment and flirting. Depends on how good looking and charming the guy is.

CJ, Ginx, Pericles, Foxy and everyone who simply entered into the intended spirit of this discussion, a big thank you.

To those who projected all their insecurities into whatever points I and others have made - good luck.

PS CJ - what was the result of your finger test, I promise to tell you mine if you tell me yours.

Ginx - point taken - they are always pleased to SEE you.

So there we have it then.

Fractelle is pissed off at alot of men, but not all, because they
won't dance to her tune and never have.

If men don't jump to her agenda, they must be "insecure".

So what is the real truth? In my opinion Fractelle is frustrated
and anxious.

Those bleeding men won't do as she thinks. Next she is getting
older, closer to the wrinklies, and of course her younger and
more attractive sisters could easily cut her out.

Not things that Fractelle would ever admit to, as women don't,
but the realities of life anyhow.

Its ok girls, we men are understanding. You have your years of
calling the shots, then old age catches up with the best of you.

Anger and frustration shows, even if you try to deny it.

Mother nature is a great leveler.

That's all a bit B&T and snarky, isn't it Yabby?

How did you do in the test - 125?

Dear Yabby,

Aren't you capable of responding to women
apart from being abusive, condescending and
patronising?

I am starting to suspect that your attacks on
Fractelle are more due to fear than misogyny.

Your attitudes are simply immature. Fair enough
in a teenager, they have a chance of growing out
of it, but in an adult, its simply sad.

Foxy:"Aren't you capable of responding to women
apart from being abusive, condescending and
patronising?"

Not when the women are being bitchy, condescending and patronising as a matter of course.

It doesn't matter what I or Yabby might say, we'll be characterised sooner or later, fairly or unfairly, by one of the women posters as "aggressive", "misogynist", "bullying" (especially if we ask questions), or some other of the thousands of epithets that women use to mean "I feel uncomfortable and it's YOUR fault".

Women work on the implicit understanding that men exist to enable them to do what they want. The quid pro quo of "you work hard and I'll work hard and the family will do fine" has gone. In its place is "you work hard and I'll get a nice job and I'll be fine, even if I decide you're not worth keeping".

Men have grasped this point and are increasingly reluctant to enter into the one-sided bargain it implies

I haven't noticed that the women who've participated in this thread have been "bitchy, condescending and patronising as a matter of course". A few of the men's comments have been, though.

Poor, sad, frustrated chaps.

CJ Morgan:"yapayapyapyap"

Oh dear, that Pomeranian's all excited again.

Add insulting to bitchy, condescending and patronising.

I always know that Antiwomen has reached the limit of his intellectual capacity when he trots out his puerile dog metaphor. Unfortunately, this occurs frequently because of the inherent limitations that aspect of his unhappy person.

Why else would his only response to having his misogyny pointed out be to call me a "Pomeranian"? The only type of person that Anti hates more than women is men who don't.

Have a great weekend, old chap. I'll be away with my kids, lover and most of our extended families.

What will you be doing, besides whining about women and crying into your beer?

Fractelle, posted Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 5:06:52 PM:

"Anyway, I do notice that you have declined, thus far, to take the brain test."

Forrest Gumpp, posted Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:14:30 PM:

"Having secured a very high score on that page of the little test (to which Fractelle gave a link) in which one had to identify all the items which had been moved when compared to a remembered display, ..."

It seems Fractelle is missing more than I had thought in some of the posts to this thread. I wonder whether she reads posts or just skims? By my reckoning, my post was made nearly four hours before Fractelle 'noticed' that I had 'declined' to take the brain test. I have a good mind to call her on the finger length challenge she issued in her post of Friday, 1 May 2009 at 9:41:30 AM, but mindful of my own earlier 'note to self' to take Fraccers absolutely literally in certain contexts, I observe that her undertaking to show her's (finger length results, that is) if other's show theirs may only be confined to CJMorgan. Does the challenge extend to me?

Fractelle, on Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 5:06:52 PM:

".. I did not intentionally try to play with the stats - why should I? I know full well that there are those he seek to denigrate me any way they can."

I didn't really think you did. I only belatedly thought it may have been a test of sorts. Taking my tongue out of my cheek for a moment, don't feel too put out by the 'unquotated' search term results for either term you entered. I suspect they merely reflect the presence of the words in any page so listed. If you actually opened the pages indexed you would probably find a real result more like your first one. See Frac 149:4. As for the other sentence, I am not convinced that is a relevant sequitur in relation to me.

Now, about that finger length challenge .....?

CJMorgan:'Antiwomen', 'misogyny', 'only type of person that Anti hates more than women is men who don't','whining about women and crying into your beer'.

Me, a couple of posts ago: "It doesn't matter what I or Yabby might say, we'll be characterised sooner or later, fairly or unfairly, by one of the women posters as "aggressive", "misogynist", "bullying" (especially if we ask questions), or some other of the thousands of epithets that women use to mean "I feel uncomfortable and it's YOUR fault"."

Down now, there's good little fella. I'm sure that the girls don't need their crotches sniffed quite so vigorously and I'm sure they don't want your fleas.

Forrest

My 'ring' finger is longer than my index finger (both hands) - make whatever you want of that fact.

I haven't paid attention to the time of posting of anyone's posts - so will take your word for whatever it is you want to imply.

CJ

A-septics raison d'etre is to try to goad someone into replying in kind to his insulting, bitchy, condescending and patronising posts. He has admitted it himself:

"It doesn't matter what I or Yabby might say, we'll be characterised sooner or later, FAIRLY (my capitals) or unfairly, by one of the women posters as "aggressive", "misogynist", "bullying" (especially if we ask questions), or some other of the thousands of epithets that women use to mean "I feel uncomfortable and it's YOUR fault"

A-septic - you're gonna be waiting a long time, so don't hold your breath. People the calibre of Foxy et al, do not fall for your little games. Besides you do such an excellent job of 'outing' yourselves.

Ciao

Ah, that is very sweet of you Foxy, how you rush to
the defence of one of your OLO sisters.

Sadly however, psychology is not one of your strong
points lol.

Fractelle has no hesitation in dishing it out and
is not some delicate little petal, so she can clearly
handle it, when somebody, even if male, gives it back.

Fractelle,

Fair's fair. My ring finger is longer than my index finger on each hand. The length ratio in the terms imposed by the test was 0.94 in relation to each hand. The respective finger lengths were the same on each hand. I have forgotten what this is supposed to be indicative of, other than that I have not worked in a sawmill at any time during my life. (Joke: How does a sawmiller order four beers? Answer: He holds up his index finger and little finger together while keeping his thumb on the palm of his hand. Think about it. It comes across better as a demonstration.)

You said:

"I haven't paid attention to the time of posting of anyone's posts - so will take your word for whatever it is you want to imply."

Thank you for the compliment. The opacity of my posts must be improving. Bronwyn will be pleased. I thought I was indicating straight out that by showing familiarity with the content of the test given in your link that I must have already taken the test, at a time when you noted that I had 'declined' to do so. Speaking of Bronwyn, where is she? This has been a good biffo thread. Its not often we unregenerate blokes get the chance to bash Fractelle from a position of slight numerical superiority, is it?

Foxy,

Many times during the progress of this thread I have thought of your 'Lester Moore' post of many moons ago. I don't know whether it supports or undermines Fractelle's argument with respect to any dominance achieved by the 'male gaze'. Your 'montage' post in this thread indicates to me you have a thorough comprehension of the inherent simplicity of the male perspective. Onya. Lucky him!

Oh, the test results. Inconclusive, so far as I'm concerned. I'm putting most of it down to poor mouse skills. That's as much as I'll say.

Now for heaven's sake somebody insult somebody to help get Fractelle's topic over the ton!

A fun thread.

Righto, my turn with the finger thing and so on. My right was 0.96 and my left was 1.02. IOW, my left index finger is longer than my ring finger and my right is vice versa.

I'm apparently "right-brained", have low empathy and very high systemisation. I did well on the angles, scattered objects and all the other visual tests. Overall, it apparently came out as +50.

BTW, Forrest, I AM a sawmiller and I've still got all 10.

CJ Morgan:"yapayapyapyap"

Oh dear, that Pomeranian's all excited again.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 2 May 2009 7:49:59 AM

For God's sake man, GROW UP!

You are SO hypersensitive over these issues, did you have a dominant mother of something?

It's all so ironic, because you behave like an utter girlie man, you really do.

Yabbs; you make reference to Foxy 'rushing to defend..'. Have you noted septic's reference to 'Yabby and me'? Is that different?
________________________

Fractelle, now I'll answer your first post.

YES! men are more visual-hence more girlie magazines.
YES! women are more emotional-hence less male-pose magazines.
NO! not ALL in each case; but generally.

Feminist diatribe was mentioned elsewhere. What is it called when a thread about gender focused magazines result in an ongoing attack about bloody feminism? Insecure men diatribe?

What the hell else do you call it?
Any bloke that is secure in his relationship and his stature, would not be on this thread making a dogs bollocks of himself!!

(And of course to suggest that is more feminist diatribe. GET A LIFE YOU WEAK INSECURE LITTLE WALLY'S).

*GET A LIFE YOU WEAK INSECURE LITTLE WALLY'S).*

That's the real fear Ginxy. A life with somebody
who turns out like you or Fractelle, would have
to be like hell on earth :) Best I just live my
life according to my terms, doing what I please,
when I please, with whom I please. I make up
the rules as I go along.

But you are too old, sick and frail for me to
have a real go at you, so I won't

Dear Yabby,

You said, "...I just live my life according
to my terms..."

That sort of attitude rather reduces your
choice of doing anything else.
Which is probably a good thing. And also
telling someone that they're, "...too old,
sick, and frail..." for you, is not an
endearing quality either.

As I said Yabbs. WEAK.

Actually....,come to think of it...

I would have thought it glaringly apparent that old/sick/frail can hardly be attributed to my posting style!!

SO? says a lot for your capacity to judge character doesn't it? YET;...you lot have carried on with judgmental posts, trying to distort and derail this thread.

And you can't even judge personality!! Plain silly.

Ginx:three posts all adding up to "no-one's paying any attention to me"

That frequently happens to those with nothing to say, Ginx. Perhaps you might try adding some content to your posts to go with the rather insipid personal comments?

I reckon you and the Pomeranian would make a perfect couple. After all, at your age it doesn't matter if the incessant yapping sends you deaf and I'm sure you'd appreciate the ambition, if not the effect, of the leg-humping.

Thanks everyone ... and I do mean everyone. Even those who loath and disagree with everything I say, without you I could not so successfully made the points regarding the 'male gaze'. Points which have been so well summarised by Ginx.

While I am a keen admirer of the male form (in spite of ring finger length) I doubt that we will ever see zines (aimed specifically at women) devoted to air-brushed, silicon enhanced male bods, if that ever happens "beam me up Scotty".

Forrest, I enjoy the challenge of deciphering your posts - if I misunderstand don't feel you can't clarify your points, I won't take it as condescension on your part.

Yabby, if you still think that gay zines are 'good enough' for female entertainment, you have a great deal to learn about human sexuality.

In complete contrast; Foxy you have a very good understanding of men - no wonder you are happily married.

Antiseptic

I am trying to think of something positive to say to you, but the only words which come to me are: Anger Management Class ASAP.

And this is my last post on this thread.

PAX

Fractelle, my comment about gay magazines was related to Romany,
who seemingly was not impressed with her "witcherty grubs"

Fact is I understand business and beggars can't be choosers.
Business will react if women are prepared to spend their money,
but by the feedback on this thread, clearly not. There are plenty
of smart businesswomen out there who would have jumped on the
opportunity, if they thought it was viable. If women won't
spend their money, then it won't be produced, its as simple as
that.

Foxy, what you think is endearing or not, might matter to you
and the way that you see the world, but I don't see the world
as you do and don't seek your approval. Frankly I prefer honesty
over schmalz and value it in people, even if it is blunt. Things
get sorted out that way. In fact only a few days ago I congratulated
my neighbour of many years and told him that he had earned my
respect, for saying what he thinks, even if we agree to disagree.
That way things are clear and sorted out. For this very reason,
we have never had a major issue in 30 years.

It takes alot more guts at times to say what you think and
stand up for what you believe, being able to reason about it,
then play Mr Schmalz. But I concede, women fall for schmalz
and as many men know, if you want to get into a woman's pants,
tell her what she wants to hear and shower her with compliments.

In that sense, many women are suckers of their own emotions.

"Ginx:three posts all adding up to "no-one's paying any attention to me"

That frequently happens to those with nothing to say, Ginx. Perhaps you might try adding some content to your posts to go with the rather insipid personal comments?

I reckon you and the Pomeranian would make a perfect couple. After all, at your age it doesn't matter if the incessant yapping sends you deaf and I'm sure you'd appreciate the ambition, if not the effect, of the leg-humping.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 3 May 2009 6:21:11 AM"

See? That's the thing. Do you see it septic? No? You just have to post that stuff to confirm what I'm saying!

Dear ol' Yabby comes across as a fella pretty secure in himself,-I reckon you've enjoyed yourself here, haven't you Yabbs?

But you septic? You are a really insecure little bod aren't you? And you've shown a vulnerability and hypersensitivity to issues you see as threatening you manhood;-for quite some time.

You think not? You make reference to my frequency of posts;-you haven't grasped the frequency of yours??

'Insipid personal comment'? Pomeranian/yapping/leg-humping......HELLO?!?
______________________

I didn't post here til yesterday. I kept right out of it, because I have said repeatedly that each gender faces its own hurdles. But it got silly. It got bent out of shape to suit the 'gender war' rationale. Too silly.

A question was asked (as so many have been on such forums). There was NO feminist agenda. That was pulled out of thin air to MAKE it a critique of men. It wasn't. it was a critique of both sexes.

Happy to discuss this at great length with you septic..if you want to.

Forrest

"Speaking of Bronwyn, where is she?"

Ah, Forrest, it's nice to be missed. :)

As someone who doesn't read magazines, I didn't think I had much to contribute to this particular thread so have stayed out of it. Or thought I had!

"I can hear the chorus from the oratorio 'Bronwyn the Hammer' already, if I'm not mixing my scores up yet again, sung by the choir of the Cysters of the Coup de Grace:

'Thine be the blame here, cold and heartless man
Thinking you could understand us? For that you'll now be damned!'"

I presume this is in part a reference to my comments on the Rot in Hell thread. Yes, I guess I was a bit harsh if that's what you're driving at, but when it comes to asylum seeker issues, with the greatest of respect, Forrest, I think you sometimes need a little 'hammering'! :)

Dear Yabby,

You're entitled to think what ever
you wish about me. My strength of
character, or my weakness, as the case
may be, comes from within me. My husband,
children, family,friends, and colleagues,
people who really matter to me -
know me for who I am.

My comment in response to your seriously
out of line comment to Ginx was merely a

reaction, considering the fact that Ginx
has serious health issues, and has only just
returned to the Forum.

There are other ways of saying things - without
being offensive. Perhaps thats "schmaltz,"
in your books - in mine, its simply good manners.

But, I suppose if you can get a reaction from a
line such as, "you're too old, sick and frail for me..."
then why bother to expend your brain power
to have a better post.
You just go on living your life according to your
terms - and good luck as Fractelle said.

*I reckon you've enjoyed yourself here, haven't you Yabbs?*

Umm yup. A bit of mental gymnastics :)

* in mine, its simply good manners.*

Well Foxy, clearly our books differ. I don't think I
wrote anything that Ginxy had not written herself on
one thread or another.

The point for me was, that unlike Ginxy, you and Fractelle
are fair game :)

Got to make a comment here.

Thank-you Foxy,-I noticed your comment, and I appreciated it. But if we XX's make a supportive statement, (unlike the XY's!!), then we are subject to more ridicule..., hey Yabbs?? So I knowed me place and said nothing!

You're right Yabby,-I have been frank because I'm finding things a tad harder now-and I wanted to give an explanation for it. BUT:

you were not reiterating my candour sunshine; you were having a shot! Not nice. But I've said more than once now; this is a forum. Your opinion doesn't matter to me, as mine does not with you.

Now Yabbs, be a good boy and let it be,......(I will if you will so will I...??).

XX/XY/Y bl..dy Z. We ALL start our threads to get feedback.

All humour aside it would be unpleasant to think that any female member would back away from issues that *certain members (* I'm at least trying to be diplomatic), see as something threatening to them,-and come barrelling in, to MAKE the blesséd thing a gender war.

Having said that, this place does not have the type of female members who would take very kindly to that.

So that's alright then, isn't it?

Ginx:"confirm what I'm saying"

That sounds wonderful, ginx, but you've not "said" anything at all. Lots of toshery, no substance. Don't feel bad, that's par for the course here.

ginx:"
But you septic? You are a really insecure little bod aren't you? And you've shown a vulnerability and hypersensitivity to issues you see as threatening you manhood;-for quite some time."

Oh, poor Ginx, the big bad man said you were self-centred, did he? now you've gone and smeared that rotten lot all over yourself, the Pomeranian will be in like a shot...

As for frequency of posts, my dear old attention-seeker, my comment was to do with what the posts failed to contain, 3 times in a row, which was anything worth reading. I'm not sure why that surprised me, since it's merely carrying on the high standard of vapidity you've always maintained.

ginx:"if we XX's make a supportive statement, (unlike the XY's!!), then we are subject to more ridicule."

Do you REALLY want to open that can of worms, dear? On the whole, the male posters here tend to post their own thoughts, rarely offering much overt or explicit support for another other than by their arguments. OTOH, the female posters seem to think their arguments aren't much chop unless several other women immediately chime in with compliments. They're often right about the quality although sadly mistaken about the power of compliments.

100 wrong people who all agree are still wrong. Nevermind, at least you've got the pomeranian...

Ginx,

'What is it called when a thread about gender focused magazines result in an ongoing attack about bloody feminism? Insecure men diatribe?'

I don't think you understand the dynamics of how this thread was created. Just look at Fraccy's second and third post rather than the topic post, and you'll see the REAL reason for the thread...

'...women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

Feminist rant. Where the true insecurity in this topic lies. This 'apearance alone' crap, was what I have argued against constantly. It was what was rejected on the other thread also.

'I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here.'

A carry over from the previous thread where anyone who disagrees with Fraccy is 'dishonest'.

'What I found astounding was the denial that the image of women is portrayed as sexual more than the image of men is.'
No such denial was made. What this whole topic is about is Fractelle, making her own topic, with goalposts of argument moved, added in a special dash of misrepresentation, and whalla!

'However, if I make the above claims I am subjected to attack, innuendo and outright insult. For stating the truth no less.'
The obligatory victim positioning we all come to expect now days.

Translation: Nobody was agreeing with me, so I'll make a new topic as a trojan horse for my feminist hobby horse argument that wasn't accepted on the other topic, where I distorted the opinions of all the male posters and called everyone dishonest and liars, but I'm the victim. But I don't want a gender war, honest;-)

Houellebecq

"I don't think you understand the dynamics of how this thread was created. Just look at Fraccy's second and third post rather than the topic post, and you'll see the REAL reason for the thread...

'...women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

Feminist rant. Where the true insecurity in this topic lies. This 'apearance alone' crap, was what I have argued against constantly."

You can argue against it all you like, but comments like Yabby's clearly support Fractelle's assertion, which by the way is only one of many points raised by her in a thoughtful and wide ranging thread.

"Those bleeding men won't do as she thinks. Next she is getting older, closer to the wrinklies, and of course her younger and more attractive sisters could easily cut her out.

Not things that Fractelle would ever admit to, as women don't, but the realities of life anyhow.

Its ok girls, we men are understanding. You have your years of calling the shots, then old age catches up with the best of you.

Anger and frustration shows, even if you try to deny it."

A typical Yabby comment - says it all really, as far as I'm concerned. (TBC)

Houellebecq (Cont.)

You can deny it all you want, but women are judged on how closely they conform to a certain look. And women who continue to point this out are not, as you and Yabby keep telling them, doing it out of frustration and bitterness at not having that look. I'm sure they're no less secure than anyone else and in fact are probably perfectly comfortable with their place in the world.

I know it's a difficult concept for some men to comprehend, but such women are not necessarily arguing from a point of self-interest. They're looking at the effects on society more broadly and in particular on young girls, many of whom develop seriously disordered body image problems and debilitating lack of confidence in their own capabilities, which stay with them for life, as a result of this relentless pressure to conform to a narrow and imposed ideal of femininity.

How did you do on the empathy section in Fractelle's test? If you're like many men, you will have scored poorly. And my guess is it's the very men who lack empathy that are the most vocal in criticizing women who complain about being pigeon-holed according to appearance. Such men have no capacity to feel or even imagine the experience for themselves, but that rarely stops them from having plenty to say about it just the same.

BTW, it's very unfair to attack Fractelle's intentions when she's clearly posted her last post on the thread. Contrary to your assertions, Fractelle has been fair and comprehensive in her facilitation of the thread and its success is very much due to that fact.

Bronwyn,

'BTW, it's very unfair to attack Fractelle's intentions when she's clearly posted'

Her intentions were very 'clearly posted' in her 2nd and 3rd posts on this thread. She outlined them explicitly....

'My reason for asking about equivalent raunchy magazines for women, was on the Susan Boyle thread a number of male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way'

Which I showed (with six quotes) was wrong. Then

'I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here.'

Basically a repeat of the 'dishnoest' call from the other thread that was proven wrong.

'I'm sure they're no less secure...'

My jibe about 'insecure' was a retaliation to just the sad attempts by Fractelle and Gynx to threaten 'septics and Yabby's masculinity. Like in the last topic Fractelle saying in one breath she wants 'a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity', while in this thread attempting to threaten people's masculinity (How I dunno with a brain test?) and saying things like "you are a sensitive little bunch of flowers aren't you?". Hypocritical much?

Neither have I said women aren't judged on appearance. As I said the 'appearance ALONE' is what I rail against. I maintain that Fractelles view of men as creatures who instantly categorize every women they see as f&ckable or not, and that she 'knows men' as a whole based on a group of guys who guessed her breast size, and calling everyone who didn't agree with the above as 'dishonest', shows up a pretty dim view of men. As I said, 'Perpetually confronted by the ghost of Benny Hill' sums her up. Any man who doesn't admit to being a mere characature of Benny Hill is 'dishonest' in her book.

How did you do on the empathy section in Fractelle's test?
Not sure what part that one was. If it was the eyes, I actually got 9 out of 10.

Dear Yabby,

You said, "clearly our books differ. I don't
think I wrote anything that Ginx has not written
herself on one thread or another."

Let me set the record straight for you.
Ginx has never
considered herself, "too old, sick and frail."
When I tried to point this out to you you called
me gutless and full of "smaltz."

It doesn't take much courage to attack a person
when they're vulnerable. It doesn't take much
courage to tell a person who's fighting a battle
with cancer, has had numerous operations and has
just come back to this Forum, "You're too old, sick
and frail for me." Ginx would never dream of complaining,
and she has a terrific sense of humour - but that's
not an excuse to take advantage.

"Clearly our books differ." Clearly they do.
I don't look upon you or anyone else as "fair game."

The OLO politeness Police have spoken. Now where were they when another poster posted, nay yelled, 'GET A LIFE YOU WEAK INSECURE LITTLE WALLY'S).

Ofcourse I also remember the totally unprovoked 'asshole' quote that came from the police. Very selective this police work. Maybe it's time for another topic about OLO etiquette to pull those male posters in to line.

Ah Foxy, don't take snippets of mine out of context please.
This is what I wrote:

*But you are too old, sick and frail for me to
have a real go at you, so I won't*

In other words, I will tolerate crap from Ginx which
I would not tolerate from you or Fractelle.

Bronwyn, it seems to me that you are confused yet once
again :)

Women like men, differ, there are many types. Some
have wonderful personalities and some use their looks
to get themselves through life. If a woman relies on
her looks, IMHO what she is basically saying is "look
at me, I am an attractive piece of meat". If that is
what she is marketing and that is the kind of male
she wants to attract, that is her business. IMHO she
is as shallow as the blokes she is fishing for.

There are plenty of women who have all sorts of great
qualities. They are free to display those and attract
men for whom those qualities are important

Such angst always on these sorts of topics.

Yabby, the fact is some men and women are born good looking and whether they intend it or not they will be viewed in that light whether overtly 'marketed' or not. I know some men who think just because a woman happens to look at them for a second they are flirting.

I don't think that there is anything wrong or right with the fact that men are more visual when it comes to looks/sex - it just is. Women might go for the emotional/intellectual stuff as a priority but it won't work if the chemistry is not right and looks are part of that.

Most men I know might like to look at a pretty woman but it is the package that counts in the end, you have to be able to talk to each other to gain anything real from a relationship.

In some ways men can get more serious than women when they find the right person, I don't think we can generalise too much for either gender even though I probably have myself. Part of the trap of these sorts of discussion I guess, as we talk from our own experiences.

"Ginx:"confirm what I'm saying"

That sounds wonderful, ginx, but you've not "said" anything at all. Lots of toshery, no substance. Don't feel bad, that's par for the course here." (Quote:septic)

And you would know. You're not a very smart man are you?

Houelles; at least you are smart. Though I doubt that rehashing my 'shout' means much..? If it had an impact on you, I've made my point. If it didn't;-why repeat it?

No matter.

You have made your point. I have made mine. Have I changed your view? You haven't changed mine.
So we differ. Do I really have to keep repeating why I came onto the thread?

Yabbs, babycakes; smart too. Thank-you for putting up with my crap. Being up to your forehead in your own gives the impression that everyone is afflicted. Not to worry, keep looking after the orphaned lambs. When I fed some last time, the little blighter's nearly knocked me of my pins trying to get at the bottle!

Pelican; smart!

Na I loved your shout Ginx, I just like Foxy to do her police work with consistancy. I'm a stickler for consistancy. I'm policing the police.

pelican,

'I don't think that there is anything wrong or right with the fact that men are more visual when it comes to looks/sex'

Definately. Now if only those nasty men wouldn't look at pictures of beautiful woman and make all those poor nice women feel insecure.Society must change so women don't feel inadequate...

As antiseptic said

'Given that consesnsus view is that the difference you've been discussing here appears to be a basic difference between the sexes, why is it up to men to change? Why should it not be the responsibility of women to accept that some men are like this, just as you expect men to accept that women have certain "hard-wired" responses?'

I'd be really interested in an answer to that one. Pity it fell on deaf ears.

The rationale of the topic seems to be
Men like to look at women
Women are used in advertising to attract men
Women compete with each other to attract men
Women feel inadequate when faced with hot women in advertising.
All mens fault, as they like to look at women.

Now try applying that one to men competing for women by working themselves to death, getting strokes, doing dangerouse stuff, buying flashy cars, competing against each other to show off how good a provider they are. Not much sympathy there huh? And rightly so.

Dear Yabby,

You said to , "stop taking snippets of yours
out of context."

How can this be taken out of context.
Here's what you said:

"That's the real fear Ginxy. A life with
somebody who turns out like you or Fractelle,
would have to be like hell on earth.
...I just live my life according to my terms,
doing what I please, when I please, with
whom I please, I make up the rules as I go along.
But you are too old, sick, and frail for me to have
a real go at you, so I won't."

And that's your interpretation of being generous
to Ginxy.

Well, I repeat, clearly our perspectives differ.

As for "taking crap," from Fractelle and me.

May I poltely suggest - if it's "crap," that you're
used to dealing with - you seek out that sort of
level in your choice of future threads.

I'll now politely withdraw from this discussion.

Cheers.

Pelican,Foxy
Spot on.Ladies

I like to look at my native bees, plants, birds, animals and other objects too that doesn't mean I think or want sex with them.

I consider lots of movie stars as pleasant to look at but sexual involvement (not bloody likely).Too many issues mine and theirs.
Not to mention.
1. They would have better taste.
2. I always waited untill envited then I consider options
3. particularly the risks, health and emotional and the post coital conversations.

To me sex is great but it's like having only one shoe and two legs great for hopping (short term) I get quickly tired of hopping. Not a lot of day to day walking (long term). Like I said great with the two way emotional communication (The other shoe).

The basis of which must exist for me Before I have or would consider sexual involvement.
The assumptions from 'the two' are rather depressing. Being so dominated by sex when surrounded by so many unattainables would indeed be grounds for frustration and over emphasis.

One assumes H simply likes to talk tough/dirty/in your face in the belief it confirms his maleness.
And the other well his motives are also clear, power related.

Personally I don't want to dominate anyone else I've got enough to deal with just being me. It would be nice to have the shared bit too.

".....'Given that consensus view is that the difference you've been discussing here appears to be a basic difference between the sexes, why is it up to men to change? Why should it not be the responsibility of women to accept that some men are like this, just as you expect men to accept that women have certain "hard-wired" responses?'

I'd be really interested in an answer to that one. Pity it fell on deaf ears......" (Quote: Houelles)

See? This is plain silly. I don't expect anything from men. And I'm always pleasantly surprised.
_________________________

None of the women on this forum sniffle into lace hankies. Don't be disingenuous here gentlemen; you know that they can hold their own intellectually....YET:

You have not frightened them away, but you HAVE exhausted them into withdrawing from this thread.

Have you enjoyed your pack hunt?
Are you pleased?

It hasn't occurred to any of you, has it;-that your reactions on this thread would tend to endorse the chest beating macho fella scenario.

You have dominated and stifled any discussion, and by doing that, rather proved just what you are denying!!

Well;OK.I'm at a stage in my life where I have nothing to lose. SO:

If we've just got started on this thread. So be it.

Three of you have persisted. I guess you needed each other to do so.

The balance now is fair..

I have no intention of being intimidated by the three of you who don't appear to be able to function as individuals....maybe Yabbs. We'll see

*Yabby, the fact is some men and women are born good looking and whether they intend it or not they will be viewed in that light whether overtly 'marketed' or not*

Ah Pelican, that is true. But a whole lot of women, including young ones,
blow 300 million$ a year on Botox alone, so they are clearly trying
to create an image that is not naturally there.

If a bloke chatted you up, mainly because you were dropdead
gorgeous or rich, don't be amazed if he stopped fancying you, when you became
old or poor. That is the point.

Women of substance don't have to worry about those wrinklies,
for its not just perky breasts and a cute smile that they have
relied on so far in life.

We like to be loved and respected for the qualities that we think
we have.

Houllie, I love your posts and humour :)

Foxy, that is better. Quote all of what I wrote.
That is manners.

Examinator, I think H might just have a little more normal testosterone
flowing in his veins then yourself. But doctors
can help you with a boost, if your endocrine system does not
manufacture enough.

Examinator,-pleasant to see a comment from an individual.

The hormone balance is about right I'd say.

ginx: I know you are, but what am I?"

Vapid as ever, old girl...

ginx:"I have no intention of being intimidated by the three of you"

LOL. Here we go again - the old "you can't scare me, I'm brave, I am, so there" to someone who not only doesn't want to intimidate you but couldn't if the desire existed, being as how no one knows who or where you are.

Typical weak-minded straw-man, ginx. Don't feel bad, the "sista grrrrls" will be along to tell you how wonderful it was...

ginx:"You have dominated and stifled any discussion"

This is my 11th post since the thread began.
Foxy has posted 19 times
Fractelle has posted 21 times
Houellebecq has posted 10 times
Pericles has posted 6 times
Yabby has posted 20 times
Forrest Gumpp has posted 5 times
Maximillion has posted 3 times
Pelican has posted twice
Bronwyn has posted 3 times
Romany has posted 5 times
You have posted 10 times (that's one less than me, in case you aren't up to higher maths, none of which contained any substance)
Even the Pomeranian has tried to hump the nearest leg on 4 occasions and a few others have chimed in once or twice.

Whilst I'm surprised that you feel "dominated" by 3 dissenting posters whose posts collectively make up approximately 1/3 of the thread and I'd normally take the remark as a compliment, I can't help being mindful of the source. Is it really a compliment to be called clever by someone who obviously isn't?

I'll ponder on it and offer my tentative thanks...

"Ah Pelican, that is true. But a whole lot of women, including young ones, blow 300 million$ a year on Botox alone, so they are clearly trying to create an image that is not naturally there. "

You may be disappointed Yabby but I agree. One has to ask why they do it - especially the younger ones. Perhaps some young women feel the pressure to be beautiful - it is not an unreasonable conclusion based on the discussion above. And it is not just the women who are boosting the already growing beauty industry.

I don't like the fact that both men and women (especially in the US) feel the need to remodel themselves - but it is an individual choice. More and more, men are visiting cosmetic surgeons, muscle building gyms and hair restorers in droves. Young men/boys are now prone to anorexia, once an illness predominantly found in girls.

Sadly many of these people are already beautiful but are not aware of their own natural given assets.

Have you ever seen those before and after shots of stars and think "...actually they looked better before" now they look like freaky plastic dummies with skin pulled back so tight and lips so collagenised, inflated like ballons it is quite ugly. The sad thing is they think they look more beautiful.

Have you ever met someone who can be described as beautiful but after speaking to them they visually appear less attractive than you thought? And vice versa, a plainish person who might not attract someone in the street, but once known to someone becomes more beautiful by the merits of their personality.

We are all victims of media pressure to be thin, beautiful etal. But how do we teach our kids to be confident and content in the face of this pressure? That is the real dilemma.

Ohhhh NOoooo pelican. I was loving your post so much until

'We are all victims of media pressure'

examinator,

'The assumptions from 'the two' are rather depressing. Being so dominated by sex when surrounded by so many unattainables would indeed be grounds for frustration and over emphasis.'
Am I in 'the two'? I'm the one depressed by Fraccys view of all men being characatures of Benny Hill. Do keep up.

'One assumes H simply likes to talk tough/dirty/in your face in the belief it confirms his maleness.'

Ah so much obsession about people's maleness here. Where have I talked tough or dirty or in anyone's face? I'm not the one yelling at people to 'GET A LIFE YOU WEAK INSECURE LITTLE WALLY'S'. I did admit to enjoying the spirit in that quote, but what have I done to give you this opinion? Why are you so obessed with people's maleness? Are you insecure in your own maleness? Let's explore that.

Ginx,

'Examinator,-pleasant to see a comment from an individual.'
Huh?

'None of the women on this forum sniffle into lace hankies. Don't be disingenuous here gentlemen; you know that they can hold their own intellectually'
Noone has suggested otherwise. Except you.

'Have you enjoyed your pack hunt?
Are you pleased?'
Where is the 'pack hunt'? That's laughable man. Why do you assume since I outlined a question from antiseptic that went unanswered, I am now no longer an individual, but more a wild dog? So in any topic, anyone who agrees with the OP 'entered into the intended spirit of this discussion', those who didn't agree are part of a 'pack hunt'?

'You have dominated and stifled any discussion, and by doing that, rather proved just what you are denying!!'
Ok you've got me there. How can one dominate or stifle discussion when everyone gets the same post limit. And what is it I'm denying?

Are you two really serious? I mean it. Are you joking?

If you are not, then you really are struggling to grasp what I have said, which I'm not going to repeat.

Septic: you are an unintelligent little squit with a rather worrying obsession about Pomeranians and humping. Get help. You are not really worth wasting time on.

Houelles: you are the one that confuses me....man. YOU really can't see why I blew? Really?

Has it even occurred to you that you (two), that at whatever time you came into this thread-and however many posts you have made,- (really septic-you have too much time on your hands. Put your bean counter away and concentrate on your business), - you just persist, and persist,...and PERSIST in showing me the error of my ways.

Doesn't that suggest anything to you......hello?....ANYTHING??

You two are feeding off each other.

Sad, and pathetic.

Well Houley just for you - I should have said we are all exposed to the media rather than victims of media pressure.

I wasn't playing the victim mentality, merely arguing that we all live on the same planet with the same pressures but why do some succumb and others not. That is the question Horatio.

Pelican, great post with lots of truisms! But I agree with
Houllie, forget the "victim" thinggy.

Self esteem etc, has to be sorted out on a personal level
and from within, after much self reflection. If you know
yourself (I don't mean you specifically here Pelican)
know your own good and bad points, know why you think
as you do, you won't need constant approval from everyone
else.

Yes, some people go through life, constantly anxious about
what others think, constantly trying to impress others.
Their low self esteem is a problem of their own mind,
not of the world around them.

Yes, America is largely a fairly superficial place,
I call it a "McDonald's society" . Everything is about
projecting image. False boobs, false eyelashes, plastic
flowers, etc. All too shallow for me. Some years ago,
when I was first on the internet in the mid 90s, there
was an amazing programme called Freetel. I was the resident
psychiatrist there for a while, for sick Americans :)

This bird from Virginia contaced me and by about the
second post, she sent me a ready made file, for she
wanted a husband. Pictures of her hanging up the washing,
her doing the dishes, etc. I suggested that I was perhaps
not the man for her lol, after which she then wanted advice
about those men she was considering on her list. Hilarious
really, but also a sad reflection on US society today.

*And vice versa, a plainish person who might not attract someone in the street, but once known to someone becomes more beautiful by the merits of their personality.*

Absolutaly! They are also the people who don't need to flash their
perky breasts to achieve happiness and contentment in life, nor
worry about botox and the wrinklies.

Ahhhooooooo! Even wild dogs hunt on self interest Ginx. Has it ever occurred to you we're feeding off you?

I definately have no alliances with antiseptic. I do find fascination with the apparent anger inside him, and I am interested in how posters treat him in comparison with Fractelle ( I think Fractelle has just as many problems with men as anti has with women).

With regards to my persistance, well I thank you for your compliments. Just think if good 'ol Fraccy had said 'yep, I was mistaken, nobody did deny assessing women in a sexual way. I don't know where I got that from, but what of it. Let's move on. I'm sorry I called everyone dishonest', instead of impersonating comical Ali.

I don't know why you're taking all this so personally, I like your style and if anything I identify more with you than antiseptic. Hey, maybe we can be the two beautiful doves who fly away from those rabid wild dogs. It's all I ever wanted from Fractelle! sniff.

As for Foxy, well I never did deal well with authority figures. See it's just consistancy I'm a stickler for.

I can see that you are now trying to be a good boy.........................

But Houellebecq; that last line was cutting. If it was consistency you were after, why put that at the end of your post?

'Authority figure'? Come on! Foxy always looks for the good side of people, hardly authoritarian.

I never look for the good side because I don't believe there is one.

AND I have repeatedly referred to the problems both sexes face in what is expected of them. I have far more sympathy with men on that score.

Fractelle wasn't going to say she was mistaken if she did not feel that she was. Is that why you kept on? Because you wanted her to admit something she didn't feel?

Can't you see Houelles, that if there had been such distortion of men's perception of women here-the blokes on OLO would have been on this thread tearing the 'feminazi's' apart. (I use that word ONLY to distinguish the strength of feeling of some blokes).

Happy with the dove part...? (I have two in my garden Bonnie and Clyde, who have taken up permanent residence. I don't mind them, except for the incessant opening of their bowels over my car!).

H,
Sadly one reads what one wants to regardless of what is written. I in no way was referring to the women on OLO.
I was in fact commenting on the overall impression that you believe that the differences between male and female as hard-wired and dominate male behaviour despite evidence to the contrary. [While it varies from person to person (context) culture (nurture) has been shown to have the greater impact on the individual.]

Logically then hard wiring would necessitate the male being frustrated in the number of attractive (desirable) women that the male would contact daily. Especially when clearly the greater majority would be both unattainable and potentially resentful the attitude. There is a big difference between appreciating a physical persona and extrapolating it to the bedroom.

Keep in mind very little that we do is ever a real secret as we give out subliminal signals.
One isn't what we say in one instance but what we are overall. Sooner or later if we practice deceit/deception or subterfuge it will show up. For that and other reasons I tend not to play mind games but TRY and be aware of others sensitivities.

Likewise it is selfish and short sighted to both ignore other peoples sensitivities and ongoing persona.

Most of the women on OLO tend to read my writing addition to the above but in context of me as a person.

Many of those who claim I dominate don't do so and read what is not there and react on half the available information. In which case there are more conflict than necessary.
As an observation many OLOers tend to do that with anyone who doesn't agree with them.

*Logically then hard wiring would necessitate the male being frustrated in the number of attractive (desirable) women that the male would contact daily. Especially when clearly the greater majority would be both unattainable and potentially resentful the attitude. *

Examinator, absolute nonsense!

Frankly Examinator, your theories are about 30 years out of date.
The tabula raza theory was all the go then. Liberal parents would
buy their sons tin public servants and teachers, rather then soldiers,
only to find the boys turning them into battlefields between the
two.

The point is, you cannot ignore the effects of hormones, on the human
brain!

I don't know a single male who goes around checking out every single
female and finding many of them attractive. But it cannot be denied
that normal males, unlike yourself, have a male instinct and
occasionaly come across some female which triggers those instincts.

Go to any shopping centre and there will be a whole lot of young
females, at the prime of their womanhood. Males will instinctivly
react. Why should that lead to frustration? It is simply an
acceptance of our instincts, all very natural. Young, attractive
females, at the prime of their fertility, will instinctively turn
male heads. Those females with a few miles on the clock, have less
to fear :)

Women can experience similar instinctual attraction. I know a female
who went travelling the world and landed up in Central America.
The mere smell of this guy, triggered her genetic instincts
and sadly for her, she followed up on it. To cut a long story short,
she landed up as an unmarried mother of two, after a fair bit of pain.

Instinct is natural and normal and hormones play a huge role.
We can then think about what we feel, but to deny human instinct
in the first place and its role in our behaviour, is downright
foolish.

Ah Yabby, don't you realise that male instincts are all to do with aggression and dominance, while female instincts are all to do with nurture and cooperation?

At least, that seems to be the upshot of the belief structure of many of the posters who contribute here. Naturally, in this schema, SOME exceptions are allowed, but "you can't trust 'em, you know"...

Total nonsense of course.

ginx, I'm glad you got all that off your chest. Do you now understand what an "insipid" personal comment is, or do i have to continue to demonstrate the alternative?

See, I don't get personal unless someone else does. I may argue forcefully, but not personally. Some of the posters here are so wrapped up in their own prejudice they can't see the difference.

What I find fascinating is that having commenced the abuse, in the face of someone who is better able to string a stream of invective together and more imaginative in the content of that invective the same people try to claim the moral high-ground. The principle seems to be "I'm not very good, therefore I'm exonerated". Do try that next time the police pull you up for speeding at some small increment over the limit.

As it happens, I don't find your posts offensive on the whole, except when you slip into that insipid personal abuse.

What I find most offensive here, on a discussion site, is the constant refusal to continue discussions or to broaden them. It doesn't matter what the subject, people ignore questions that make them think, or with answers they find uncomfortable, in favour of the pretence of offence at some other aspect of the post. It's intellectually dishonest (there's a perfect chance to get offended, knock yourself out) and it's as weak as a very weak thing.

I try to respond to posts and the questions raised, often quoting people extensively to do so, yet the same people have rarely chosen to do me the same courtesy. Who is being rude?

In short, I can't stand hypocrites.

examinator,

'the overall impression that you believe that the differences between male and female as hard-wired and dominate male behaviour'

'Sadly one reads what one wants to regardless of what is written. '

You seem to have proven your own point very well. You're very mistaken.

' in context of me as a person. '
Nobody knows each other as a person here. With how antiseptic is treated, most of his good points are ignored in an exercise of throwing the baby out with the bath water. That's because all the 'nice' posters don't treat him with any 'sensitivity'. Look at this topic. All the posters aghast at the lack of belief or sensitivity about womens' pressure to conform to a narrow and imposed ideal of femininity, and then blagging on trying to threaten antiseptics masculinity. Perhaps the tools antisptic uses are seen as more aggressive, so he deserves less sensitivity, but I see a TRUCK load of patronising, condescending, dismissiveness of genuine questions from the 'nice' (ie passive aggressive) posters.

'give out subliminal signals'
Like a woman thinking all men categorize women as fu&kable or not the instant the see them? Yeah I pick up the subliminal signals.

'One isn't what we say in one instance but what we are overall. '
I disagree. It's the slips of the toungue that are the most revealing. What people say overall is the conditioned correctness, the adaption to what will make them liked.

'many OLOers tend to do that with anyone who doesn't agree with them.'
No, I have disagreements with lots of posters. But there are a select few who I see as duplicitous or high and mighty by their 'subliminal signals' or who put themselves up as a moral example or hall monitor, or just the use of a tag like examinator.

'I can see that you are now trying to be a good boy'
Yeah I'm really nice. Nice use of 'good boy' by the way. Patronising and emasculating. I like your work;-)

'Authority figure'?
Bit of an in joke between me and Foxy

'I never look for the good side because I don't believe there is one'
I'm liking you more and more every day. I like Foxy a lot actually, and mostly I just tease her. But Foxy and examinator have put themselves up as the moral and etiquette Police of OLO, and that's an invitation for them to be meticoulously scrutinised on their own behaviour for ever more.

I have a strong sence of people on OLO who think they are 'better' than the other posters. I like to champion the Cols and the antispetics who are constantly castigated by people like this.

'admit something she didn't feel?'
Feelings don't come into it when there's hard evidence. Simple case really. She said a number of male posters denied something. I came up with a quote from every male poster that said the reverse. Remember she did call them all dishonest more than once, even after I pointed it out. I would say Fractelle is the only person on OLO I cant stand. The victim positioning, the passive aggressive behaviour, the demanding everyone play by her rules, the sooking when people don't go into raptures about her knowing about google, the judging and categorising posters at the end of each topic.

'(I have two in my garden Bonnie and Clyde, who have taken up permanent residence. I don't mind them, except for the incessant opening of their bowels ...'

See this is the sort of conversing that I cant/wont do. Haven't you got some girl friends to ring with this sort of chat? Although I did talk about doves and humoured the desire for corny small talk that seems to enable people to see my comments in the 'context of me as a person'. Silly me thinking people should read comments on the basis of the argument presented.

Wow, heading for the 150-post mark. Nice one, Fractelle.

But do I detect that the discussion has descended into the realms of "my stereotype is bigger than yours"?

>>male instincts are all to do with aggression and dominance, while female instincts are all to do with nurture and cooperation<<

It has all the hallmarks of one of those religious threads, where religionists and atheists talk at each other, rather than to each other. More about convincing themselves, than persuading anyone else.

Great fun. Probably for that exact reason.

Allelujah Bro!

Welcome to the pack...

"Hey, maybe we can be the two beautiful doves who fly away from those rabid wild dogs. It's all I ever wanted from Fractelle! sniff."

"
'I have two in my garden Bonnie and Clyde, who have taken up permanent residence. I don't mind them, except for the incessant opening of their bowels ...'

See this is the sort of conversing that I cant/wont do. Haven't you got some girl friends to ring with this sort of chat? Although I did talk about doves and humoured the desire for corny small talk that seems to enable people to see my comments in the 'context of me as a person'. Silly me thinking people should read comments on the basis of the argument presented." (Quote: Houlles)

Well, well. So sorry to offend de' masser baz!! OK.for you. Not OK. for me.

That says it.

(No 'girlfriends'. Not one. All my friends are male).

You know Houelles, this reaction from you about something so trivial, is in essence what the problem has been about all along.

...you haven't even met Fractelle, how can you dislike her.........

Male friends will do.

'...you haven't even met Fractelle, how can you dislike her.........'

Oh I can! Don't get me started. I've seen enough of her in action and I can tell you I wouldn't want to meet her. You may be the vile ginx, but you've got nothing on Fractelle. I think it's that I can handle someone who is a nasty piece of work, if at least they're open and honest about it. Stabbing you in the front rather than the back. But Fractelle's got this whole sweetness and light facade, but from some of the stuff she says, well someone like anti would never get away with it. She's got them all fooled! Everyone except me! She belongs in a heathers or mean girls movie.

WOW!

Yeah, I know I said I'd made my last post, but

WOW!

I'm speechless. I'm beyond speechless, I'm a word that hasn't even been invented yet.

Houllie, mate, chill.

Pericles,
I have hold no gender stereo types on such a broad basis.

H
Wrong again you jump to conclusions 'examinator ant' is the full title one given to me during a local political wrangle because I tended to read the council bumf and point out the flaws. I was locally know as one half of the ant brothers.
Anything else is in your mind not mine. I could have chosen ID or Cousin ID which I am known in the family Because I have hair,a beard and I tend to think deeply. (Agreed inacurately at times)

I was suggesting that your opinions are indicative of you. Yes you're right had you read the site Fractelle cited you may have read that statistically women are better at reading body language than men. And yes “Freudian slips” can be indicators but if you read the data they can be misleading.

Just because I don't see things like you that doesn't make me anything more/less than what I am an average (over all)sometimes flawed individual.

Ginx,
Your point is noted and accepted . In my defence the mere mention of sex or the differences between genders and we get the inaccurate and ill considered stereo typical definitions that continue to be either pointless or offend. Yet the topic is far more fascinating if we dispense with the dross/egos/gender vanities and get into conversation that we are really capable of.

Yep. Have to agree with that Exam.

Houlles; I though septic topped the women hatred thing, but you eclipse him.

This last post of yours is plain ugly. Nasty. And your comment about Fractelle sounds,...well, paranoid. AND: 'stabbing you in the front rather than the back'. It's all getting creepy.

Then;- your bored comment on your thread upstairs - strange.

I've kind of got a feeling of backing away carefully from you.

You do need to relax. You honestly do.

1 server error.

Hey, don't soft pedal it, tell us what you really think Houellebecq.

>>You may be the vile ginx, but you've got nothing on Fractelle. I think it's that I can handle someone who is a nasty piece of work, if at least they're open and honest about it. Stabbing you in the front rather than the back. But Fractelle's got this whole sweetness and light facade, but from some of the stuff she says, well someone like anti would never get away with it.<<

That is probably the single most intemperate and vicious spray I have encountered on this forum.

I was about to say "shame on you", but that would be quite unnecessary. You have told us more about yourself in this one post than all the rest put together.

It actually has made me quite sad for you, that you lead such a shallow, fear-laden life that you feel the need to come out with this garbage. What possible value can it have? What possible satisfaction can it have given you, to actually spend time keying this stuff into your machine?

Staggering. Quite staggering.

You might take a valuable lesson from Fractelle's reply, by the way.

Houellebecq

Further to Ginx's and Pericles' comments, I too wish to condemn your attack on Fractelle.

Quite apart from its viciousness, it is totally unwarranted and quite out of order. It clearly demonstrates your bitterness at having met your match and being outsmarted at every move, not that Fractelle ever sets out to deliberately do that, but you do. Why perpetuate this pointless 'us' and 'them' mentality? Where's it taking us? Precisely nowhere.

Fractelle's been around OLO a lot longer than you have, old chap. She's built up a solid reputation as a fair and intellectually formidable contributor. She's one of our backbone members and you'll soon find out just how well liked and respected she is around here.

Your comments say a lot more about you than her and I'm sure she'll shake them off with the contempt they deserve.

Wow! A pack-hump!

Pericles: "That is probably the single most intemperate and vicious spray I have encountered on this forum."

What, specifically, was "vicious" about it? I'm genuinely interested, especially when you followed up with what was a pretty nasty piece of "intemperance" yourself.

stinx: "Houlles; I though septic topped the women hatred thing, but you eclipse him. "

LOL. Dear old stinxy. Insipid to the last. Opening the page to find one of your posts is like paying for a lemon and getting a slightly rancid prune painted yuellow.

Of course it's too late now, but I was deliberately creating a pantomine dramatic speel to ease my boredom. I was imitating in my head the Jerry Seinfeld/Newman relationship, and having fun with the nemesis idea. Clues might have been seen in 'She's got them all fooled! Everyone except me!'. Even the use of 'vile ginx' which I found quite amusing when it was first brought out.

I can anticipate your reaction to my explination above (something along the lines of sad attempt at a save etc), and if you don't want to believe that, tough titties really. I know the truth.

Actually, no. This condemnation is even more fun. I mean, I thought it was fun siding with the unpopular and attacking the liked, but this can bring it all to a whole new level. I was considering OLO was getting just too boring yesterday, and considering doing some work for a change, but I've changed my mind now. I've created even more dramatic effect, with the 'lead such a shallow, fear-laden life', 'single most intemperate and vicious spray I have encountered ', 'met your match and being outsmarted at every move' (actually that fits well with the nemesis bit that I was joking about, pity you're actually serious)

'around OLO a lot longer than you have, old chap'
That cracks me up. I've had so many laughs from this 'established users' clique.

Now Ginxy, my latest favourite poster. Where is the pack hunt now? The fearsom dogs protecting one of their babies as it were.

Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 2 May 2009 2:58:35 PM:

"Now for heaven's sake somebody insult somebody to help get Fractelle's topic over the ton!"

Ladies and gentlemen, whilst I do thank all subsequent posters for their participation in achieving the worthy goal of getting Fractelle's thread past the 100 post mark, guilt for some of what has transpired forces me to make it clear the above request was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. All in all, you have excelled yourselves. Reminds me of that old TV stalwart, 'Sunday Wrestling', with Houellebecq as the Masked Mauler in this remake, no doubt. Biff, sock, thwack, and ka-pow to the moon Lucy! Must all make for interesting explanations in some of Romany's classes in China.

Medication time!

Off topic, there was a General Discussion thread 'Why did you choose your pseudonym?' started by Ludwig in August 2008. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2044&page=0

Since that thread is now archived I will ask my question here. I am intrigued as to the pseudonym 'Houellebecq'. What are the reasons for choosing that name? What are its connotations?

On another matter, can anyone post a link to the discussion where Belly revealed his real name? I haven't seen him on the Forum for some time now, not even lurking. There just might be some recent mention of him in a Newcastle paper. I hope its only that he has blown his computer up, and not that he has had an accident or worse. Surely Sussex St wouldn't have required that he cease posting, would it?

'What are the reasons for choosing that name? What are its connotations?'

Forest you're not one to spell things out yourself, and I think it's pretty self evident especially in light of my recent antics. Perhaps that's why you asked?

So it was all in good humour.

>>I was deliberately creating a pantomine dramatic speel to ease my boredom. I was imitating in my head the Jerry Seinfeld/Newman relationship, and having fun with the nemesis idea. Clues might have been seen in 'She's got them all fooled! Everyone except me!'. Even the use of 'vile ginx' which I found quite amusing when it was first brought out.<<

Well, that makes it all right then.

You are some piece of work, Houellebecq

"Where is the 'pack hunt'? That's laughable man." (Quote: Houlles 5 May )

"Where is the pack hunt now? The fearsom dogs protecting one of their babies as it were.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:36:49 AM"

Er? You mean like the 'pack hunt' that was 'laughable'?

A 'pack-hump'?!?...there's that humping obsession again! And that from someone who pays good money for a lemon and accepts a 'slightly rancid prune painted...er, yuellow.

You are both becoming quite irrational.

Forrest

Pretty sure it was Allan Bell, but I'm not 100% sure.

Your memory is faultless, Bronwyn

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1307#23405

Its getting a bit embarrassing now, isn’t it?.

I’ve always disregarded Houllebecqu as merely one of a small group who admit quite blithely that they like to 'stir things up', have a bit of 'argy bargy’, - or any other of the euphemisms that such people have given, over time, to explain why they look with relief to places like this once the experience of pulling wings off flies has paled.

Hardly worth serious consideration.

But now the “Pantomime” thing and the thread on which he was blaming other people for his ennui because they were not rising to his bait.? Just like a kid with ADS, throwing stuff around to try to attract attention.

Well, of course your threads are boring, lovey. It’s because you yourself are becoming boring, you see.

Yes, there is a way of using words to provoke meaningful reaction; of getting people to think outside the square; of engaging in entertaining discussion; of captivating interest and of stimulating thought.

You just don't have that capability.

See, “stouches” or whatever, run along the lines of brute strength and ignorance, whereas, in a word contest well, its words that are used.

But, like a saw in the hands of a novice, words in the hands of the incompetent are simply squiggles in cyber-space.

Now if you were actually able to study human nature, to recognise people's weak spots and frailties, then one well-placed adjective could do all the damage you like. But throwing a whole lot of metaphorical knives around in the hope that one of them might hit is truly unproductive for you and terminally boring for others.

(E.G: -, telling an opponent you’ve never met that they are dried-up and have hair under their armpits is comparable to that opponent riposting that you are a fat ignorant tradie with a wart on your nose. Makes THEM look silly - especially if you don’t have a wart on your nose.)

It’s time to put your clothes back on and go home now, boy. Continuing publicly to expose yourself is undignified.

Hahaha. Yeah good one.

Ah, please wordsmith Romany, enthrall us more with your pompous analysis.

I don't feel embarrassed. That whole post just highlighted how seriously you take OLO, but more so, how seriously you take yourself.

I do thank all you established users for the entertainment you have provided. I might check back in now and then to see if you have in fact changed the world with you woundrous critiques of the issues of today.

All your responses give me the wonderful feeling of gate crashing an exclusive dinner party full of pretentious twats by pissing on the table.

"All your responses give me the wonderful feeling of gate crashing an exclusive dinner party full of pretentious twats by pissing on the table."

Hope you are male.

Careful, Jewely.

>>Hope you are male<<

I suspect you'd have to get real close to find out.

My goodness. I've just come back to this
thread. What's going on here?
This has gotten a bit out of hand.
It's not funny when it stoops down to this.
Whoever said, "Sticks and stones ..." didn't
know what they were talking about. Words can
hurt, and they do.
Use words wisely, - not to hurt.

Please?

H,
At least you are balanced. You clearly have a chip on both shoulders.
Anyone that has the need to attack so many people indescriminately to in order to prove either their importance and/or intelligence only suceeds in proving their own failings.

I am disappointed too I thought that such childish pleasures were the sole function of the immature. i.e. like the drunk teeager who thinks it's somehow life affirming to stand in the street at 3 am and scream obscenities just to upset the people whose circumstances they neither know or care. Once they sleep it off because in the morning they'll realize who the fool really is.

Well sorry folks, but I certainly saw the humour and wit in Houllies
posts and enjoyed them. Along with that, he blended in a few
truisms, perhaps stuff some did not want to hear, but sometimes
the truth hurts.

Call me immature or whatever you like, I'll just call you an
old fart :)

I'd much prefer more Houllies on OLO, compared to the religious
nuts which we have to tolerate on a regular basis. But that is
just me. I refuse to take OLO as seriously as the rest of you,
it seems.

If it upsets you Foxy, then don't comment at all. I mean no offence, and I agree about the sticks/stones thing, but I'm not one for Bibles and turning the other cheek.

Such is life; or a part of life. I've said before I'm not proud/ashamed. (Though it is a little irritating to be given a lesson in behaviour...)

Besides, as I've said it's a part of life;-especially on Forums. It would be appalling if this forum was swamped with this, but as a pragmatist I'd suggest that some locking of horns adds a zestiness to forums!

I'd guarantee that OLO would lose members/observers if we all agreed,-OR disagreed in a 'frightfully nice' or even affable manner.

I DO take discussion here seriously (Yabbs!), because opinions are generated on many occasions, by some fairly intelligent folk;-friend OR foe.

I have to say though, that in my professional/personal life...I behave completely differently!!

Dear Ginx,

My comments weren't meant to be taken as -
any sort of "lesson."
And, I'm by no means suggesting
that we all have to agree or even be
"nice," to each other.

My comments were merely a plea -
for civility.

Is all.

And all I was doing Foxy, was talking about reality.

Ginx Foxy has asked for people to moderate their behaviour because the behaviour impacts on others. That's not an unreasonable request. She has not threatened anybody and seems to have tried to avoid singling individuals out.

Real debate does cause tension and sometimes inflamed passion but it appears that some of the abuse and nastyness which appears in on line discussions is individuals either enjoying the conflict or using abuse as a technique to cut out serious discussion.

For those wishing to expand their understanding of topics or even to persuade others regading a viewpoint a culture of personal attacks is harmfull. The site works due to a combination of relatively low editorial inteferance combined with flaming not being a dominant theme. If the balance shifts too far either way then it becomes something else.

I'm posting rarely these days in part because the use of personal battles seems to have become more widespread (a subjective view). I try to be fair in my dealings with others but quite frankly the effort involved in sorting through all the petty swipes is more than I can be bothered with.

Without the efforts of people like Foxy who try to clean up some of the rubbish others drop around this place it would lose a lot more contributers and readers. The reality is some will delight in making a mess here, others are so focussed on their own agenda's that they don't think about the harm they do and a precious few like will try and keep it better for most.

R0bert

Bronwyn and Pericles,

Thanks for the information on Belly and the link to the post where he outed himself, identity-wise.

Belly's last post on OLO was on Monday, 13 April 2009 at 6:34:46 AM, nearly a month ago now. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2685#60155

With the information from Bronwyn's faultless memory as to Belly's full name, a google search set to 'pages from Australia' gave me a likely contact number for him. Two phone calls had me talking to a friend of his, and to that person's knowledge nothing catastrophically bad has befallen Belly. As it was put, "if anything had happened to him, we would have heard about it". In any event they will now specifically check up that all is well with him.

So, presumably, OLO will see Belly posting again before too long. I noticed in one of his last posts in the thread linked to, Belly claimed to be in the process of losing a bit of weight. Perhaps he has been 'away from it all' for a bit while continuing on this path.

Apologies to Fractelle for this little deviation from the topic. Now, back to the mayhem and free character analysis, not to mention some of the less conventional dinner party social graces. For myself, I must start doing a spot check of those 1,810,000 Google search results for (unquotated) 'sexy magazines for women', just to see how close to the money Fractelle's double quotation mark enclosed search term results of 149:4 really are.

PS I have just noticed R0bert's post as I went to post this. I take this opportunity for endorsing his general view, and particularly his observation that "... it appears that some of the abuse and nastyness which appears in on line discussions is individuals either enjoying the conflict or using abuse as a technique to cut out serious discussion.".

To all.

I have not received any email alerts for close to 24 hours now. Have notified the PTB at OLO, but wondered if others had ever experienced problems receiving their selected alerts.

I was, therefore, amazed that this thread was still running (out of control it seems).

I am not going to comment apart from thanking people for their contributions. I agree that we can have entertaining debate without resort to personal abuse.

I am not interested in statistics (thanks for your help Forrest) but I am interested in creating thoughtful response.

Humour is always appreciated, but not the schoolyard type where it is at the expense of others. And now I'm sounding like the 'Net Nanny' - which is not my intent.

I suspect that, like many bullies, people who do resort to flaming, apart from gaining attention, actually want to be liked. This may sound counterintuitive, but I think I may have a point.

I am going to end this post with a not quite on topic video from the wondrous Tim Minchin, there should, in this poem, be something that we can all identify with (unless you are exceedingly new-agey) and can laugh at.

I believe that our most valuable resource resides within in us - the ability to laugh - especially at ourselves. I went through my own new age stage some years ago, but fortunately avoided getting the butterfly tattoo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s

Ginx

I won't presume to speak for Foxy, but for me your banter is quite okay. You've gone to more trouble to engage with Houellebecq here than I'd be bothered with myself, but I see nothing offensive in what you say. Most of the time you're never far away from driving home a worthwhile point and adding to the debate in question and your quirky sense of humour provides great relief at times. :)

I differentiate strongly between your posting style and that of Houellebecq's. From the moment he started posting, he has carped constantly from the sidelines. Nobody would go to a new acquaintance's house for the first time and straightaway begin criticising them at every turn, and yet this is precisely what he's done on OLO. He harps on about elites and cliques and wonders why he still feels on the outer. Most newcomers ease in gradually and soon feel at home and well accepted by others on the site. The fact that Houellebecq has been unable to do this, or unwilling to, says much more about him, than it does us. It's a shame really because he does have a lot to contribute when he can put aside the personality attacks.

Houellebecq

You've overstepped the mark in this thread, a fact that should be obvious to you by now, even if it wasn't at the time. I find it curious that we've had no apology, and this from a person who has just recently started his own thread on personal responsibility. When are you going to stop blaming us and admit you've slipped up, and as such let us all move on? We're not vindictive. This episode won't be forgotten, but we are capable of moving on and participating in new discussions together.

I mightn't have worded this quite as graciously as Foxy and RObert have, but my intention is the same. Like all of us here I'm sure, I just want to see OLO remain a vibrant and interesting source of meaningful exchange and debate, without it degenerating to the level of hurtful personal attack.

1)

First of all R0bert, Foxy has made her point clearly. I did not misunderstand it, and don't need it explained.

Secondly, it is not for Foxy or anyone else on this forum to advise anyone to moderate their behaviour. Even Admin will allow extraordinary leeway, because I suspect (I don't know), that they accept that we are mature individuals even though they may believe that some of us behave in an immature manner!

It has only been on rare occasion when they have stepped in. We can, and even have taken potshots at Graham with no fear of recrimination.

It's the way it should be.

Thirdly, if I had had the facility of a PM,..., lets just say I would have contacted three people when I first joined this thread; Foxy being one of them. I won't elaborate.

Continued:

2)

'Without the efforts of someone like Foxy to clean up the rubbish'?!!

THAT is the kind of thing that will inflame,-particularly against the female contingent. There is a large membership base here, perhaps one third of them post regularly.

Are you seriously telling me that it is for a specific member to self-appoint to clean up the rubbish?? No damn wonder females are targeted (and from SOME quarters, they are, if one of them feels she is setting herself up as class monitor!!).

But I doubt that Foxy does feel that,- though she DOES comes across like that on occasion.You've done her no favours suggesting that R0bert.

(I'm sorry to talk ABOUT you Foxy, but I am responding to R0bert).

If you R0bert feel that you do not want to post because of this aggression, then don't! That is your decision. This is a large site with different 'rooms', all of which have stimulation discussion/opinion. MOST; yes most of it is not beset with that which bothers you or Foxy.

Finally; I find Foxy's comment provocative and jarring, because it came when matters on this thread were clearly coming to a close. It was unnecessary-AT THAT POINT. And has done nothing but stir up things again.

I find that appalling;-as is the assumption that people 'delight' in aggressive debate. Some do; no question about that; they are sociopathic in the pleasure of nastiness and control, but others do not.

I do not. God! I'd love to elaborate, but I'm not going to.

Suffice it to say that I have just spent quite sometime on this thread strongly deflecting the view that I should see things as others saw them and if not, be subject to some fairly stinging criticism (yes, fella's-and vicky verky).

And now at the tail end....this!

Gee thanks.

Wow classic, such drama!

Wonderful, Wonderful! Bravo!

I was thinking it was funny I was getting so much entertainment out of you all, and that you claimed to be getting none from me.

But how wrong I am! Such fun I have provided in giving you all a villian to castigate, someone to feel superior to, someone to be put in their place.

Perhaps my sin is to 'attack so many people indescriminately', indescriminately being the key word. I notice it's only the clique that are so indignant, and Bronwyn further confirms my point about them seeing it as their 'house'. If I was to 'attack' antiseptic or some random, well, the thread would be long over.

BTW: It really can be 'life affirming to stand in the street at 3 am and scream obscenities', you should all try it sometime, I guarantee you'd be much less uptight.

Bronny,

'admit you've slipped up, and as such let us all move on?'
Let you? Haha. Slipped up? Only in your eyes dear. I think this is a fine bridge to burn the more I see the rotten foundations. Anyway, that's all I was originally asking from Fraccy, calling everyone dishonest as she was. Didn't see an apology there. Oh that's right if you're in the house, then it's ok man. Put your feet on the table!

'We're not vindictive. This episode won't be forgotten'
Bit of a contradiction. Rest assured I may well be moving on regardless. I was getting bored anyway (I'm sorry that hurt your feelings so), and although I've been tempted back by the potential of a leading role as Devil Incarnate, I feel if I stay as long as some of you seem to have, I'll end up just like you.

Ginx,

I get what you're saying about Foxy, but I've also identified examinator as part of the police force. Robert has the makings of a keen young constable too. I'm an equal opportunity employer. Also you've slipped down to my second favourite poster now. I'm just not over Col yet. Maybe in time.

Oh dear, this was not what I intended at all.

And I certainly do not see myself as some sort
of moderator for this Forum.

I was simply shocked by the verocity of some
of the comments and I reacted to them by
a plea for civility.

Ginx's comments - by the way -
were not the ones I was reacting to,
and I agree with Bronwyn - I do not find anything
she has to say offensive.

However, now, in retrospect, I possibly shouldn't have
said anything, or maybe I should have said it differently.
But I still believe that I am entitled to react to comments
that are made on an open Forum, especially as my intention
was not to score any points, I simply spoke my mind without
malice or anger - but from how I saw things.

Besides, if you're going to argue for the right of people
to be offensive - then argue also for the right of people
to be able to react to that offense. Other wise it becomes
somewhat one -sided.

Anyway, let's bury the hatchet.
(Preferably not in each other's heads).

Houellebecq

<< 'We're not vindictive. This episode won't be forgotten.' Bit of a contradiction.>>

No contradiction. What I meant was that I doubt we'll forget the general thrust of your words, because they were quite outside the parameters of the normally accepted cut and thrust of any robust discussion. But once we see an apology to Fractelle, I'm sure this grubby litttle episode will be put behind us and most probably never referred to again. That's what I meant when I said we're not vindictive. Besides, you're not as important as you think you are here. I'm only wasting these words on you because of Fractelle and in the wider interests of OLO. No other reason.

Ginx

I hope you understand none of this applies to you. Your only fault, if any, was to encourage Houellebecq into attempting to big-note himself at someone else's expense. :) I love robust debate as much as you do and I won't back away from giving as good as I get either, but there are basic standards. A passing dig is totally acceptable but multiple paragraphs vilifying another poster are not. Surely you would agree?

And no, Houellebecq, I'm not setting myself up as judge and jury here. It just comes down to plain common sense and basic courtesy.

Ginx

Sorry, that first sentence to you then wasn't quite clear enough and I think you could misconstue it. :) It should have read as follows:

I hope you understand none of this applies to you. Your only fault, if any, was to inadvertently encourage Houellebecq into showing off and attempting to big-note himself at someone else's expense. :)

The article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8898 includes some thoughts on improving the value of OLO.

I'm going to skip further comment on the rights and wrongs of citizen involvment within this thread and involve myself in that thread as the topic seems to fit there.

R0bert

Bronwyn,
I think you're right on all counts. All this has an air of deja vu all over again. How tedious.
As I said back then it costs nothing to be civil. Yet it will gain far more.

Ginx
I don't share your jaded view of life I don't need to be stimulated by what amounts to titillation in everything from argy bargy in conversations, magazines , nude pictures et al. Human nature shows that this sort of stimulation never stops of its own accord rather it keeps getting more and more extreme, louder, pervasive. Until the nuance the subtleties that make us special are swamped by the noise.
Think about the news papers back then and now then ask are we better informed by them? Are we more able to discuss meaningful solutions to complex problems? Instead we get titillation and sensationalism and instant 'magic' bullet conclusions that in reality are neither satisfying nor workable.
I for one don't want to waste my time adding to the noise. Life is too short to waste opportunities to help with solutions and clear thinking.
Alternatively to you I get most pleasure from the mental activity and the connections with others sharing their perspectives, issues etc. perhaps being party to a great idea. To do this I don't have to agree with them only take note. And not clutter the path with counter productive dross as served up by superficial thrill seekers like H is displaying.
Note I reject his behaviour not him.

Fractelle
I have more faith in humanity that the capitalist mentality we are more than the sum of our urges if given the choice. The above fascination with sensation/titillation is a created artefact of marketing and the desire to define our selves by acquisitions rather than humanity and cooperation because you can't sell what is free. A person on the Gruen effect lamented that it's a pity air is free. As I keep saying balance i.e. you say, I say
is sterile. Objectivity, context and proportion are the building blocks to understanding and progress. Over thunk or what?

Examinator

Over thunk? Not.

Right on the mark as is usual. We are indeed greater than the sum of our primal urges, how else to explain great art, music and architecture.

Regards.

*We are indeed greater than the sum of our primal urges*

Ah, but there is of course more to the brain then just urges.
We are the product of our parts. The mind is what the brain does.
There are no ghosts up there lol.

Genes determine potential, environment determines how that potential
develops or is used.

So it is up to each of us to recognise our genetic attributes and
make the best of them. In my case, I have no more talent at art
then Kanzi the famous bonobo :) Luckily I have other talents,
like pointing out the many flaws in posts written by Examinator
and his followers.

Dear Yabby,

That's one explanation for your situation
that most people would never consider - "Talent!"

Thanks for explaining things to us.
So, the talent that your gene pool has endowed
you with is finally being put to use.

So, I guess the old Chinese saying is true then:
"A genius always presents himself as a fool."
(Great wisdom disguised as stupidity).

To whom it may be of interest,

Seen transiting the 'Users currently online' display on the 'Welcome to the Forum' page at around 8:00 AM, OLO userID 'Belly', or at least someone using his computer.

It seems the margin of error in my estimate of the time of Belly's return was + or - one second. His post here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2744#62018 is timestamped Saturday, 9 May 2009 7:59:59 AM.

Thanks again Bronwyn and Pericles for the references.

"One for one, and bags for all
Seems the basis for Belly's call"

Welcome back, Belly.

PS Server error message 7804-1708 at around 8:17 AM on first attempt to post. FYI GrahamY.

Yabby,
Pity you are so behind in your understanding of genetic science..perhaps that's not one of you 'talents'or in your genes.
I think you'll find that genes are set scaled perpensities(= or -)there are other factors that can influence too. As pointed out before science says that nature V nurture, nature (genetic) on potential mental atributes can be modified by circumstances, nutrition, influences, conditioning. etc.
Like I said we are more than the mechanical 'urges of the lower brain.
Your breed of determinism is currently not proveable or even seriously considered. Too many variables.

*Ah, but there is of course more to the brain then just urges.
We are the product of our parts. The mind is what the brain does.
There are no ghosts up there lol.
Genes determine potential, environment determines how that potential
develops or is used.*

That is what I wrote, Examinator. That is essentially correct and
up with the latest neuroscience.

You stick to your field of sociology, I'll back neuroscience
any day.

We know what happened when those "gays for Jesus" decided that they
would turn hetero. The two leaders ran off with one another :)
So much for conditioning.

Nutrition etc are all part of environment, so are fully allowed
for in my statement.

OK.

Bronwyn: Thanks. You actually put up a post as I was writing my two parter. It was appreciated more than I can express. It is also so damn kind after that, to clarify your subsequent post in an endeavour not to offend.
I thank-you.

Houelles: 'second on your list' eh? Well I'm just going to pick up the pieces and learn to live again.
As for the rest of your post. I was expecting it. Opportunity for potshot knocked loudly on your door didn't it?

Examinator:......"Ginx I don't share your jaded view of life I don't need to be stimulated by what amounts to titillation in everything from argy bargy in conversations, magazines , nude pictures et al (etc.,)....." WHAT!.!.!.!.!

Tell me, TELL ME that you have structured your sentence badly. 'Jaded'? Agreed. But the rest...?!?

OK. So be it. We continue.

Yabby
You missed my point or the topic comprehensively.
It is clearly demonstrable that there are many factors that come to bear in potential.
But as I said genes and all the other issues previously mentioned have a non linear varying effect on things like attitudes.

Sex genes primarily determine your orientation as was clearly the case of the gays you mentioned .

But there are far more common cases where the “gene potential is modified” in which case other aspects can and do dominate. Your reasoning is neither objective nor scientific.

In context the topic was largely about attitudes towards women which are clearly culturally not genetic based. If you are rude arrogant or macho then they are primarily learned attributes. I agree that genes can statistically influence thought process but your position and that of your fellow protagonists seem to indicate that genetics are the far dominant feature ergo Men must have sex often and are a dirty boots one end and dirty mind the other ...Which is not to put a fine point on it is BS.

As per usual your argument is couched in extremes which are statistically more than three standard deviations from the mean i.e. about 3-5% of the population.
I would suggest your presentation of the facts seem to indicate that you don't understand the inherent variability and the nature of science. If you do might I suggest that you rephrase your arguments.

Oh dear yabby,
Ginx was saying that she thinks discussion without 'some' colour (argy bargy insults lack of politeness civility) was boring. In other words she needs some thing extra to maintain interest.
In the context of the topic (remember that?) I was pointing to the (I thought clearly) explained link between the two.
Was my spelling wrong?
I also said that I don't need the 'extra' (stimulation[titillation alternative usage])to enjoy a discussion.
Likewise I don't need external stimulation to get aroused nature does that successfully.
Variety in the bedroom is only enjoyable if both want it and the actual act is not the primary motive anyway.
Nor do I feel the need for that extra level of explicit stimulation to enjoy a story movie etc. Neither do I necessarily need to challenge my mortality by sky diving, mountain climbing or sailing an ocean endless expense surrounded by fibreglass/carbon fibre etc. to appreciate my life.
You can trust me on this when laying in hospital bed on “death's door” or being pulverised by a bunch of hoons such preceding joys of life are merely extravagances and the last thing on your mind. Just being alive and being able to grow as a person to appreciate more is more than enough.

Ginx sorry if it was a bit much life was enjoyable way back before the mass percieved need for over stimulation on anything.
Mind you I don't judge or begrudge others. I just believe civility is fundemental to communication.

Examinator, you are a great one for shooting down your own strawman
arguments. Perhaps you should best address the points I am making
and not wander off on your own little tangent.

If genetic potential is not there in the first place, none of the
rest is possible. Take the case of people born with defective genes.
No matter what they do, they are how they are, limited by that fact.

Every thought that you have, has genetic influence, even if you are
not aware of it. For every thought is clouded by emotions, brain
chemistry etc. You are only ever aware of a tiny bit of what is
actually going on in that brain of yours.

We know from twin studies where twins were seperated at birth,
just how huge genetic influence really is.

This notion that you can just change people with conditioning, is
full of holes. How come does conditioning not work for Catholic
priests who should be thinking of Jesus and not sex? Years of
conditioning, day and night and still they fail. Just one example.

I remind you that the veneer of society is rather thin, as we saw
in say New Orleans and lots of other places. It does not take much
of a crisis for people to throw away all that learned behaviour and
the law of the jungle is back. Ignore that at your peril, for the
history, rise and fall of civilisations is full of it.

"Oh dear yabby,
Ginx was saying that she thinks discussion without 'some' colour >>>(argy bargy insults lack of politeness civility)<<<< was boring." (Quote: Exterminater).

You cheeky little bugger!

Where in the hell did you get that from? Don't attempt to make YOUR posts more colourful by putting words into my mouth!

argy bargy/insults/lack of politeness/civility...EXCUSE ME?

Where did I say that?

Are you on day release?

"I remind you that the veneer of society is rather thin, as we saw
in say New Orleans and lots of other places. It does not take much
of a crisis for people to throw away all that learned behaviour and
the law of the jungle is back. Ignore that at your peril, for the
history, rise and fall of civilisations is full of it."

Yabby - I would submit that the "law of the jungle" is not, as your post seems to imply "every creature for themselves".

Studies of primates show undisputed group ties and bonds while studies of other animals show a pack mentality which also works for the good of the pack. Whales all gather around a birthing mother, Chimps all look after the young, etc. etc.

"In times of crisis" especially, genetics seem to dictate that animals indeed overcome even their pack or group mentality to ensure survival of all, hence predators not attacking prey at waterholes during times of drought, predator and prey found together on safe ground during floods etc.

I would therefore suggest that your example of the New Orleans behaviours and therefore defence of uncivil behaviour has nothing to do with genetics, or primal behaviours at all.

In fact, would go so far as to venture that this misbehaviour is the learned behaviour. It is, therefore, un-natural and adjustable. yeah?

*while studies of other animals show a pack mentality which also works for the good of the pack.*

Yup, but for humans in cities, you have to define their pack.
Desmond Morris suggests that its the 200 or so people that exist
in ones address book. Humans are tribal by nature and will defend
their extended family first and foremost.

There is an interesting question on this. If there were the last
two of a species left and you had to choose to eat them or let
your family starve, which would you do?

Stealing from those outside of ones tribe, is common behaviour
in nature. So is rape.

*hence predators not attacking prey at waterholes during times of drought,*

There would be no need for predators to attack prey in times of
drought, for there would be enough carcasses lying around, for
there to be a feast every night.

We see this interesting thing in our community right now. Everyone
wants to save the environment, as long as it does not cost them
their job. People put the interest of themselves and their families
first. In other words, people will agree to all sorts of things
that you can call conditioning, but when the crap hits the fan,
they take care of themselves and their loved ones first and foremost.

Ginx,
Many apologies is my words offended you.

As I was saying but you seemed to have missed the point perhaps I wasn't clear you were posting in favour of 'colour' in debate and commented that if we were all polite it would be boring.
Given the context it appeared that you were not opposed to a bit of what *I* termed as you pointed out.

In essence I was saying that life is exciting enough and the real value in a conversation it the exchange and the new/different information. I also linked it to a context of the world needing the ever increasing sensationalism to notice some of the infinitely more interesting things (the consequence of our environment.)....life i.e. if a movie doesn't have a sex scene two crashes and the odd graphic violence it's defined as a kid or chic flick or boring regardless of the story/issues raised.
I also said that I accept that other people may want the this extra stimulation but in my view this is the result of our culture. Not genes.
OK I may have misunderstood your parameters Sorry

PS. I don't deliberately start a conflict if I do it's by accident or oversight because I'm trying to put too much in so it makes sense. When reading my fallible utterances please consider context and any nuance that is probably intended.

By all mean challenge me but the comments like "day release" were neither by error nor add to your complaint. In future I'll be more circumspect regarding you.

Yabby
We are indeed taking about two different issues.
I was attempting to stay on topic to explain my point in context of the original question.
You have a habit of steering conversations into topics you want to talk about regardless of the topic. Rules be damned.

Not withstanding that your understanding of potential and mine seen to differ some what while it is a nuanced point it is never the less germane to the issue.

'Potential' doesn't equate with will happen it mean a might happen susceptibility. And that depend on many variables. As I have already said you are taking extremes and extrapolating it across the the population as an absolute. Some are, some aren't and the reasons for these variations aren't yet understood. There are a number of theories many conflicting but not yet scientifically proven. The twins example is indicative of something but nothing yet satisfies the 'predictability and repeatability” requirements of scientific fact.
Your conclusions are in the realm of theoretical philosophy not physical science.

Neither am I saying I can change genetic probability as in gay to straight or black to white but there are documented cases whereby conditioning have changed (confused the orientation process).

All this proves is that there are many factors that influence (form) a personality and specifically attitudes. To go down the you rout is determinism therefore a murderer is a product of his genes so He isn't responsible for his actions they are beyond his control.
Or to take it to the extreme it justifies Eugenics.....Bollocks.
I suggest you read a bit more on evolution and its logic.
End I'll not respond any more to this line. Perhaps you should start your own topic.

*Rules be damned.*

Examinator, the Viet Cong did not know the rules and look what
happened to them :)

Fact is that Fractelle's original question was answered a long time
ago and yes, sometimes threads drift on to related topics, its up
to the posters really.

*'Potential' doesn't equate with will happen it mean a might happen susceptibility. And that depend on many variables.*

Potential Examinator, means exactly that. Without potential, it
can't happen. If the genes don't code to give you eyes to see or
legs to walk, you have the potential to do neither.

Sometimes Examinator, it seems to me that you are so busy trying
to be pretentious, that you cannot even grasp these straightforward
issues.

* The twins example is indicative of something but nothing yet satisfies the 'predictability and repeatability” requirements of scientific fact.*

Ah, but information can be part of science, without yet being
accepted as a "fact". Twin studies are very much part of science
today.

If anyone has it wrong right now, it is you, for putting firm figures
on what is genetic and what is environmental. That is nothing more
then your speculation, that is certainly not scientific fact

Yabby

"Everyone wants to save the environment, as long as it does not cost them their job."

I wish you wouldn't perpetuate this false dichotomy between the environment and jobs. Environmental conservation and job creation are not mutully exclusive. They can and should go hand in hand.

Sadly, Bronwyn, it is no "false dichotomy". It's real life.

>>I wish you wouldn't perpetuate this false dichotomy between the environment and jobs. Environmental conservation and job creation are not mutully exclusive. They can and should go hand in hand.<<

The reality is that they don't.

"Preserving the environment" is, quite literally, an additional business expense. Especially so, when we include measures that are intended to combat climate change.

Additional expense means a more expensive product. A more expensive product means lower sales volumes (or, if you want to be economically pedantic, means lower aggregate production across the economy). Lower aggregate production means less money available to pay wages which means (either) lower pay for all, or fewer people (i.e. more unemployment).

Lower pay for all means a contraction of the economy as a whole, and a lower standard of living.

Because, regrettable though it may be, environmental conservation, of any kind, does not come for free. Ask any miner. Ask any builder or architect. Ask any supermarket chain. Ask any bus company.

Ask anyone, in fact.

Except a public servant.

Pericles
fair reasoning to a point however it all depends.Technology tends to make jobs not destroy them.
All that would happen would be that the power changes.
i.e. If we were to phase out petrol driven cars the need for transport would still exist car would still be bought, sold, repaired serviced etc so those jobs are still there.
The loser might be big oil and some of their employees there will still be a need some petro chemicals but...some one has to make the fuel for the cars. So in the case of electric. someone has to make batteries and all those wind or power generation panels some one has to sell them etc.In short there will probably be a net gain in jobs there always has been.

I see Fractelle's point clearly. In most discussions on change of any kind the vested interests always scream loss of jobs and run scare campaigns...threaten the government that they'll campaign against them if the govt doesn't acquiesce.

My point has always been that it is this self interest of capital especially big capital that is counter to our future (through innovation) democracy and possibly our species survival.

Yabby
As the primary question relates to the topic I 'll try one more time.
There is a difference between physical potential and attitudinal.
The latter can depend on many more variables.
Not all twins are the same there are documented differences between late separation of the ovum to early separation and then again the most common difference is between those that come from dual eggs and the prior.
As usual you are descending down the logic pole and trying to bolster it with insults.You still don't display any understanding of scientific reality...have a good day

......"OK I may have misunderstood your parameters Sorry

PS. I don't deliberately start a conflict if I do it's by accident or oversight because I'm trying to put too much in so it makes sense. When reading my fallible utterances please consider context and any nuance that is probably intended.

By all mean challenge me but the comments like "day release" were neither by error nor add to your complaint. In future I'll be more circumspect regarding you.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 10 May 2009 8:25:13 PM"

Circumspect is good. Me too.

Day release was a mistake,-but I had to write it that way because though one can use capitals, there is no facility for putting a phrase in red and underlining it;-twice.

Now I'll explain. I'm not so much astonished that YOU would exercise such a free interpretation of what I actually said;-but what motivated YOU (meaning you in particular), to interpret thus. It shows how you were thinking.

This thread has trod a fairly curvy route, but in general, its been permeated with women saying something, and men interpreting what they were saying-according to how the male responder felt about such issues! It had little to do with what they were actually saying!

You did the same. That really threw me, and frankly I DID think you had lost it.

"...I don't need to be stimulated by what amounts to titillation in everything from argy bargy in conversations, magazines , nude pictures et al...." (E)

That is an insult, because it is untrue. And because you are Examinator, and not Yabby/Houelles/or Anti;- nobody except me said anything.

'Ally' or 'enemy', I will call out anyone who does this.

So your apology counts for little if you go on to rationalise such an insult. It's sad.

Examinator, you can waffle on and try as many times as you like,
you can introduce as many red herrings as you like, but you have
been unable to show that my initial statement was incorrect.
That is the point!

You can try ad hominems as you have. You can try insults, but
don't be amazed when they are returned. I am no Xtian, I do
not turn the other cheek lol.

Bronwyn, your idealism is wonderful, as a skeptic I'm waiting to
see real results. Green jobs can certainly be created with huge
Govt subsidies, but again that is at a cost to the taxpayer.

There is much talk about green energy, but already companies are
in a queue to tap Govt funds, for their demonstration plants.

Yes we can make windmills etc, but I have yet to see how that
won't push the price of electricity through the roof. Most
consumers won't even install a solar hot water system on their
roof, despite the many subsidies.

When the cost of electricity does go through the roof, watch
all the public servants and others claim a pay rise, for it is
not them who want to pay the cost, everyone else should pay.

Or of course do what is popular on OLO, just blame large
companies!

There was an interesting debate on the BBC World debate last
night. The crux of it is, that if you want third world countries
to preserve their rainforests, then you the Western consumer should
pay them to preserve it.

So don't kid yourself that it won't cost you. So how much are you
prepared to lower your standard of living, for the benefit of
the environment?

Ginx,
I was rationalising nothing, merely explaining the thought linkages.
Your words were Something like “if we were all polite it would be boring.”
Q: Why would it be boring?
A: it's not colourful enough
Q: What is colourful ?
A: Judging by your stouche with who ever ' not enough conflict' (to me that means argy bargy)
Q: why do you need colour when the subject provides the colour?
A: Perhaps it is a function of today the greater need for simulation (alternate meaning).

Q: what are other examples to clarify the point...
A: as listed.
Statement.: I was not saying that YOU specifically needed, or said hence the brackets. In effect they were to signify that they were only other example of society's need for the over the top to take notice.

And the accompanying conditioned short thought time span of most of the public.

I surmise this lead you to make an incorrect assumption. In that I will accept some complicity in that I didn't make my thoughts clear enough to you . Therefore I apologised and promised to be more cautious.
I accept you are angry but I can't assuage that only the part Where I failed i.e. the clarity.
None of this is judgemental merely observational (except on my failure to explain clearly enough) Again sorry for that

Examinator you are a pedantic semantic!!

And frankly I cannot be bothered to go through your twist and curve exercise in justifying your insulting post any longer.
______________________________

I am far more concerned about what has prompted Fractelle to back away from this forum.

And I'll make this crystal clear: her reasons I suspect should be of grave concern to all female members of OLO.

There is NO private message facility. I have no choice:

HYPOTHETICALLY:

Fractelle makes a comment in a technical thread.
She is responded to rather sharply.
She reciprocates with sarcastic humour.
Did that set the scene?
Fractelle encounters an odious and repugnant putdown to another poster who was-at the very least, subjected to an immensely traumatic incident.
She reports that vile response...,suggesting a suspension??
She is told SHE is difficult??
Comments such as 'feminist diatribe' spring to mind here..
If the comment just stated is to be made over a fairly innocuous exchange of views, then how does that bode if a strong-willed female-a feminist;- were to make a complaint;-entirely valid in my opinion, and have it judged in that arena? (How can ANY female?).
'Hatred' for Fractelle was expressed! What impact do you think THAT would have?
Has it become too overwhelming?

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL. I hope I've got it wrong. I REALLY do. BUT: if it's even close to the truth, then this forum does NOT welcome independently thinking, strong females.

IF that is the case; I'm out.