Originally posted by NemeBro
Why though? What literature have you read on the subject?
Indeed. It's odd that I basically shit out lots of recent to near recent ideas and recent research on human sexuality just to be called an idiot. And BBB is cheerleading. I want BBB to cheerlead for me. I assume he's a handsome twink and I want that guy in my corner.
Originally posted by Robtard
Honesty, wearing make-up is a sexual display, iirc, lipstick has it's roots in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia (forget) where prostitutes flagged themselves as such to their 'johns' by wearing excessive lipstick. Either way, wearing makeup isn't an invitation to be sexually harassed just because it's sexual in nature, no more than wearing a dress that shows and accentuates all the right curves of a woman is.Said it before, a woman has the right to walk down the street wearing nothing cept a string bikini and not be sexually harassed.
edit: Did this Peterson really call women who wear makeup and are against sexual harassment hypocrites? If so, what a retarded thing to claim.
I disagree. I don't see why something being used in a way in the past means it can only be used for that function. In addition to other things I mentioned, some women wear makeup to hide blemishes or to avoid judgement. Some people are just juggalos. And while I obviously agree with you on the rest of what you said, I think that this idea that women who want to look good should be assumed to be sexually inviting is a mindset that causes a lot of these issues. This assumption of knowing a womens desires is a very negative thing imo. And therefore it should be soundly rebuffed.
According to Beni's post on the last page he did say that, yes.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Why though? What literature have you read on the subject?
I think you'll find that I have a lot of experience on peoples sexual tastes.
Like, what if the chicks only into vore? I bet you not a single harasser has ever even thought of asking himself that.
But seriously, I outlined why I don't think that's the case in my post.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I disagree. I don't see why something being used in a way in the past means it can only be used for that function. In addition to other things I mentioned, some women wear makeup to hide blemishes or to avoid judgement. Some people are just juggalos. And while I obviously agree with you on the rest of what you said, I think that this idea that women who want to look good should be assumed to be sexually inviting is a mindset that causes a lot of these issues. This assumption of knowing a womens desires is a very negative thing imo. And therefore it should be soundly rebuffed.According to Beni's post on the last page he did say that, yes.
Fair enough, disagreeing on that one point doesn't change where we still end up agreeing.
What a retard then, if true.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's where you're wrong. I think you're trolling me.You clearly didn't read my post if you think this is the argument I made. Other animals are more complex than just a "breeding urge" so why would humans? If you read my post, you'd take away that it's not just a breeding urge.
This is a stupid strawman. No one said that. And it isn't even a good rhetorical technique to mischaracterize my point, either. It's just dumb.
I already outlined a significant portion of those reasons. Very basic reason: human sexuality. Hint: it's not just about sex or making babies.
Oh? So you just made a nice case for why humans, even when abnormal sexual preferences (or lack thereof) exist, there are still the underlying behavioral influences.
Again, that's a strawman.
Then look like shit the next time you go out in public. Do not style your hair. Do not wear trendy clothes. Do not worry about facial hair, eyebrows, or anything that would improve your physical appearance. You have control over your genes and how they influence your behavior so you show them whose boss. Only let your sexual encounters be purely and rawly directed by intellect.
Oh, wait, intelligence in humans also seems to be linked to sexuality, too, loool:
"Researchers from the University of Mexico have found a connection between a man’s virility and his intelligence.
The study tested the sperm of 400 men after putting them through intense mental testing."
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/attracted-to-intelligence/1036285
There's no escaping it.
When I get out of this next meeting, I'll provide a citation for literally every main point I made. We already crossed intelligence off the list. Next up is homosexuality, asexuality, cosmetology, and menopause.
Here's the deal: what you assumed was a stupid post was a post that was all about sexology. The problem is not my post, the problem is your preconceived notions of human sexuality and boxing it strictly into "making babies."
You're right, you probably have said something dumber.
At any rate I wouldn't bother making a big response, I'm unable to respond to lengthy posts effectively due to browser issues.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Humans are not animals,
lolwut?
Anyway Neph and Beni are trying to just push aside all of the research literature with really lazy intuitive arguments that aren't even that intuitive. This is in relation to the topics in the video, not the other stuff you guys are pulling up.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
wow, r u still mad about that racist gene thread.
Not "mad", but amused that you just wing expertise on empirical questions with weaponized moral outrage and lazy, touchy-feely arguments. You don't even use rigorous logic as a substitute for reading anything about the topic.
And yes, that SF Malak thread basically ruined your career lmfao
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure I've seriously criticized Peterson? I don't really have a problem with him as I don't really watch him, I don't know, so I can't say.Though admittedly, his ability to attract dudebro types is alarm raising. But I'm not judging the man solely on that as even sensible people can attract shitlord fans for all the wrong reasons.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I typically don't venture into these here parts for a myriad of reasons, but I'm genuinely curious what people with whom I'm friendly (Beni, Robtard) but seem opposed to Peterson think about this interview.Because this interview was my first exposure to Peterson and, after watching it twice across the span of 2 weeks or so, I think Newman humiliated herself. If anybody "won" or came off looking better, it was him.
^ Beni, what about you?
Originally posted by Nephthys
You're right, you probably have said something dumber.At any rate I wouldn't bother making a big response, I'm unable to respond to lengthy posts effectively due to browser issues.
You're right, I have said far far far dumber things. This is not one of the ones that falls on the "dumb" side. I may be a layman but I am familiar enough with the science that I can discuss it off the cuff.
I said I would cite my sources for all of those things I brought up. So I will:
1. Evolution and Menopause - Several Explanations of why it exists.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7925746
2. An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606240
3. Evolutionary Explanations of Cosmetology:
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~rrussell/Jones_etal_2015_sex_differences_in_facial_contrast.pdf
The use of cosmetics by women seems to consistently increase their attractiveness. What factors of attractiveness do cosmetics alter to achieve this? Facial contrast is a known cue to sexual dimorphism and youth, and cosmetics exaggerate sexual dimorphisms in facial contrast. Here, we demonstrate that the luminance contrast pattern of the eyes and eyebrows is consistently sexually dimorphic across a large sample of faces, with females possessing lower brow contrasts than males, and greater eye contrast than males. Red-green and yellow-blue color contrasts were not found to differ consistently between the sexes. We also show that women use cosmetics not only to exaggerate sexual dimorphisms of brow and eye contrasts, but also to increase contrasts that decline with age. These findings refine the notion of facial contrast, and demonstrate how cosmetics can increase attractiveness by manipulating factors of beauty associated with facial contrast.
1. Lipstick? Wear red. Women with red lips are in fact perceived as more attractive (Stephen & McKeegan, 2010). A recent field experiment showed that red lipstick influenced how quickly men approached women at a bar. In the study, women in red lipstick were approached sooner than those who wore no lipstick, brown lipstick, or (marginally) pink lipstick (Guéguen, 2012).2. Foundation appears foundational. Perhaps because it evens skin tone, and therefore may give a stronger impression of health and symmetry, foundation is widely recognized as enhancing beauty. In fact, in one study, foundation was concluded to be the product making the most difference in female attractiveness after a group of men judged the attractiveness of women wearing different levels of cosmetic use, from none at all to complete makeup (Mulhern, Fieldman, Hussey, Leveque, & Pineau, 2003).
3. Focus on the eyes. In recent research, women rated eye makeup as the Number One product enhancing other women’s facial attractiveness (Mulhern et al., 2003). Eyeliner, eye shadow, and mascara may exaggerate facial neoteny. In other words, adults are often viewed as beautiful when they have features typical of the young, including large eyes (as well as small noses and large lips). Such exaggerated youthfulness tends to have greater appeal (Jones et al., 1995).
4. A bit of blush. Why does rouge tend to be a staple cosmetic? Perhaps it’s because when women are most sexually viable (during mid-cycle during ovulation) or when they are aroused, they blush more easily. The application of artificial blush may mimic this vascularization, providing a subtle signal of sexual interest or arousal. This is in line with the link established by Elliott and Niesta (2008) between the color red and sex appeal.
5. Makeup simply makes you look healthier. Beyond any attractiveness measures, cosmetics may help women create certain favorable social perceptions. Indeed, a recent experiment revealed that women pictured wearing cosmetics were evaluated as healthier, more confident, and even having greater earning potential than the same women wearing no makeup (Nash, Fieldman, Hussey, Leveque, & Pineau, 2003). This suggests that makeup has a potentially useful role in strategic self-presentation.
6. Women in the workplace try to make themselves look sexier to...be more successful and there are many reasons for this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202093836.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women-appear-more-competent-study.html
https://www.allure.com/story/women-wear-makeup-paid-more
None of the things I mentioned are that controversial. While you call it dumb and stupid, this is common knowledge among sexologists and certain types of psychologists.
Originally posted by The Ellimistright still mad then, can i get an eta on when you'll get over it?
Not "mad", but amused that you just wing expertise on empirical questions with weaponized moral outrage and lazy, touchy-feely arguments. You don't even use rigorous logic as a substitute for reading anything about the topic.
And yes, that SF Malak thread basically ruined your career lmfaoimagine being one of the bronies who refer to their time debating fictional characters on this shithole site as a "career".
like seriously get a life man. 😬