For truth and math, maybe. Does 1 + 1 = 2 have a reason? Does it need a reason to always equal "2"?

Ok. That shit wasn’t the question, though. Read the last part which contains a question.

White men through cultural socialization automatically think POC are less qualified and less competent than white counterparts. The bias of perceiving black women as inherently less than in comparison to other women and men runs deep. Look at all the reactionary weirdos thinking that because a black woman is being nominated to the supreme court that equal amount of assessment and evaluation on her qualifications aren't being considered.

But we've had plenty idiots on the supreme court for the last 4 centuries, so all of sudden "IQ" and stupid shit like that matters.

[....] — ucarr

This post is so daft. This is not how disproving something works. Scientists do not need to 'objectively know a unicorn' or be omniscient to objectively to disprove it's existence. They run experiments on worthy hypothesis and then falsify a claim. This is irrelevant to 'omniscience' (all-knowing) which is just a religious term of blabber. I could be wrong, but whatevs.

You're literally just saying stuff that is irrelevant to atheism, like your first post. I don't know what you're talking about and you're over-complexifying simple stuff.

Depressed people are less good? Not sure if I understand your argument. — TiredThinker

Depression is only problematic to the extent it is an indifference or apathy to the wellness of self, thereby diminishing the importance of self-interest and self-care. Reduced or absent self-care usually leads to an indifference or numbness to self-harm. Self-harming always harms the loved ones to you; which I suspect is why people 'self-isolate' as a protective mechanism. Not wanting to inflict themselves on others.

Novelists can write things that scientists and philosophers cannot. Science explains what is real and it's mechanisms, the novelist describes and brings to light what is hidden, often missed and embedded within reality. It is the interesting difference between the skilled artist of words and the scientist that poses formulas.

I think the word "authoritatively" is doing a lot of work there. The only way this even remotely follows is if we're supposing that one can only know something "authoritatively" if one is omniscient. But that's dubious to say the least. I know its January 29th quite authoritatively, and am most decidedly not omniscient. — Seppo

I think it's just a buzzword to throw everyone off like "omniscence" having any correlation to the position of atheism. I do not care about the word in specific, because it's just put there in spite of it's irrelevancy.

What OP is really saying is that to "to deny God exists is to make a claim of knowledge that no God exists, and if this is the case, then you must be 'self-absorbed thinking you know everything because that is just your opinion, not a scientific fact' ... or whatever variation which is an obvious strawman stemming from lack of understanding.

The same talking points reworded differently. I won't even get into the solipisism aspect, because as my point just demonstrates it already started fallacious and not worth the blabber.

Science has also discovered over 5 new human genes within the human gnome that are evolving in humans to adapt and compensate. Humans as we done throughout history, are fit to adapt and develop workarounds.

A minor 'dip or flux' of observation is irrelevant to large scale studies that show human intelligence as well as human well-being is steadily increasing, slowly but surely.

Femininity and masculinity are abstract made-up constructs indoctrinated into the sexes through social paradigms.

The only thing that matters is sex. I am a sex essentialist and think the abstract concept of gender is essentially arbitrary nonsense and does not exist, that includes the masculine/feminine.

Males and females have more similarities than differences. People stuck on Christian women are wonderful and men are the be all end all viewpoints being the beginning of human existence will make arguments one sex is more ethical than the other.

But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? — TiredThinker

Making ourselves feel good inherently benefits others because it innately optimizes us to be fit to care for another being; in turn keeping the human race in motion. The crux of how the human species has survived so long is through a series of good conduct.

Depressed people for instance, often harm love ones around them without intent unless they self-isolate, which is also self-defeatist to them and that is why we strive to mitigate the effects of depression.

We can take this a step farther, and I pose you to present a scenario that consists of intentionally bad conduct where the harm does not exceed the optimization.

To deny omniscience authoritatively means to be omniscience — ucarr

This seems like a magical leap and makes no sense.

To deny omniscience authoritatively from an atheistic perspective is to deny that the claims of theism are true. It makes no direct claim to "knowing there isn't a god," but instead knowing that based off available information, we know that this specific god does not exist.

1. Yes, it's in our best interest to prolong the life of the latter man. It's a simple answer, but the reality is much more complicated. There are millions of ways to challenge this answer by introducing new variables to the equation.
2. You should refer to the existing clinical and ethical guidelines for organ transplantation. The problem of morality of organ transplantations is relatively old and incredibly complex. Luckily for us, there are guidelines that have been developed through extensive time and effort. It's very difficult to challenge them in a way that they haven't been challenged already.

I'll offer an answer that I personally find satisfactory. Why not give both men a new heart? It seems like the novelty of the transplantation described in the OP is that we can genetically modify pig hearts and offer them to the people who otherwise wouldn't receive a hearth. Sounds like a win for everyone. We should celebrate this. — pfirefry

I really appreciate you taking time to answer, I think this answer is pretty level-headed. I am not in the medical profession, so I'm not entirely familiar with all the guidelines they follow. I did read a bit of the doctors oath. What ethical theories do you fall in line with?

I guess for me, I still think both men should get a heart. I just think it rubs people the wrong way sometimes when we prolong, ignore, or increase the chance of suffering to be "fair". For example, a child dying because they were next in line behind a serial killer/rapist with no regard for human life.

What I mean, and you have read other posts in here to follow my point, is that there were and are beliefs associated with pre-linguistic man that gave rise to language. Beliefs are not restricted to language. But to have a language, necessarily involves pre-linguistic beliefs, they're foundational to language. It's like the beliefs animals have. — Sam26

And what are examples of these beliefs? How can you have a belief, or claim to have one without language? I think we have discovered that animals have non-human languages, too.

Maybe you mean that pre-linguistic languages or facts, were not understood until grammar was added to the equation?

I would say that there are pre-linguistic facts or beliefs that give rise to language. — Sam26

What do you mean by this?

I am showing you that the entire discussion is meaningless. — god must be atheist

So, just leave the thread and stop blabbering on like a supposed smart ass. What's the matter with you? You just look like a fool.

This is what I wish you will do about it: define morality. By providing positive, inclusive, and sufficiently delineating parameters.

It may be diversified, open-ended, hypothetical and imaginative, but completely meaningless. Talking about a topic from a point of view that nobody knows what it is, by way of a lack of an agreed or even approximate definition, is meaningless. — god must be atheist

Why in the world would I do that? You've said in your posts multiple times, no one knows what they're talking about regarding the principle of morality, no one knows the definition of morality, and those that have gave definitions, you find to be false and empty rhetoric. You're literally just meaninglessly bugging me.

The big deal is that you asked a question that is impossible to answer. Why ask questions that are impossible to answer? talking about them won't answer them. No way you can answer them. So what's the point of asking questions that are impossible to answer? This is a rhetorical question, this last one, not something I expect an answer to. — god must be atheist

It's not impossible to answer, there just aren't right or wrong answers to the question. It is open ended, hypothetical and imaginative not definite. The users have answered just fine. This isn't a scientific or a legal question. Just because I don't like the answers doesn't mean the question itself wasn't adequately answered.

So you're having some kind of personal issue with answering the question, what do you want me to do about it?

I don't have that definition. I doubt that you do, or that anyone else does. — god must be atheist

Then what's the point going back and forth with me and asking me to "read carefully and answer the question"? Just move on if you think so. What's the big deal?

It's not the people whom I called non-equivalent. It's the questions.

1. You asked to make a moral judgment.
2. Then you said that that is not the question.

All I ask, read it carefully, please: Define morality for me, and then we can make a moral judgment. Tell me what is moral in its essence. — god must be atheist

I still don't know what in the world you're talking about. You're asking me to read carefully, yet you didn't read my post, seemingly at all. You quote something I said that is not a question, clearly, because the actual question soon follows, as stated as so.

Then you speak in vague whatever that I don't get instead of just stating it plainly, like in the second post. You don't know the answer and don't think I do either. There are many definitions of morality and ethical systems and theories. Just use those. You're the only one that hasn't answered the post adequately, the other users have understood the assignment.

Wouldn't a language with no factual basis that is nonsensical just be a private language? It seems so.

I guess it's just what we mean by nonsense.

But look at the bigger picture, expand your horizon -- what if this happens in another situation where you are involved, or your loved ones are involved. — Caldwell

I have a brother in Prison for truly horrific reasons I won't mention, with a history of recidivism. Having grown up witness to him, I am comfortable saying he is exactly where he belongs. He is actually what inspired me to go to law school. I doubt he cares about preserving lives, or mine for that matter.

I am not saying he shouldn't get a transplant, but I am not going to argue he should be first in line or something over demonstrably better candidates with a known pattern of attentiveness to the well-being of others.

A law is a law, true. But laws can be bad, get remade, revised, and overturned. Rules are made to be broken, bent, and challenged. There is leeway and alternative.

But this is a bit off topic, I just want to know thoughts on whether or not in accordance to the various ethical systems where this type of situation would fall. I already know the legality aspect and whatever.

rationing if necessary should be decided on who is likely to have the most benefit. That is a hard enough calculation on its own without bringing in moral judgements. — unenlightened

We make these calculations then take such risks often. It's a fallible system, but I don't see how fallibility necessarily negates reliability and better outcomes from the system.

The death penalty is only fallacious and get's flack, rightfully so, because it is irreversible under a fallible system.

In the case of organ transplant, the "good patient" or "better candidate" didn't kill anyone, nor is the bad guy being denied medical treatment or a transplant.

I don't know if its me or you, or what's going on, but I just don't understand what you're asking or what the issue is, or how they are unrelated. They aren't supposed to be equivalent people.

Just use your own definition or something.

Being low income is much worse than it has to be because they have tons of kids and no access to medical care; a lot of low income problems are government based, but living low income doesn't have to be miserable and unhealthy.

I think if you are low income with no kids, you should go vegetarian. It is cheaper and more practical than veganism and meat-eating, and also reduce your food intake and look into different diets and fasting.

I am personally not low income, but I live frugally and believe in saving money. Gardening and learning how to grow my own vegetables and fruits maximizes my chances of survival if something terrible happens.

With that, fresh vegetables, grains and beans are very cheap, and sustainable for a good well-being and healthy life.

There are many resources out there for low income to make life easier. I bought a car from the junkyard for $5000 that got me through college and was $24 for a full tank that lasted over a week. I'm not some boomer either, I'm a 90's baby.

The guy spoke about Thrift Stores was also right. There is designer clothing in the Thrift Store. Just last week, I thrifted a new coat, 6 blouses, 3 pairs of new jeans for $30. Most never worn.

If you want to live like Jeff Bezos, then yes your life will suck as a low income person.

Yeah, I agree. They don't really bother me personally, but the ones the other way definitely do.

That seems like an uncalculated risk. There are knowns. The man turning into a serial killer after the fact is his own random business and to be dealt with when it comes, wouldn't you say?

I'm not really sure what you mean, but I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line".

The prolonging of their life isn't so much interesting, but instead the decision to select over another, and whether or not that is the best one to make.

I don't know. Whatever it is.

What's most interesting is the first 2 pages of this thread are entirely about sexuality and sex reproduction when answering the OP as well; not some woman's non-sexual beauty.

So why is it when a woman speaks on sex and sexuality toward the male in accordance to the OP, there is suddenly a problem and a circus of skepticism and "it's not all about sex.." unless it's a bunch of men saying it is and all of a sudden I am 'mimicing the male' because I am expressing an aspect of female sexuality. This is precisely the stifling I was talking about.

OP cleverly says, "most men watch porn," but doesn't acknowledge that many women watch gay male porn and prefer porn with no women in it; men get up in arms about this and uncomfortable, shutting this discussion down in my experience.

Everything is about sex. Sex sells. Beautiful people sell to, but only because many people want to subconsciously mate with them or be them so we can go forth and multiply easier with others - and it is much easier to fantasize non-sexually about a beautiful human because of their wonderful genes we all want to snag a piece of to go forth and multiply. All innate biological reactions like digestion.

We are sexual species; unless 'birthing hips' and 'women are all curves and men all angles," and so forth are all equally irrelevant to the OP just like my own.

You mean the same women that typically (in my experience) have a weakness or vulnerability to the female in form - and stronger tendencies to be seduced or hypnotized by a female and all her 'attractive' non-sexual beauty, to the point where they may 'experiment' (to gauge their pleasure - or - disgust) response. Ahem, exhibit A's.

Or, "in my hay day, I've tried a few women and it just didn't do it for me, something was missing... not the disgust, just the pleasure."

Sure. Very 'hetero', eh? I wish a woman would, I would file a harassment complaint like more men should be doing. Yes, not finding your sexually dimorphic counterpart more alluring in a non-sexual way visually speaking as a sexual species designed to be hypersensitive and receptive (whether we like it or not) to these specific traits of the XX and the XY, is certainly bizarre.

But I may just be biasing it with my own self. How these women are talking just doesn't compute to me.

I will say, though, that the OP was not discussing sexuality in particular, but allure: the quality of being powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating. As a woman (albeit a decade or two older), I obviously don’t find the female form distinctly ‘mysterious’ as such. My eye is, however, attracted to the potential of the female form: ie. those qualitative aspects in other women’s appearances that are suggestive of my own untapped capacity, such as fitness and strength. — Possibility

This is likely wildly personal. There is nothing attractive to me about looking at women; my eyes don't divert to them or their figures - unless you mean their cosmetics or something like that - to then it's not really about the WOMAN, but what she is doing or how she is behaving (e.g., fashion, make-up, "I want to be like her," not a part of her or within her [non-sexually penetrative or phallically speaking]) - which is more so a matter of familiarity than anything else, no different than how I gravitated toward my mother as preference of relatability, familiarity and comfort over my present good father. Yeah, sure, mom is pretty today but not because men look like shit or worse than females or something lol.

I 100x would rather watch a shirtless man chopping wood than stare at some woman at the gym workout on the treadmill. Not even because I want to have to sex with him, but just because the way men's body moves and interacts with the environment is far more interesting to look at. Hardly 'mysterious' because I can actively explain why that is - just enjoyable; probably because as someone with estrogen, I am more hypersensitive to my sexually dimorphic complimentary.

Sure I can acknowledge 'this woman is symmetrical in the face' if that's what you mean; but only when this attention is demanded of me to pay attention. I do not innately pay attention; or seek to find beauty in a female form because they are female like men do.

If you're a hetero woman that stares at other women all day; of course you'll probably have habitually conditioned yourself to prefer looking at women. But as a woman that doesn't do this, I am only sensitive to the male form in terms of being 'allured' anywhere.

As women we are bombarded with tits, ass and the female figure just as boys are as girls constantly in this society. It's no surprise most women say they prefer looking at women more.

I think this is one area where we do ourselves a disservice to mimic the limitations of the ‘male gaze’ and dismiss this attraction to our own gender on the grounds that we’re not sexually aroused by it. You’re telling Tiff that her attraction to women is sexual because it’s based on physical touch and comfort, but that doesn’t ring true for me, and I would say the same thing about men who find comfort in the sports-sanctioned physical touch of other men. Not everything is about sex.

She said herself she is physically attracted to, has be aroused by women to the point of experimenting with them [which just proved my point - women kissing other women in this clubs, etc.. are almost always sleeping with other women]; and sexist norms and nonsensical conditioning loves to devalue these interactions, but a spade is a spade. It seems she is confusing her sexual allure to the female form with aesthetical attraction [desire to be her].

Women leaving snail trails in her lap at gentlemen's club is not a behavior of hetero women and not the same as giving your bestie a hug lol.

I assure you most heterosexual women do not do this; nor enjoy it. So either this is a result of nonsensical sexist norms imposed on women to "fit in," or appease the man - or there is sexual fluidity yet to be acknowledged.

I don’t find a ‘lap-dance’ all that appealing myself, and I would actively discourage an attractive woman who thought she could entice me in this way. However, I don’t think ‘disgusted’ would be a response to the female form as such, but more to her intentions towards me, especially if she blatantly disregards my intentionality. I’d respond the same way towards a man who didn’t bother to gauge my interest, even if he were ‘objectively’ attractive. — Possibility

Sure; you just don't like lap-dances, fair enough.

Substitute "lap dance" with any type of behavior you find attractive in the male unique to his form - then picture a woman doing it.

It's going to be a large no because she is a female in form - and the female in her form elicits of revolting disgust; so you discourage her to move away. By "disgust" I do not mean vomit on yourself or gag. So long as the pursuer is male in form he is eligible or has the capacity to elicit pleasure within you that is entirely absent when it comes to another woman.

It doesn't have to be sexual in nature, but acknowledgment of these capacities and complimentary attributes are exactly what I am speaking of.

Men want everyone to hop on the bandwagon and just agree women are more beautiful or something like that; but I will push back on this because this is a very male centric way of thinking and women are used to just 'agreeing' with it - because it must be true and the way; just because its a dominant influence within our lives.

You really find male voices overpowering and intimidating? I am asking because when I eat out in a busy restaurant, for example, what I tend to hear is female voices. Or perhaps men are instinctively more receptive to female voices and vice versa. But I admit that some men can be very loud and even sound or actually become aggressive when they've had too much to drink. — Apollodorus

Male voices are deeper and heavier than women voices. Unless the woman is literally screaming in 'high energy banter' and the men are practically speaking in low voices which is probably what you are hearing; feminine vocal tones are almost always drowned out by male voices easy.

Men listen to other men more and will completely ignore the soft-spoken feminine voice whistling in the corner unless she adopts a more assertive and masculine communication style; and even then there is still no assurance you will even be "heard".

But sure, pipe down guys, the woman is speaking - says the man with the stronger voice that allows women to interject. I get this a lot.

Incidentally, you mention "male form" and "male beauty". How much of this would you say is physical and how important is it in comparison with other forms of beauty and/or attractiveness? — Apollodorus

It is entirely physical. Women are not blind; but as I said hypersensitive to the male form - which is paradoxically what contributes to the female choosiness (off/on) switching you see. A male can be everything; but she may not like his smell - and her blood suddenly runs cold.

"Physical" doesn't mean arms and kneecaps; it means that which is innately male - or unique to the Y chromosome. Male traits - vocal octaves and tones, male pheromones, the male gait - yes the male gait is attractive; when it protrudes his chest and walks confidently in a masculine manner - he could not have a dime to his name; but women still SEE this man - and thus react/respond.

You could say "money and status" but I stress this is not really an element of female sexuality. This female sexuality when it is suspended and rationality applied. Unless it's some weird kink, not a single woman would be aroused by 'money'.

Also, you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking on issues of sexuality and you are saying some interesting things.

I am speaking of sex and sexuality; but it is not ABOUT sex.

The point I am making is the reason the female form is 'obsessed over' is not because it is more 'beautiful' than the male; but because the female form SUCCEEDS in preying on the opposite sexes vulnerability to the female form - by bias - to favor it above the males; thus elicit behaviors, innate motivations to act, and other - onto the male NOT because this is absent in the female or that the female cannot 'obsess' over the male form too.

May I ask if all these are your own ideas or how did you come to hold these views and when? Has philosophy had any influence on any of this or is there no relation?

Sex, aesthetics, beauty, etc.. are all tied into ethics. It has a lot to do with philosophy.

If only men were receptive and not oblivious to it, though.

Personally, in my experience within straight male circles they virtually never talk about tits and ass. It would be a very strange topic to bring up around a group of men. — K Turner

Of course they don't; because they spend all their days openly and overtly expressing their attraction to tits, ass, and desire through their innate social dominance of media, even in intimate co-ed sex groups, and all the way down to walking the streets of an inner city through catcall and cold approaches to men actively and directly say what on your body is most attractive; all the way down to sexualization of puffed facial lips when the woman is covered.

Why they spend their "off-time" also talking about tits/ass? Meanwhile, we can take a poll on how many women have leered and discreetly, and selflessly, admired the male form in all it's beauty - with high numbers from the women that is not readily observable and reflective in reality - and even more so diminished due to utter insensitivity to the female expressing admiration to the male form because male sexuality, sensuality, and what is desirable dominates.

And I stress it is not because men are 'more weak to women,' and cannot resist because the woman is 'so much more beautiful than ugly men', which is lazy at best - but because the woman also has this vulnerability to have her discernment suspended under the guise of the testosterone-heavy phenotypically distinct and sexually dimorphic male.

Here we see reverse with men/women. Women are more discreet; and let their hair down in the privacy (typically) or amongst other women with little male presence.

Yes, there are loud raunchy women that adopt more overly sexual and vulgar communication styles in mixed-sex/co-ed groups where there are both men and women because they must adopt more masculine communication styles in order to be noticed; not necessary "heard". But noticed in a way that is satisfactory and productive.

I think that's really cool and brave of you, but -- and I'm sure you're aware of this -- some men are almost certainly going to take it as a sexual come-on or an indicator that you're sexually available. — K Turner

Men cannot make distinctions because of otherwise, poor ability to read the room (or read a heterosexual woman). This is the meme and talk of the town; women are not mysterious. It is just through years of societal conditioning that has repressed and devalued authentic female sexuality as 'uninteresting' or 'not like the man's; so she is not sexually interested,' without literally stripping naked in front of him. Just like not a single man will watch the movie I posted because; "looks too soft," and "not for me, just for women,".

And that the stripper is to be the actuality and the reality of the woman in her senusous element - to which we've seen women mold and adapt more readily to the societal climate of 'sexuality' to be noticed sexually by men because they are not sensitive to what it is like (or looks like) to be subjected to the female gaze.

I stress, though, society would look entirely different in female sexuality was allowed to reign free AND men were conditioned to react - and respond to it.

I get that. I was just curious how talking about women comes to evoke a feeling of "disgust". But, as you say, it doesn't matter.

It no different to men that feel disgust and revulsion/aversion to evoke subject change when a group of women talk about and discuss the male body in a sensuous, attractive, or arousing manner, even if not "sexual".

The internet does not count. I mean in male dominant spaces; discussing the male form and figure in an appreciative manner that speaks directly to female sexual interest and arousal. If you want to see what actual female sexuality is like under the gaze of the woman, I would watch the movie Portrait of a Lady on Fire; which was made precisely to expose men to this phenomena; so absent in modern culture most men can't even autistically tell when a woman is sexually attracted to them or not. Or most importantly, whether a woman is allowed to be sensuous in her element because she is aroused by the desire in which her body is reacting off from her man that evokes this within her - or simply 'dancing at men for gains' in an asexual fashion to appease the man because men are conditioned to be utterly insensitive, thus oblivious to the senusous or sexual female expressing selfless desire toward the male.

I have no qualms with this movie as it depicts the intensity of female desire (regardless toward another female - nonetheless, applies to men as well). Most men are oblivious to female sexuality, and allowing it into more spaces by implication helps the man - instead of falling back on useless statistics and pragmatic heuristics, 'she doesn't respond like a man would, she must not like men,' ..



Most women don't want to sit around a bunch of men talking about tits, curvy-figures and asses all day unless we are getting an ego-boost or being flattered ourselves. ONLY if we are attracted to the said man in question; do such compliments appease female sexuality or have any effect.

We sit around and tolerate it, or either jump on the bang-wagon "yeah, I agree," hence higher agreeableness in women, to reduce conflict and resistance from the men in question. Not because 'women are more beautiful than men because men are ugly' or whatever. Recognize this blind spot. The reality is most hetero women do go around daydreaming about a beautiful curvy woman just because they put up with the discussions; they dream about square angular males.

The agreeableness of women and the lack of interest, desire and intimidation to compete with the robust social dominance of men - even down to the very fact that men have more powerful and louder vocal cords, is largely absent in women, but doesn't in any way imply women enjoy discussing other women as a preference relative to the male form and her love for male beauty.

Most women want to come off as not being 'unfeminine' talking about their desires a certain way in the presence of males, but obviously I don't care two hoots about that.

Male blind spots are common in this sort of thing, and just heavily reflective everywhere. Estrogen-heavy women have no interest shouting over a group of males about the beautiful aesthetic of a large penis, but will gladly do so amongst women to where there is no competition, maliciousness, stifling, aversion or hostility to the female expression of sexual desire and enjoyment.

Not only is the male form and giant veiny phalluses that erupt semen the most beautiful display to ever throb it's way into one's daydreams and fantasies, it is more preferred to that of some female 'hip sway'.

Miss me with all the men that'll poor in going 'ew, no thanks, that's too much info, how dare you be a heterosexual woman and talk about lickable chiseled male V's, male thunder thighs, and throbbing apendanges in my presence' at this comment while ranting on about big ass, curvy figures, and their obsession with the female form that erectifies their penis so large it throws them into another realm.

I would say it would depend on how we define "attractive". On an "attractiveness-repulsion" scale you may have aesthetic appreciation, sexual appeal, disgust, etc. I would imagine it rather difficult for someone who has an aesthetic appreciation of physical beauty to find a well-proportioned body - any body, male or female - "disgusting". — Apollodorus

This male-thinking. It is not difficult at all to separate aesthetics from sexually stimulating.

Someone that looks like Chris Hemsworth can be aesthetically pleasing and demonstrably 'perceived' as being a sexual being - but still elicit repulsion and disgust when sexual arousal and sexual interest is into play - hence bad sexual chemistry. Aesthetically-pleasing women are disgusting to think about sexually because I would not want another woman's fluids in my mouth. It's really that simple.

Men that admire aesthetically-pleasing built men don't want to perform oral sex on them, kiss up and down their body. Beauty and sexual attraction overlap for men probably because of testosterone, but not for women that tend to be more discriminate and choosy.

This typically doesn't do it for women. You will never find a woman flicking it to an 'aesthetically pleasing' male picture.

After all, the women we were talking about were talking about other women, not having them dancing on their laps. So, maybe you are exaggerating a bit.

It doesn't matter. There is nothing attractive to me about the female form. I gloss right over it and have never thought another woman was 'beautiful' in a way that is indistinguishable from finding a chair or a wall with paint splashed on it beautiful.

The male form is much more pleasing to look as a preference because it elicits reactions beyond that of mere aesthetics unless he is subjectively ugly.

For hetero women, a beautiful female form is no different from looking at a pretty wall. For hetero men, a beautiful female elicits a response beyond mere aesthetic attraction.

But, in the final analysis, the real problem seems to be communication. If men and women are so different in the ways they think, feel, act, and experience everything, and conceal everything behind a wall of awkward silence, external appearances and social rituals, then how do you establish communication in any meaningful way, in the first place? — Apollodorus

Men and women are not that different. They just aren't identical. The point of my post is saying just this. Women and men are not identical due to physiological distinctions that have affects; but they are not of differentiation in kind.

Establishing effective communication is easy and being done by everyone without a listening problem.

I really don't like making personal judgments, but based off this information, it seems you have some conflicting statements that need to be sorted out.

If women are turning you on, you have "tried" with other women, and enjoy cuddling up with another female, you are definitely sexually fluid and/or bi-curious/bisexual. Not being "enough" for you does not mean you do not like women; it just means you prefer men as the strongest preference.

Sexist nonsense has conditioned society to view this tendency in women as 'harmless' and 'less gay' or indicators of sexual interest than in males because of the devaluing of female/female relationships and intimacy. If you were a male, flags would go up everywhere. A sane man that is not sexist you are involved with would certainly have an issue with his self-proclaimed 'hetero' spouse cuddling naked with a female friend that "just doesn't do enough for you" but you enjoy how she feels.

You may not be biromantic or romantically interested in women, but sounds like when you "tried" you just met a woman you had no chemistry with. Lack of sexual chemistry does not mean you do not like women, just like bad sex with a man does not mean a woman is a lesbian.

Hetero women are not interested in women physically and do not get turned on by them. It's not that women aren't enough, it's that they aren't eligible or interesting considerations period.

Sounds like some secret yoga posture we haven't heard of yet :grin:

But the notion of most heterosexual women having "a disgust response talking about other women" seems a bit exaggerated to me. — Apollodorus

It is not exaggerated when talking about sexuality and not mere aesthetics. Aesthetically wise, to a hetero woman, an 'attractive female body' is no different from a pound of garbage assembled to symmetrically to elicit something we call 'good art'.

But sexuality is far more brutal than 'art' and 'aesthetics', and sexuality is much more ruthless, and disgustingly the most pleasurable of sensations on earth, beyond that of a pile of two carefully symmetrically garbage piles we call breasts.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of male blind-spots and laziness.

The women that don't have a disgust response to the action of feeling up another woman's sensuous smooth curves are called bi-curious, sexually fluid, or bisexual - due to societal norms the impact of this is severely lessened. Just because the response is that of disgust doesn't mean it is rude or lacks tact. We can argue all day whether or not sexuality fluidity is more prominent among women than men, but let's not call bi-curious women heterosexual.

Yes, a naked objectively attractive woman lap-dancing on my lap with the intent to sexually arouse will trigger a disgust and strong aversion response which is why I will push her out of my lap; a male in which I am attracted to will not.

A man doing such behaviors to another man is certainly perceived as gay, a woman kissing another woman at a bar is supposedly not perceived as a gay act for some reason, but it certainly is. Many of these women at these bars that kiss other women and lap-dancing on each other in clubs have slept with more women than the average man that merely fantasizes. How do I know this? Because I am a woman.

Sexuality lingers on a disgust and pleasure dichotomy or axis; and it doesn't have to be overt in nature.

I suppose there is a certain degree of competitiveness, jealousy, and envy. However, I think it would depend on how competitive, jealous, or envious the women involved are, on who the "other women" they are talking about are and in what context, etc.

It has nothing to do with that. The female body is not 'attractive' to other women except in the minds of men that project their sexualities onto women. A heterosexual female is aroused only by the male body and the male form.

Men that are lazy and do not care about female sexuality use money to attract women that aren't even sexually into them. It is actually easy for men to earn money than actively attempt to be sexually appetizing to women and appease her sexual nature.

Most women don't want to fuck old men with money but will surely do so for the money alone. The male being actually sexually attractive to her or appeasing her female sexuality is up in the air and often being neglected.

But I agree that broad shoulders, strong arms, and "masculine" voice are probably a factor in male attractiveness to women, which is only natural, even though women may not openly admit it.

Not probably. They are. It is a fact that healthy fertile women are turned on the male body and would love to see and hear more of it.

"Boyfriend" ASMR (men recording their voices) is VERY popular among young women for a reason, and more than enough to stimulate sexual arousal and sexual response.

A woman in a bikini always elicits a strong response from men and even non-gay women as well. — Maximum7

This is just a lazy male blind-spot. It's cute men think a bunch of amateur sex workers in hooker clothing are actually sexually aroused by this and into the men they do it for. Many of these women are doing it precisely to men not for men; but parading around like a hooker isn't necessarily 'female sexuality' or the female sexually enjoying herself - she is not in a high state of sexual arousal or sexual attraction. She is just extorting attention for gains; she is emotionally detached and in a business-like state of mind - some of these women aren't even heterosexual. Walking around naked or skimpy is not female sexuality.

A woman dancing for her man (attached or not) to feel desired by this man is an active stimulus to female sexuality, but is much different than a stripper sliding down a pole for a bunch of random sexually uninteresting men that don't care about female sexuality at all, but get their rocks off fantasizing she is on the same page.

Actual female sexuality reacts to the male and wants to react - not calculatingly 'extort him'. Female sexuality does not work like male sexuality. Just because female sexuality is different doesn't mean heterosexual women want to look at gross female bodies over a man's. My best friend and I have been talking amongst ourselves about all the sexy men and hot bods in the Olympics and their dick prints just today; but what men want to listen to this? Zero. Women talk amongst themselves in privacy.

Women have very heightened sensitivity to the male form and the male stimulus or 'masculinity', which is why they are paradoxically so picky as the sex that must choose the right male in a group of many male suitors - when it comes to men - for the female, she hypersensitive due to over-stimulus, under-stimulus and just right stimulus, and tempermental like the serpent, but most men don't take advantage of the female weakness to self-regulate her cool blood by moving to the hottest side of the tank - instead most males neglect the male form by being lazy and poorly groomed, so they assume they are all ugly to women. The truth is the average man is an NPC to most women; not because he is ugly but because he doesn't work to appease female sexuality which is more than just visual 2D pics of dicks.

Any woman can be seduced by any kind of man. Doesn't matter what he looks like unless he is seriously grotesque. The most seductive men have women always at the arm with no power, no social status, sleeps on her couch and has no money to their name; but they do have nice muscles and a seductive way in which they move around the room and navigate.

Because they know how women work; he can seduce a woman from her husband with just the right words and drop of vocal octave that speaks directly to clitoris, thus becomes her 'lover'. Most average men are too lazy to appease the female sexuality, so it remains "dormant" to all women aside from male outliers, who obviously, are most successful. You then see a more assertive aspect of female sexuality to which she pursues, approaches, and overtly displays herself sexually for him to be taken with very little barrier. If a woman isn't assertively sexually into you and jumping your bones, it's because she's not attracted YOU (not 'men in general') and doesn't feel comfortable. It's that simple.

The physical man's body is most beautiful when in movement and in action; not stuck on paper in a photograph. This is why women say "they don't care for muscles," but fawn over them in public by giving nice biceps a squeeze. Men definitely look better.

Male bodies are most attractive to women in movement because they are built for utility, and the muscles and connections/tendons are put to work and can be observed, unlike the female form that can display "what it's for," by just looking at it.

Male form is at it's best when wielding a hammer, shuffling his hips on the dancefloor to simulate sensual strokes, or holding on to his broad shoulders when your legs are pinned behind your head and his deep testosterone-heavy voice is whispering sweet nothings in your ear.

Most heterosexual women I know actually have a disgust response talking about other women.

What really happens is hypermasculinity stifles female sexuality to enjoy the female form; because showing off too many attractive men (that may socialize women) to be more appreciative would be "too gay" or "gay as fuck" and make men uncomfortable. Women are not more beautiful and gross - but we tolerate this because men shutdown appreciative feminine appreciation toward the male form due to discomfort or making males uncomfortable in the room, so we talk amongst other women and female friends in privacy; every single healthy fertile female in her 20's talks about male bodies and penis, and I surely think about sex with men multiple times a day. By the agreeable nature of women, we are not going to compete with a bunch of males talking about tits and ass to discuss attractive males.

Definitely agree. I mean what is the point to all these 130 pounds of flesh, organs and systems. There has to be an easier way to get nourishment and oxygen to the brain then all this other useless and impractical ways.

Wake me up when we're cyborgs.