Why Did Playgirl Not Succeed?

[Ericson77]

I’ve heard many women say that they’d prefer looking at Playboy over Playgirl and all of these women are straight! I remember once hearing a joke about why it flopped, the comedian said that if you want to see a penis you can see one anywhere, because guys will just pull it out without anyone even asking, so why would women need a magazine to see that! lol

 

[spaj8987]

I believe that men and women are aroused sexually by different stimuli. Men like the visual, whereas women like to use their imagination. That is one of the reasons why strip clubs appeal to men and Harlequin romances appeal to women.

I just saw an article regarding Playgirl Magazine, which went out of print around 2016. The article mentioned that the magazine only had 3,000 subscribers. I guess that kind of surprises me. I for one enjoyed the periodical but I know not all women are visual. I occasionally picked one up at the adult store near me.

But there are other reasons. Any one else have thoughts on this? Are we too shy to purchase something of this nature?

I liked that the magazine featured mainly normal good looking guys, opposed to some of the gay mags that were out there. This one seemed genuinely geared toward us gals.

Here's something i was thinking about. Now, i'm going to try to say this in the most respectful way possible. Anyway, what exactly do women imagine? What do they see?

I've heard this kind of thing before and never thought much of it until i asked a few questions.

There's a thought experiment called the floating man.

[Floating man, flying man or man suspended in air is a thought experiment by Avicenna (Ibn Sina, d. 1037) to argue for the existence of the soul.[1] The argument is used to argue for the knowledge by presence.[2][3]]

[One of us must suppose that he was just created at a stroke, fully developed and perfectly formed but with his vision shrouded from perceiving all external objects – created floating in the air or in the space, not buffeted by any perceptible current of the air that supports him, his limbs separated and kept out of contact with one another, so that they do not feel each other. Then let the subject consider whether he would affirm the existence of his self. There is no doubt that he would affirm his own existence, although not affirming the reality of any of his limbs or inner organs, his bowels, or heart or brain or any external thing. Indeed he would affirm the existence of this self of his while not affirming that it had any length, breadth or depth. And if it were possible for him in such a state to imagine a hand or any other organ, he would not imagine it to be a part of himself or a condition of his existence.

— Avicenna, quoted in Goodman (2013, p. 155-156)]

Now while that's about the soul/spirit. I think it kind of applies here as well to what i'm about to say. If you were to then take the floating man out of his floating abyss and place him into the real world. Giving him a mirror for a certain amount of time then placing him back into his abyss. What would happen?

Would his perception of himself change? I think it would. Given he would have memories of having seen himself in the mirror.

So when people say that men are visual and women are imaginative. What exactly does that mean? I mean for him to remember what he looked like after being taken out of his abyssal space he would have to be considered as being visual right? And then afterward imaginative.

So what's the difference?

When a woman sees a hot guy. Does she see a hot guy? If she isn't seeing him. Aren't visualizing him as being hot then how can the imagination create anything from it?

As far as i can tell...there is no difference there. When men see someone they think is hot they are aroused. When women see someone they think is hot they are aroused. To me saying that men are this and women are that with there attempting to be differences involved means that one does blank while the other does not. Or else, why classify it at all?

Lets say that's not the case. And people really do mean men are MORE visual than women. Wouldn't that then mean that women are MORE imaginative than men? Which we already know isn't true since art in general is created by both men and women. And accounting for sexism is created at the same rate.

For that matter can you even have visualization without imagination? Can you have imagination without visualization? Light bounces off stuff at a rate we can't track. Meaning most of the stuff we see isn't exactly what we see. And that our minds do a certain amount good and bad job of recreating based on previous information. So don't we need both visualization and imagination way before we even begin to get into sexual arousal at any point?

I'm guessing it isn't that men and women react differently to stimuli in that way. But we do react differently because we're told we do. Kind of like if a person would told since before they were born (telling others), while being a teenager, an adult and finally old age that they like the color pink. Pretty sure before their last day on earth if asked they'd say their favor color is in fact pink.

And when it comes to sexism that sort of thing is about a billion fold.

So nah. I don't think men are from mars and women are from venus. Sure, milk from boobs are a thing. Vaginas turning into dicks are a thing. Giving birth. And some others are a thing. But doesn't this idea that men are blank and women are blank go flying out the window the second a woman is with a dude/dude they love and he/she gets naked?

 

[deleted1547822]

So when people say that men are visual and women are imaginative. What exactly does that mean?

Do you have an Amazon account? A device that can run the kindle app? PM me your email and I’ll gift you a copy of A Billion Wicked Thoughts.

 

[spaj8987]

Do you have an Amazon account? A device that can run the kindle app? PM me your email and I’ll gift you a copy of A Billion Wicked Thoughts.

No thank you. I would love to hear an explanation from you about how i'm ignorant of the subject and how it applies to everything i just said though. That would be very interesting. To be honest one the things i can't stand the most is someone saying and implying i'm wrong about something then offering a book on the subject (that isn't academic) as an explanation.

Surely, if you are aware of how i'm wrong you can then of course explain so yourself. Unless of course your grasp on the subject isn't as tight as you'd like to think.

 

[deleted1547822]

I didn’t say you were ignorant. Based on your posts, I thought you would find the book interesting. I’m not sure why you are judging the quality or content of a book you haven’t read, not to mention using that as a reason to not read it.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject. I find it interesting. I think the book illuminates the topic, and provides an interesting and compelling perspective. It’s way too wide ranging to summarize.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you seem to be so angry. Not everything is an argument that has to be won. Offering a counterpoint to consider is just that - offering a counterpoint to consider.

 

[Enid]

I'm tired of the "men are more visual" myth. We're all visual creatures, ffs.

My thoughts are that if men are responding more to adult mags than women generally are, it's social conditioning. Not some big biological difference in male/female brains. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and as such men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person — a tendency that is pretty much learned.

 

[spaj8987]

I didn’t say you were ignorant. Based on your posts, I thought you would find the book interesting. I’m not sure why you are judging the quality or content of a book you haven’t read, not to mention using that as a reason to not read it.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject. I find it interesting. I think the book illuminates the topic, and provides an interesting and compelling perspective. It’s way too wide ranging to summarize.

I can’t for the life of me understand why you seem to be so angry. Not everything is an argument that has to be won. Offering a counterpoint to consider is just that - offering a counterpoint to consider.

And this is why i've elected more than a few times to not talk to you at all. We both know you've made the comment that if someone were to read said book then they would find out how ignorant they are. I could find it. I could post it. And i could press you on it but i won't. We both know the comment exists. Why it exists and we both know that kind of thinking from you is not abnormal.

Why? Why do we both know that? This reply of yours. I said no thank you because from what i've seen of those guys from the start only makes small amounts of logical sense. With their overall hur durr men watch porn for the PENIS. Because animals do things and human do things and we are like animals and profit.

Again, i've already spotted their logical inconsistencies from a mile away. Hence why i refused.

To you though. There's no logical possibility for me to have done so. Because nothing i've said on the topic so far has or even could make sense to you. Which is understandable. What is not understandable though.

(I’m not sure why you are judging the quality or content of a book you haven’t read, not to mention using that as a reason to not read it.)

You'll literally make up something about me in your head that isn't true. Create an argument surrounding it and this is after you've tried to say i was ignorant for not having read it. Also...

(It’s way too wide ranging to summarize.)

Somehow it's both too wide ranging to summarize AND you can summarize it enough in your own mind to have the ability to disagree with someone else about it. How exactly can that be possible? How can you know enough about the subject to tell someone they're wrong about it or aren't correct about it. Even taking it so far as to say they are ignorant. BUT can't even in the slightest little bit talk about it yourself?

Here's my guess.

Either you don't have a firm grasp on the material enough to explain it and just disagreed just to disagree with nothing backing up why you disagreed. Or you do in fact understand the material enough to disagree and refuse to explain it because you know the person you're talking to will and can rip both what you're saying and what was written into shreds with just a few very simple questions and examples. And you refuse to let that happen because your ego has attached itself to the information you believe in and are so afraid of being wrong to any degree that you'll literally hide information so neither you or they can be proven wrong or incorrect.

Now, it could be a mix of both. Could be something else entirely but on that subject specifically i find those are the two most important possibilities.

Why?

(I can’t for the life of me understand why you seem to be so angry. Not everything is an argument that has to be won.)

Did i follow you into this thread? How exactly does this topic have anything to do with the book you keep trying to sell? Who stopped talking to who here? For the purposes of not having to deal with your immature manipulation of hur durrr you just want to win and hurr durr you're sooooo angry hurr durrr.

That's right. I avoided you like an adult. You followed me into this thread. You're the one who can't and couldn't handle me saying you weren't being as logical as you thought you were. You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate my intent. Trying to mask why i've done what i've done.

I'm not angry. I'm annoyed. Why? Someone who when i first started reading their replies. Who seemed to have a good head on their shoulders for data suddenly let their ego grab them by the balls. Leading to them making a fool of themselves all over these forums in spectacular fashion.

Nothing annoys me more than someone who has the ability to understand something throwing that ability away just because their feelings were hurt.

In short. Being wrong or incorrect isn't the end of the world. Please do grow the fuck up. Now. If suddenly you remember the book you read and want me to further prove how wrong both you and the writers of the book are. By all means.

Just keep in mind that up until this point you've already lied about me, followed me into different threads and were wrong from the start. Wrong. Incorrect. You didn't lose anything and i didn't win anything. Unless of course you mean the respect of adults. In which case the second you started acting like a fifth grader you lost that very quickly.

 

[deleted1547822]

I'm tired of the "men are more visual" myth. We're all visual creatures, ffs.

My thoughts are that if men are responding more to adult mags than women generally are, it's social conditioning. Not some big biological difference in male/female brains. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and as such men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person — a tendency that is pretty much learned.

Here’s a selection from the book I’ve been referencing that’s a little more illuminating, raising further questions.

“Meredith Chivers is an assistant professor of psychology at Queen’s University in Canada. As the director of the Sexuality and Gender Laboratory at the university, she is one of the world’s leading researchers on the neuropsychology of female desire. In 2004, Chivers conducted an ingenious experiment to find out what turns women on.

She invited women to her lab and showed them a variety of erotic pictures. Chivers measured their arousal from viewing the pictures in two different ways. First, she asked them how they felt—a measure of conscious, psychological arousal. Second, she inserted a plethysmograph into their vaginas—the female version of the device used to measure erections in the jar of pennies experiment. The plethysmograph measured blood flow in women’s vaginal walls—a measure of physical arousal. But the most interesting part of Chivers’s experiment was the pictures themselves.

They consisted of photographs depicting exercising men, exercising women, gay sex, lesbian sex, straight sex—and monkey sex. One of the images showed copulating bonobos, a type of primate also known as the pygmy chimpanzee.

So which images elicited physical arousal in the women? All the images, even the monkey porn. Women’s vaginal blood flow increased after viewing each erotic picture. Which images elicited psychological arousal—which caused the women to say they were turned on? Heterosexual sex generated the greatest psychological arousal, followed by lesbian sex. Watching people exercise wasn’t much of a turn-on. The reported amount of psychological arousal from watching monkey porn? A very emphatic zero.

In other words, there was a dissociation between the conscious arousal of the mind and the unconscious (or semiconscious) arousal of the body. When the exact same experiment was conducted with male subjects, there was virtually no dissociation between the two types of arousal. If a man was physically turned on, he was also psychologically turned on. And none of the men got turned on by monkey sex.

This intriguing dissociation between the mind and body in women seems to reflect a common experience among women that is frequently unvoiced. “Thanks to you women who wrote about the dichotomy between getting turned on and (intellectually) being turned off,” writes one woman on Salon.com, in response to an article addressing why women don’t watch porn. “Just last night my husband was asking me to watch porn with him and I was trying to explain that after about 10 minutes of it I’m more turned off than on (even if I’m turned on too—the other part won’t let me enjoy it). I think it would be easier to be a guy when it comes to porn—having all this conflicting stuff flying around my brain and body makes me crazy.”

 

[spaj8987]

I'm tired of the "men are more visual" myth. We're all visual creatures, ffs.

My thoughts are that if men are responding more to adult mags than women generally are, it's social conditioning. Not some big biological difference in male/female brains. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and as such men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person — a tendency that is pretty much learned.

I don't think current events could prove what you've just said truer than anything else. When dudes focus on objectifying everything else disappears. Logical, rational though, good faith arguments and so on. All into the wind. Hundreds of years of sexism will of course cause that.

 

[deleted1547822]

A whole bunch of stuff...

You’re way overthinking this. Stop trying to assign motive. Stop trying to assess what I’m “really” trying to do or “really” mean.

The offer is genuine.

 

[spaj8987]

You’re way overthinking this. Stop trying to assign motive. Stop trying to assess what I’m “really” trying to do or “really” mean.

The offer is genuine.

I haven't assigned anything. I'm pointing it out. Also...intellectual...how is it possible to over think humanity? What would you personally say the scientific method is? Would it be perhaps to say men are visual while women are more imaginative and not only leave it at that but try to attack anyone who says different?

Because my understanding of the scientific method is that science welcomes disagreements. Thrives off of it. That if someone can address issues in such a way that logically calls previous accepted data into question then it's not just cause for more inspection but a closer look is encouraged.

So why exactly have you followed me here? Do you think i was wrong about men and women being much more alike than people think? And that the only reason people think there are differences in sexual arousal is because sexism over hundreds of years..even thousands have pressed that idea in people's minds? Leading them to accept the suggestions they've been given and prove those sexist theories correct?

If you do indeed think i'm mistaken. Prove it. Try to. Attempt to. Offer something other than you're an angry black woman, you're an angry black man, you're a woman and women are usually more overly emotional than men and so on. Which has absolutely zero scientific backing. Never did and never will.

Meanwhile i'll continue to break down every last illogical notion you could possibly have without ever insulting you once. Without ever lying about you. Without ever having to rely on the same tactics that are the reasons why people think men are from mars and women are from venus.

And lastly before i begin to ignore you again until you actually start addressing the actual topics at hand in any thread. The offer may be genuine. But my rejection of it is too. Now. Would you like to ignore said rejection? Because again, men have a very long very detailed history of doing that exact same thing when their egos don't get what they want.

So which is it? Logical, reasoning, subtle and nuanced, balanced whatever. Or even more stereotypes of men that most men aren't even aware of? Your choice.

 

[deleted1547822]

I haven't assigned anything. I'm pointing it out. Also...intellectual...how is it possible to over think humanity? What would you personally say the scientific method is? Would it be perhaps to say men are visual while women are more imaginative and not only leave it at that but try to attack anyone who says different?

Because my understanding of the scientific method is that science welcomes disagreements. Thrives off of it. That if someone can address issues in such a way that logically calls previous accepted data into question then it's not just cause for more inspection but a closer look is encouraged.

I suppose “overthinking” is exemplified by the “motorcycle won’t start” meme in my gallery (I can post it again if you like, I’m didn’t to save screen space and because it’s a pain in the ass to do on my ipad).

The scientific method is basically Hegelian thesis/hypothesis/synthesis, with the added requirements of being testable and repeatable. It’s a journey where you examine evidence, weigh it, acquire new evidence, weigh it and reweigh old evidence, all in a search for an answer or truth that you may never get. “No man became wise by chance”, to quote Seneca the Younger.

For the women/men part, I think it’s more complex than that. I don’t have the complete answer.

I agree on “thriving on disagreements”. There’s a difference between that and proving rightness or wrongness, particularly when there’s not enough evidence or too much ambiguity to do that.

So why exactly have you followed me here? Do you think i was wrong about men and women being much more alike than people think? And that the only reason people think there are differences in sexual arousal is because sexism over hundreds of years..even thousands have pressed that idea in people's minds? Leading them to accept the suggestions they've been given and prove those sexist theories correct?

I haven’t followed you here. I get alerts on responses to threads that I’ve replied to. Sometimes those responses are yours. Some I comment on, others I don’t.

I think you’re a smart guy. I like the thought you put into your posts. I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. It’s refreshing to see someone who’s not the 90% “here’s my fetish/look at my dick pick/oh woe was me and my little pecker/my monstercock is awesome”.

I’ll address the “prove” part in the next section.

If you do indeed think i'm mistaken. Prove it. Try to. Attempt to. Offer something other than you're an angry black woman, you're an angry black man, you're a woman and women are usually more overly emotional than men and so on. Which has absolutely zero scientific backing. Never did and never will.

Meanwhile i'll continue to break down every last illogical notion you could possibly have without ever insulting you once. Without ever lying about you. Without ever having to rely on the same tactics that are the reasons why people think men are from mars and women are from venus.

This seems to be our main point of contention. I’m not trying to prove anything. I don’t expect you to prove anything. I’m not breaking down every logical or illogical notion. There are a lot of reasons for that. It’s not worth my time, in the grand scheme of things. It’s not that big of a deal to me (and I used to be that guy who had to “win” every argument on the internet). Mainly it just leads to anger. I used to be an angry guy. It was a skill set that’s useful for direct style military leadership. I’m older now, hopefully wiser, but just don’t have the energy for it.

And lastly before i begin to ignore you again until you actually start addressing the actual topics at hand in any thread. The offer may be genuine. But my rejection of it is too. Now. Would you like to ignore said rejection? Because again, men have a very long very detailed history of doing that exact same thing when their egos don't get what they want.

So which is it? Logical, reasoning, subtle and nuanced, balanced whatever. Or even more stereotypes of men that most men aren't even aware of? Your choice.

I tried to answer the question of “which is it” with my last post. There is a potential, partial answer there. There are more questions to ponder. If I knew it all, I wouldn’t be here.

You’re free to put me on ignore, or not. I’d prefer to have a civil online relationship and civil discussion. I’ll continue to post as suits me at any particular point in time.

The offer is genuine, and still stands. The selection I copy/pasted above is just an extremely small sample of what’s in the book. I genuinely think you would like it. I genuinely think you’ll face-palm from some of it (I know I did). I don’t think that’s a bad or insulting thing.

 

[spaj8987]

I suppose “overthinking” is exemplified by the “motorcycle won’t start” meme in my gallery (I can post it again if you like, I’m didn’t to save screen space and because it’s a pain in the ass to do on my ipad).

The scientific method is basically Hegelian thesis/hypothesis/synthesis, with the added requirements of being testable and repeatable. It’s a journey where you examine evidence, weigh it, acquire new evidence, weigh it and reweigh old evidence, all in a search for an answer or truth that you may never get. “No man became wise by chance”, to quote Seneca the Younger.

For the women/men part, I think it’s more complex than that. I don’t have the complete answer.

I agree on “thriving on disagreements”. There’s a difference between that and proving rightness or wrongness, particularly when there’s not enough evidence or too much ambiguity to do that.



I haven’t followed you here. I get alerts on responses to threads that I’ve replied to. Sometimes those responses are yours. Some I comment on, others I don’t.

I think you’re a smart guy. I like the thought you put into your posts. I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. It’s refreshing to see someone who’s not the 90% “here’s my fetish/look at my dick pick/oh woe was me and my little pecker/my monstercock is awesome”.

I’ll address the “prove” part in the next section.



This seems to be our main point of contention. I’m not trying to prove anything. I don’t expect you to prove anything. I’m not breaking down every logical or illogical notion. There are a lot of reasons for that. It’s not worth my time, in the grand scheme of things. It’s not that big of a deal to me (and I used to be that guy who had to “win” every argument on the internet). Mainly it just leads to anger. I used to be an angry guy. It was a skill set that’s useful for direct style military leadership. I’m older now, hopefully wiser, but just don’t have the energy for it.



I tried to answer the question of “which is it” with my last post. There is a potential, partial answer there. There are more questions to ponder. If I knew it all, I wouldn’t be here.

You’re free to put me on ignore, or not. I’d prefer to have a civil online relationship and civil discussion. I’ll continue to post as suits me at any particular point in time.

The offer is genuine, and still stands. The selection I copy/pasted above is just an extremely small sample of what’s in the book. I genuinely think you would like it. I genuinely think you’ll face-palm from some of it (I know I did). I don’t think that’s a bad or insulting thing.

(This seems to be our main point of contention. I’m not trying to prove anything. I don’t expect you to prove anything. I’m not breaking down every logical or illogical notion. There are a lot of reasons for that. It’s not worth my time, in the grand scheme of things. It’s not that big of a deal to me (and I used to be that guy who had to “win” every argument on the internet). Mainly it just leads to anger. I used to be an angry guy. It was a skill set that’s useful for direct style military leadership. I’m older now, hopefully wiser, but just don’t have the energy for it.)

Here's the problem with this. If you aren't trying to prove anything. Aren't trying to have anything proved to you. Then why talk about these complex issues to begin with? To read yourself type? To troll other people into being annoyed with you?

When you used to date. Did you do so just so you could annoy someone? Just to hear yourself speak? Or was there a goal there? A journey you took to get to a destination?

Further.

(There’s a difference between that and proving rightness or wrongness, particularly when there’s not enough evidence or too much ambiguity to do that.)

Is this the scientific method? When people found that einstein might not be completely correct in what he was thinking did people just say...hey. This isn't about rightness or wrongness. So we'll just...not address the issues with his previous theories? Or...did they go. Yeah that doesn't completely work out. And if we build systems based on something that isn't completely right/logical/correct/however which way you want to put it so it doesn't hurt your feelings then someone could get hurt?

With the topic of men being this and women being that. How many people could be getting hurt, already have been and could get hurt in the future? And not just hurt but having built their entire world view on the very real myth that men and women think differently when it comes to sexual arousal?

What other topics could or is that also attached to? Could it be that it's also attached to gender roles? Political positions? How people date period? How and why people are rejected. Why they don't feel good in their own personalities and so on? Yes. All of the yes.

So we know this is and can be an important subject. With far reaching consequences. And we know that if no one every talks about it. What might be or is an issue will never be addressed. Meaning zero help for those having problems with it. Whats the scientific method again?

Now onto your jamming of the idea that this is a contest. What exactly do you think i would win or lose by being right or wrong with this? What awards? Do you perhaps think that be being truthful, logical and forthcoming with this that i am owed something?

Or would it be a case of people rightfully thinking oh this person was more logical/accurate/understood the wider impact of this very specific subject than the other person? Or this person was logical/accurate/understood the wider impact of this very specific subject than this person?

Because i very much would like to give every last human being who even has the chance to read all this much more of the benefit of doubt than that. And go with, they'll think this person is logical or more logical than, this person is accurate or more accurate than and this person understands or understands more of the impact blank or blank has, does have and will have on blank, blank and/or blank.

In short. There is no winning or losing. There's only logical or not logical. More logical or less logical.

Until of course (and again), immaturity comes in. Until of course, lying comes in. Until of course people create arguments out of thin air, superimpose them onto the person they're talking to then fight that. I still don't win or lose anything in a situation like that. Though the person who does do those things loses something.

That something being respect. Which is important. Even on lpsg.

Seriously, trying to prove your point isn't even all that difficult. All you have to do is attempt to do it. You don't lose or win anything in your attempt. Not unless your ego is bruised. I mean really. Why talk about this stuff at all if you aren't trying to prove your opinion and don't want to hear anyone else's? It makes zero logical sense.

Here. I'll show you again.

(For the women/men part, I think it’s more complex than that. I don’t have the complete answer.)

How is it possible to have enough information in your mind to disagree but not have enough to explain why you disagree? It's like saying you have enough gas to make it one place but don't have enough gas to make it half way to that place. With that said i do agree it's more complicated. Difference being i can then explain how much more complicated i think it is. You can't.

 

[seventiesdemon]

Probably not enough pics of little kittens and puppies doing silly things

 

[BIGBULL29]

Here's something i was thinking about. Now, i'm going to try to say this in the most respectful way possible. Anyway, what exactly do women imagine? What do they see?

I've heard this kind of thing before and never thought much of it until i asked a few questions.

There's a thought experiment called the floating man.

[Floating man, flying man or man suspended in air is a thought experiment by Avicenna (Ibn Sina, d. 1037) to argue for the existence of the soul.[1] The argument is used to argue for the knowledge by presence.[2][3]]

[One of us must suppose that he was just created at a stroke, fully developed and perfectly formed but with his vision shrouded from perceiving all external objects – created floating in the air or in the space, not buffeted by any perceptible current of the air that supports him, his limbs separated and kept out of contact with one another, so that they do not feel each other. Then let the subject consider whether he would affirm the existence of his self. There is no doubt that he would affirm his own existence, although not affirming the reality of any of his limbs or inner organs, his bowels, or heart or brain or any external thing. Indeed he would affirm the existence of this self of his while not affirming that it had any length, breadth or depth. And if it were possible for him in such a state to imagine a hand or any other organ, he would not imagine it to be a part of himself or a condition of his existence.

— Avicenna, quoted in Goodman (2013, p. 155-156)]

Now while that's about the soul/spirit. I think it kind of applies here as well to what i'm about to say. If you were to then take the floating man out of his floating abyss and place him into the real world. Giving him a mirror for a certain amount of time then placing him back into his abyss. What would happen?

Would his perception of himself change? I think it would. Given he would have memories of having seen himself in the mirror.

So when people say that men are visual and women are imaginative. What exactly does that mean? I mean for him to remember what he looked like after being taken out of his abyssal space he would have to be considered as being visual right? And then afterward imaginative.

So what's the difference?

When a woman sees a hot guy. Does she see a hot guy? If she isn't seeing him. Aren't visualizing him as being hot then how can the imagination create anything from it?

As far as i can tell...there is no difference there. When men see someone they think is hot they are aroused. When women see someone they think is hot they are aroused. To me saying that men are this and women are that with there attempting to be differences involved means that one does blank while the other does not. Or else, why classify it at all?

Lets say that's not the case. And people really do mean men are MORE visual than women. Wouldn't that then mean that women are MORE imaginative than men? Which we already know isn't true since art in general is created by both men and women. And accounting for sexism is created at the same rate.

For that matter can you even have visualization without imagination? Can you have imagination without visualization? Light bounces off stuff at a rate we can't track. Meaning most of the stuff we see isn't exactly what we see. And that our minds do a certain amount good and bad job of recreating based on previous information. So don't we need both visualization and imagination way before we even begin to get into sexual arousal at any point?

I'm guessing it isn't that men and women react differently to stimuli in that way. But we do react differently because we're told we do. Kind of like if a person would told since before they were born (telling others), while being a teenager, an adult and finally old age that they like the color pink. Pretty sure before their last day on earth if asked they'd say their favor color is in fact pink.

And when it comes to sexism that sort of thing is about a billion fold.

So nah. I don't think men are from mars and women are from venus. Sure, milk from boobs are a thing. Vaginas turning into dicks are a thing. Giving birth. And some others are a thing. But doesn't this idea that men are blank and women are blank go flying out the window the second a woman is with a dude/dude they love and he/she gets naked?

Someone is making sense after having thought a few things out! (Have I died?)

Many women get super wet when they see a well-hung stud. They might not admit it.

One of the biggest differences between men and women on the sexual front: women can turn their sexual minds on and off very quickly, whereas men struggle to do so.

Women are just as visually stimulated as men overall. It's simply that they have better control over their reactions to visual stimuli.

And don't forgot that culture plays a big role, too. Women are trained to think that they are not like men, sexually-speaking. This gives men great sexual power over women. If women gained more sexual prowess, men would become more sexualized. The male heterosexual dynamic sexualizing women at every stop doesn't not want this as it would give females too much power in a male-dominated society.

 

[spaj8987]

Someone is making sense after having thought a few things out! (Have I died?)

Many women can wet when they see a well-hung stud. They might not admit it.

One of the biggest differences between men and women on the sexual front: women can turn their sexual minds on and off very quickly, whereas men struggle to do so.

Women are just as visually stimulated as men overall. It's simply that they have better control their reactions the visual stimuli.
And don't forgot that culture plays a big role, too. Women are trained to think that they are not like men, sexually-speaking. This gives men sexual power of women. If women gained more sexual prowess, men would become more sexualized. The male heterosexual dynamic sexualizing women at every stop doesn't not want this as it would give females too much power in a male-dominated society.

(Someone is making sense after having thought a few things out (Have I died)?)

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

[deleted1547822]

If you aren't trying to prove anything. Aren't trying to have anything proved to you. Then why talk about these complex issues to begin with?

I have opinions. I offer then when I feel like it. Maybe some people will find them useful. I’m a curious person. I like reading what other people think. It’s really that simple.

Now onto your jamming of the idea that this is a contest. What exactly do you think i would win or lose by being right or wrong with this? What awards? Do you perhaps think that be being truthful, logical and forthcoming with this that i am owed something?

I don’t know what you would win or lose, other than some sense of self-satisfaction from “winning” or wearying your opponent into some state of submission. I don’t really care. You’re the one with the verbose assertions of “proving”, “logical”, “lying” etc... Read the last two sentences of your last paragraph. Read your assertions of what you think my ego is. You’re projecting an awful lot on my posts. We’ve already been down this road.

I don’t owe you anything. I’m not sure what that comment is about.

Now is a good example of why I choose not to expend the energy with each pedantic little point. It’s a pain in the ass on this ipad to try to scroll back and forth, break up the formatting, quote relevant portions, etc... Your posts are just too long and too varied for it (and that’s not meant to be insulting). I realize that it’s just not that important to me, although I started with better intentions. I’d just like to have a casual discussion, not submit comprehensive peer reviews or participate in a Harvard debate.

 

[BIGBULL29]

(Someone is making sense after having thought a few things out (Have I died)?)

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Yes, you do for sure.

I made a lot of typos and had to correct some things. My brain is not working well tonight.

Thank you again for being the voice of reason. People do not know how to think through things logically.

I remember having debated abortion online. All I heard from the opposing side was "It's murder".
Sounds like a good argument from an intellectual perspective. No pro-life person was really interested in a serious debate. It was just a joke.

Take good care.

 

[spaj8987]

I have opinions. I offer then when I feel like it. Maybe some people will find them useful. I’m a curious person. I like reading what other people think. It’s really that simple.



I don’t know what you would win or lose, other than some sense of self-satisfaction from “winning” or wearying your opponent into some state of submission. I don’t really care. You’re the one with the verbose assertions of “proving”, “logical”, “lying” etc... Read the last two sentences of your last paragraph. Read your assertions of what you think my ego is. You’re projecting an awful lot on my posts. We’ve already been down this road.

I don’t owe you anything. I’m not sure what that comment is about.

Now is a good example of why I choose not to expend the energy with each pedantic little point. It’s a pain in the ass on this ipad to try to scroll back and forth, break up the formatting, quote relevant portions, etc... Your posts are just too long and too varied for it (and that’s not meant to be insulting). I realize that it’s just not that important to me, although I started with better intentions. I’d just like to have a casual discussion, not submit comprehensive peer reviews or participate in a Harvard debate.

(I don’t know what you would win or lose, other than some sense of self-satisfaction from “winning” or wearying your opponent into some state of submission.)

And yet again. You've created an argument out of thin air. Attached it to me. And fought it. If i said you were a poopyhead. Would i then have to, as an adult, back it up? Of course not. That's not something people would or could take seriously. Now what if i said you were being egotistical because someone said you were wrong about something. That you couldn't handle a minor disagreement so you exploded. Trying to find any weakness you possibly could about the person who said you were wrong instead of being able to or even attempting to argue against their point in any way shape or form.

Would that follow you? Would that, if people believed it and i offered no proof of that, annoy the ever loving piss out of you? Would that seep into other topics you try to talk about? Yes. So the very least i could do as a fellow adult is..back it up. For the purposes of making conversation and interaction better. More efficient and most of all..more logical.

What happens when the world isn't logical? When interactions and conversations not only aren't logical or more logical but there's zero expectation of them being logical or being more logical? People get hurt. In about a million different ways by people who refuse to even try to back up what they say with anything. Who throw out assumptions from thin air and so on.

There are entire governments in certain countries who do that and the people living in those countries suffer for it. The very least a person can do is not. That's it. Not. You don't even have to engage. Just don't engage then feel as though you don't have to even try to back up what you've said.

That amounts to an intellectually vacant drive by. Again, all you have to do is not.

(I don’t owe you anything. I’m not sure what that comment is about.)

No. We owe it to every other living human being on the planet to at the very least try. Otherwise we'll continue to make every last social media site on the planet the worst parts of twitter. The worst parts of youtube comments sections. And we'll not get anywhere...ever.

And most of all. (this is gonna sound like an after school special) You owe it to yourself. I've typed a lot at this point and would very much like to stop because this much possible attention is making me weird but your brain is a muscle just like your thighs.

Difference being your thighs can only do so much toward your own happiness and the happiness of others. I mean i like exercise equipment as much as the next guy but thighs can't defend against depression. Can't keep people from thinking less of themselves because a bunch of overly emotional men from the past cheated their way into power. Thighs can't help someone see that the reason they've been so deeply lost when it comes to relationships is that people keep using stereotypes to separate us needlessly. The brain can.

It can though only if it's being worked. If people are brain day. If people growl like animals after reading something informative. Can't do that when you're refusing to even consider the possibility that someone else MIGHT maybe be close to being accurate about something. Then reacting in such a way that you make toddlers look at you funny.

Again. I don't win or lose anything by doing this. You on the other hand could, if you aren't aware, lose muscle mass.

 

[spaj8987]

Yes, you do for sure.

I made a lot of typos and had to correct some things. My brain is not working well tonight.

Thank you again for being the voice of reason. People do not know how to think through things logically.

I remember having debated abortion online. All I heard from the opposing side was "It's murder".
Sounds like a good argument from an intellectual perspective. No pro-life person was really interested in a serious debate. It was just a joke.

Take good care.

No thanks needed. It's what people should be doing. Pretty sure if he had time to think it over he'd get back to being as logical as he can be. And yeah, i've been there with the abortion topic too.

You take care too.