QOTW New Years's Eve 2008

Off Topic
101

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.[/quote]

Bullshit. You don’t like them maybe and not everybody does. But they stand the test of time because they had true talent and made music people then and now can connect with. No product is liked by everybody, but common popularity tends to indicate a well liked product, not peer pressure. And most “kids these days” think that stuff is gay anyways. It isn’t 30 seconds to mars, emo or what ever. It is their parents music.

All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

You are still just putting out a theory you read after being converted to laymens terms and I would wager it’s one you don’t understand except for the explanation the authors gave you in justifying their own theory in order to be published and sell themselves to the scientific community.

What did they study, how, who was the control, what were the variances, what parallel evidence supports their theory, what studies support their study etc.

Reading psychology mags is fun, but the ones you have access to and understand are for entertainment just the same as newsweek, starz etc.

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

102

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.[/quote]

Ideal bodies are not marketed. They are enjoyed so they are put out to be viewed. They are bought with out much advertising. Because people like the “ideal”, not because they are fitting in.

As demonstrated by the greeks and romans. They didn’t have MTV or Beyonce. You can trace specific ideals through history and all of it’s temporary trends.

103

[quote].

You find it weird he wears make up but not that supposedly straight dudes who find women as muscular as dudes attractive?

Hypocritical a bit.

Seriously. No sarcasm here. [/quote]

Weren’t you also the one who said women should only be strong enough to carry the grocery bags in? And that any form of musculature showing a presence of more strength than that immediately made them unattractive to you and should seem so to everyone else for fear of making a man obsolete?

104

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

[/quote]

Bullshit. Ever seen chia pets?

105

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.

Bullshit. You don’t like them maybe and not everybody does. But they stand the test of time because they had true talent and made music people then and now can connect with. No product is liked by everybody, but common popularity tends to indicate a well liked product, not peer pressure. And most “kids these days” think that stuff is gay anyways. It isn’t 30 seconds to mars, emo or what ever. It is their parents music.

All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

You are still just putting out a theory you read after being converted to laymens terms and I would wager it’s one you don’t understand except for the explanation the authors gave you in justifying their own theory in order to be published and sell themselves to the scientific community.

What did they study, how, who was the control, what were the variances, what parallel evidence supports their theory, what studies support their study etc.

Reading psychology mags is fun, but the ones you have access to and understand are for entertainment just the same as newsweek, starz etc.

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

[/quote]

You’re an idiot.

106

The “ideal” body type for both women and men is constantly changing according to current trends in our society. I put ideal in quotations because most of the time it is in fact not ideal. I watched a documentary a couple of years ago about how toy figures, both male and female, changed very dramatically over time.

Back in the days of action movies with Stallone, Schwarzenegger, etc, you had action figures that looked like Flex Wheeler. Nowadays you have GI Joes that look like an Abercrombie model.

The same example applies for the dolls that girls play with. Original barbie dolls had fuller thighs, breasts, and higher hip to wait ratio. Take a look at some of the toys that girls like now. I saw a commercial for “Bratz”, they looked like a bunch of hookers with pipe-cleaner arms and legs.

Whats in right now: skinny, bones, abs
Whats not in right now: muscles, curves

I think it’s all ass-backwards. Women love men with big muscles. Guys love women with large breasts, hips, thickness. It’s biologically hard-wired into our brains that the above qualities are associated with healthy offspring. But for both men and women, you have to work hard to look like that.

On the other hand it’s easier to be skinny, carry almost no muscle, simply by not eating or exercising. The only reason society likes these current body images is because of the influence of media and celebrities.

107

Reading formerlytexasguys posts feels like reading youtube comments…

108

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Reading formerlytexasguys posts feels like reading youtube comments…
[/quote]

Oh SNAP! :wink:

109

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Reading formerlytexasguys posts feels like reading youtube comments…

Oh SNAP! ;)[/quote]

OH, NO HE DI’NT!!

110

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

Bullshit. Ever seen chia pets?[/quote]

which are apparently as beneficial as flax seeds, who knew?

111

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
There is a reason Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Rolling Stones etc are still popular, mulitple generations later. ANd it isn’t teens trying to be like their parents for sure.

The reason is marketing…those groups you mention are shoved down our throats until any self-respecting adult should say, ‘fuck this…if I hear Won’t Get Fooled Again one more fucking time I’ll blow my goddam brains out’…

It’s just like ‘ideal’ bodies are marketed.

Bullshit. You don’t like them maybe and not everybody does. But they stand the test of time because they had true talent and made music people then and now can connect with.

No product is liked by everybody, but common popularity tends to indicate a well liked product, not peer pressure. And most “kids these days” think that stuff is gay anyways. It isn’t 30 seconds to mars, emo or what ever. It is their parents music.

All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

You are still just putting out a theory you read after being converted to laymens terms and I would wager it’s one you don’t understand except for the explanation the authors gave you in justifying their own theory in order to be published and sell themselves to the scientific community.

What did they study, how, who was the control, what were the variances, what parallel evidence supports their theory, what studies support their study etc.

Reading psychology mags is fun, but the ones you have access to and understand are for entertainment just the same as newsweek, starz etc.

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

You’re an idiot.[/quote]

Haha, well there!

112

[quote]harryhoudini wrote:
.

You find it weird he wears make up but not that supposedly straight dudes who find women as muscular as dudes attractive?

Hypocritical a bit.

Seriously. No sarcasm here.

Weren’t you also the one who said women should only be strong enough to carry the grocery bags in? And that any form of musculature showing a presence of more strength than that immediately made them unattractive to you and should seem so to everyone else for fear of making a man obsolete? [/quote]

No.

113

[quote]power_bulker wrote:
The “ideal” body type for both women and men is constantly changing according to current trends in our society. I put ideal in quotations because most of the time it is in fact not ideal. I watched a documentary a couple of years ago about how toy figures, both male and female, changed very dramatically over time.

Back in the days of action movies with Stallone, Schwarzenegger, etc, you had action figures that looked like Flex Wheeler. Nowadays you have GI Joes that look like an Abercrombie model.

The same example applies for the dolls that girls play with. Original barbie dolls had fuller thighs, breasts, and higher hip to wait ratio. Take a look at some of the toys that girls like now. I saw a commercial for “Bratz”, they looked like a bunch of hookers with pipe-cleaner arms and legs.

Whats in right now: skinny, bones, abs
Whats not in right now: muscles, curves

I think it’s all ass-backwards. Women love men with big muscles. Guys love women with large breasts, hips, thickness. It’s biologically hard-wired into our brains that the above qualities are associated with healthy offspring. But for both men and women, you have to work hard to look like that.

On the other hand it’s easier to be skinny, carry almost no muscle, simply by not eating or exercising. The only reason society likes these current body images is because of the influence of media and celebrities.

[/quote]

The trendy body type maybe, but not the ideal.

114

[quote]sen say wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
All the marketing in the world won’t sell a can of diarrhea to a mass audience.

Bullshit. Ever seen chia pets?[/quote]

Yes. Nobody bought chia pets because they were “fitting in”. Ridiculous.

You remind me of an “anti-conformity” high schooler with no grasp on how things really work.

Anti Flag forever!

115

[quote]John S. wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Vicomte wrote:

And possibly the most important thing I’m saying is that just because something seems strange doesn’t mean it isn’t backed by something solid. Who knows, maybe hawt abs boy will save us all one day. Or make-up guy.

You heard it here.

This is our SALVATION.

For the record, I look nothing like that ponce.

I’m special. Like a snowflake.

I recommend Army Infantry for you, Lets see how long you like wearing makeup after Benning gets done with you.[/quote]

I’m not sure any amount of military training will shift my preferences toward my appearance.

It’s not like I’m going to show up to basic in drag. If you insist on being ridiculous, try not to take yourself so seriously.

116

People will always assume that what they believe is right in the absolute. You can blame the media, marketing, indolence and decadence, or whatever, but in the end it is all about what people like. Different people like different things.

For every person who likes a full-figured, voluptuous woman you’re going to have one who likes a skinny ballerina-type. For every woman who likes a muscular, strong man you’ll have one who likes a slight, wiry dude. It’s when you assert that whatever you are or like is the only right that we have problems, because that’s just fucking stupid.

Just because some guy thinks your girl is fat, or some girl rejected you because you lift weights, doesn’t mean things are all fucked up.

And the hard-wired biological preference for certain characteristics that we always hear about is obviously not that telling, or we wouldn’t have people(lots of people, apparently) with opposing preferences. If we are programmed to like things by our biology, then any amount of mental conditioning wouldn’t change that.

Humans have gotten to where they are using their brains, not their muscles. As a society, we have far less use for physical strength now than we ever have, so wouldn’t it make sense that a less muscular physique would be in demand? We have more food than we can ever eat, so wouldn’t it make sense that skinnier women would be in demand?

If our preferences our indeed driven by biology, and therefore by prudence in selection of a mate based on our current environmental conditions, then what the media is feeding us right now is exactly what we should be wanting.

But it’s not that simple, because we have choices, rather than being simply ruled by our biology and the suggestions of others.

All the bullshit in this thread seems to be from people trying to justify why no one else seems to appreciate what they do. They just don’t. And they’re not wrong.

117

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

[/quote]

So does that mean that when something becomes “fact” it’s different than when it was just a theory? Is there some magical transformation?

118

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
harryhoudini wrote:
.

You find it weird he wears make up but not that supposedly straight dudes who find women as muscular as dudes attractive?

Hypocritical a bit.

Seriously. No sarcasm here.

Weren’t you also the one who said women should only be strong enough to carry the grocery bags in? And that any form of musculature showing a presence of more strength than that immediately made them unattractive to you and should seem so to everyone else for fear of making a man obsolete?

No. [/quote]

My bad there, then. Sorry 'bout that. Must’ve been Sickabz.

119

[quote]chimera182 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

And until a theory is a fact it doesn’t hold much water.

So does that mean that when something becomes “fact” it’s different than when it was just a theory? Is there some magical transformation?
[/quote]

A fact is a proven theory.

Most theories fall by the way side because they are never proven. Because they are not true. End of story.

It is simple really.

120

[quote]harryhoudini wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
harryhoudini wrote:
.

You find it weird he wears make up but not that supposedly straight dudes who find women as muscular as dudes attractive?

Hypocritical a bit.

Seriously. No sarcasm here.

Weren’t you also the one who said women should only be strong enough to carry the grocery bags in? And that any form of musculature showing a presence of more strength than that immediately made them unattractive to you and should seem so to everyone else for fear of making a man obsolete?

No.

My bad there, then. Sorry 'bout that. Must’ve been Sickabz.
[/quote]

It’s ok.

It was PCH2, being sarcastic. And he still can’t chop my boards.

I did say I found it strange men are attracted to typcially masculine qualities in women and I do, but not as extreme as that guy’s sarcasm.