Question for the Ladies, Men Can Answer as well if they want to

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You do not need to look fully like a woman to reap the benefits of neotneous cues. Obviously they will not be as strong as a typical woman.

I frequent some female incel subs, mainly to study their psychology. Some of them report to having very non-neotenous features and even being honestly mistaken for trans on occasion. They report to men around them being more rough with them and even expecting them to do some heavy lifting and whatnot. Still, I doubt they're ever treated the same as a typical man.

Neotonous cues sounds like masculine features and feminine features are always distinct to a certain extent, which means that there is some sort of symmetry to one degree or another between appearence and anatomy. You saying things like obviously they arent as strong as a typical woman and arent treated the same as a typical man implies that gender as a functional concept is an appearence and anatomy that matches each other. A doctor saying that gender is about perception of oneself not how you look like or your anatomy doesnt debunk what i said. its like how a relationship instead of friendship is biologically driven by reproduction even though that doesnt define a healthy relationship and isnt even the motive of it and in essence attraction is just someone you can relate to and things like that (its office its defined by the qualities of a friend-functions like a friendship too, with a connection to sexuality but not the intention, by definition).

Typical man or typical woman is an example of not everything has an absolute definition.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Often looked down more on. Which is sexist and sad. Although evolutionary understandable. There is a toxic element of man that wants to control reproductive lives of women. The over protective father who focuses on the daughter yet is less controlling of their sons.

Which is why I do not really understand the term womanizing for a man. Because from my limited knowledge of it, it's kind of a put down for a man. Which seems a little strange. Still, a sex repressed culture hits men too. Womanzier might have more of a jealous origin too it, idk.. lol.

I dont believe in evolution so i dont agree with what you said.

I think what you mentioned is looked down upon for the same reason homophobia is more common in men than in women-gender as a functional concept is technically about a combination of matching appearence and anatomy

There is no put down equivalent for a woman, and I dont think its strange. Women are given more of a pass for using the B and C word to women, and white people telling black jokes has a certain wierdness that other forms of ethnic jokes dont, because they typically demean peoples looks.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Neotonous cues sounds like masculine features and feminine features are always distinct to a certain extent, which means that there is some sort of symmetry to one degree or another between appearence and anatomy. You saying things like obviously they arent as strong as a typical woman and arent treated the same as a typical man implies that gender as a functional concept is an appearence and anatomy that matches each other. A doctor saying that gender is about perception of oneself not how you look like or your anatomy doesnt debunk what i said. its like how a relationship instead of friendship is biologically driven by reproduction even though that doesnt define a healthy relationship and isnt even the motive of it and in essence attraction is just someone you can relate to and things like that (its office its defined by the qualities of a friend-functions like a friendship too, with a connection to sexuality but not the intention, by definition).

Typical man or typical woman is an example of not everything has an absolute definition.

Well it gives pause about how the brain perceives men and women. There might not always be some psychological flag of "feminine" and "masculine" but instead simply neutral neotenous cues. Still, when you factor in other things like sexual and romantic attraction women have for men and vice versa you get a picture of something masculine and feminine. Things might not always be clear cut , but I still think viewing everything as socially constructed majorly misses the mark.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I dont believe in evolution so i dont agree with what you said.

Sadly that is going to really limit your perspective on things. Can you at least jive with the idea that God for whatever reason decided to give women more childlike features than men on average? Lol.

There is no put down equivalent for a woman, and I dont think its strange.

What do you mean there isn't a put down? Women are mocked for sleeping around with too many women all the time. Sadly I can't say the words here.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Sadly that is going to really limit your perspective on things. Can you at least jive with the idea that God for whatever reason decided to give women more childlike features than men on average? Lol.



What do you mean there isn't a put down? Women are mocked for sleeping around with too many women all the time. Sadly I can't say the words here.
Women by definition have more childlike features than men on average. Even the ones that dont (or men with neotonous featues) have somewhat of an appearence that matches their anatomy.

Women are mocked but they arent treated like ojbectifiers.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Women by definition have more childlike features than men on average. Even the ones that dont (or men with neotonous featues) have somewhat of an appearence that matches their anatomy.

Well, at least you have that going.

Women are mocked but they arent treated like ojbectifiers.

Yeah, they're given less agency. Which can be good or bad depending on the circumstance. Women do objectify men (even if often different than men) and it should be called out on too.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well it gives pause about how the brain perceives men and women. There might not always be some psychological flag of "feminine" and "masculine" but instead simply neutral neotenous cues. Still, when you factor in other things like sexual and romantic attraction women have for men and vice versa you get a picture of something masculine and feminine. Things might not always be clear cut , but I still think viewing everything as socially constructed majorly misses the mark.

Liberals or progressives view gender as a social construct.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Liberals or progressives view gender as a social construct.

They tend to lean that way, not all though. The same as people valuing evolutionary psychology are not all right wingers. I consider myself a progressive even if most other people who call themselves progressives would probably hate my guts, lol.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well, at least you have that going.



Yeah, they're given less agency. Which can be good or bad depending on the circumstance. Women do objectify men (even if often different than men) and it should be called out on too.

That its different from men supports what I said about both men and women have appearance that matches their anatomy. I dont literally agree with the doctor who said about transgenderism that gender isnt about anatomy or what you look like but how you perceive yourself. Its true to a degree what he said but the opposite, in terms of technicalities, isnt false. Your post, "Well, at least you have that going." agrees with what I said.
 
Upvote 0

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That its different from men supports what I said about both men and women have appearance that matches their anatomy. I dont literally agree with the doctor who said about transgenderism that gender isnt about anatomy or what you look like but how you perceive yourself. Its true to a degree what he said but the opposite, in terms of technicalities, isnt false. Your post, "Well, at least you have that going." agrees with what I said.

I am not quite sure I know what you are talking about. As far as transgender people are concerned the theory (of sane progressives at least) is that trans people have brain structures more like the gender they claim to be. Like I said in my posts way back, what evolved on the outside probably had an effect on what evolved on the inside. Is what on the inside is more shallow than the outside and the extent the inside matters is up to personal interpretation and I respect conservatives who think differently. Part of the reason I do not get along with many progressives.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I am not quite sure I know what you are talking about. As far as transgender people are concerned the theory (of sane progressives at least) is that trans people have brain structures more like the gender they claim to be. Like I said in my posts way back, what evolved on the outside probably had an effect on what evolved on the inside. Is what on the inside is more shallow than the outside and the extent the inside matters is up to personal interpretation and I respect conservatives who think differently. Part of the reason I do not get along with many progressives.

What I mean is like, a person who looks trangender looks like a person born a man or woman (masculine or feminine features) but those features are blurred in a subtle and minute but wierd way.

Gender as a functional comment is appearence and anatomy

Gotquestions.org said andrognynous behavior draws undue attention to gender. Do you think it simply means that it draws undue attention to whats off limits, or its like when people brag bout people they know they not only worship other people but draw undue attention to other people, meaning since there is a privacy standard being in Gods image, its annoying and akin gossip.

Meaning similar to spirits being having grammatical gender or gender because gender is more than anatomy, drawing undue attention to who one as a person is like some cousin of gossip?
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Sadly that is going to really limit your perspective on things. Can you at least jive with the idea that God for whatever reason decided to give women more childlike features than men on average? Lol.



What do you mean there isn't a put down? Women are mocked for sleeping around with too many women all the time. Sadly I can't say the words here.
God is masculine, not feminine
Teaching methods that derive from false religion is paving the way for one of the biggest deceptions in our world today. This is the lie that God is not only male but female. Some people are even re-writing Bibles and replacing the word ‘he’ (when referring to God)with she. This is an abomination! When God created Adam He created him in His (God’s) image. Genesis 1:25: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… The reason God created woman from Adam’s rib and did not create her exactly the same way as Adam is so there would be no confusion about God and His masculinity. Man was created in the image of God then woman was formed from man. Woman was formed from man’s rib, but was created to be different in gender. Man is a masculine being, and woman a feminine one. When God finished creating man and woman their gender difference became complete. One gender is not both. Note: I understand there are people who have been born with what appeared to be both male and female organs which were not completely developed (hermaphrodites), however, this was not God’s original plan for them. When God originally created man and woman they were not created with only part of their sexual organs, their organs were completely developed. We live in a sinful world and birth defects are the result of that sin. Not all, but many birth defects are due to things such as: incest in generations past; or even medication and illegal drugs taken during pregnancy. Although some people are born with the appearance of both genders upon further examination doctors areable to determine which gender they really are. Woman was created by God but she was formed from man who is created in God’s image. Woman is created in God’s image but not directly. Though God loves men and women both the same, women were created separately to show God’s image is masculine! Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; [male] and [female] created he them. God is showing us in this verse that yes He is the creator of both male and female but He did not create them the same way or at the same time. Genesis 2:20-22: And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Scripture shows a definite distinction between male and female. God is not calling man and woman the same gender he is showing us that He created both and that both are unique in their own way. The above scripture (Genesis 1:27) says that God created man in his own image; then the verse is separate to let us know that he is the creator of both man and woman. They are not one in the same but two different genders. Two different genders are what make a family unit. Together they conceive children. Genesis 1:28: And God blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth… Something that two people who are the same gender cannot do is conceive a child together. The purpose of the family is to replenish the earth and the only way two people in a homosexual relationship can do this is to depend on others to do it for them. This alone should prove to them that they are out of Godly order and that God will not and does not bless a homosexual relationship, or marriage! God has a plan for our life and a homosexual or bi-sexual lifestyle is not part if His plan! Homosexuality or bi-sexuality is not the Godly Biblical order for mankind and family. The true Godly order for the family begins with God, then man (husband), then woman (wife), and then children. Trying to use same gender relationships to build a family; or trying to place a woman over a man in a family unit, or make a woman equal to a man, goes against everything the family is created to be. Removing the Godly order of a family undermines any Biblical principles that the family is built on. Disturbing the Godly order in a family leads to things such as: rebellion against parents or other authority figures, independence, broken homes, gender confusion, insecurity, shame, etc. See my document on gender confusion. Whenever we remove the Godly order from our family we are inviting trouble. Scripture warns that if we do not obey Godly order then children will rule over us, and will be our oppressors. Sadly, this is already happening today! Isaiah 3:1, 4-5: For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable. Isaiah 3:11-12: Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Women and children are not created to be the leaders of the family – the men are. By removing the Godly order in a family unit we create unnatural (but not necessarily sexual) cords in the family. We create unnatural and unhealthy relationships between family members. Instead of the father and mother joining together they put the children in the other’s place. They talk with their children instead of their spouse. They share things with their children that they are supposed to be sharing with their spouse. This is dangerous because it can lead to their sharing other things. In some cases this can include sexual relations (sexual cords). However, even if it is not a sexual cord there is an unnatural cord between child and parent that will cause division between the parents – and also the child’s marital relationship when he or she becomes an adult. By getting out of Godly order we also create spiritual cords with the evil spirits that promote, and entice, this un-Godly order in the first place! Unnatural cords, in many cases, will lead to gender confusion in a child’s life about the role their gender should have. It may also cause the child to turn to homosexuality as a false sense of security. These are some reasons, among many, why it is so dangerous to go against the Godly order.

The greatest danger of going against Godly order is that people try to bring their un-Godly order into the church; even trying to say that God is a ‘she’! Adding to the already blasphemous portraits of Jesus (many of which already look feminine) we now have artists attempting to portray Jesus as a woman. WHAT AN ABOMINATION! Deuteronomy 4:16 says: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, thesimilitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female. New Living Translation reads: So do not corrupt yourselves by making a physical image in any form – whether of a man or a woman. The Hebrew word for ‘similitude’ in Deuteronomy 4:16 (OKJV) is “tem-oo-naw’; …something portioned (i.e. fashioned) out, as a shape…image, likeness”. The church may not like hearing this, but man’s religious tradition of attempting to portray Jesus in the first place is partly to blame for this abomination!
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I am not quite sure I know what you are talking about. As far as transgender people are concerned the theory (of sane progressives at least) is that trans people have brain structures more like the gender they claim to be. Like I said in my posts way back, what evolved on the outside probably had an effect on what evolved on the inside. Is what on the inside is more shallow than the outside and the extent the inside matters is up to personal interpretation and I respect conservatives who think differently. Part of the reason I do not get along with many progressives.

Also since claiming God has masculine and feminine characteristics is blasphemy, androgynous behavior be wrong for reasons more than vanity or indirectly drawing attention to whats off limits. Maybe drawing attention to who one is as a person is a form of vanity itself.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,253
20,260
US
✟1,450,892.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Often looked down more on. Which is sexist and sad. Although evolutionary understandable. There is a toxic element of man that wants to control reproductive lives of women. The over protective father who focuses on the daughter yet is less controlling of their sons.

Which is why I do not really understand the term womanizing for a man. Because from my limited knowledge of it, it's kind of a put down for a man. Which seems a little strange. Still, a sex repressed culture hits men too. Womanzier might have more of a jealous origin too it, idk.. lol.

"Womanizer" and "stud" essentially describe the same outward activity, but indeed, there is a pejorative context in "womanizer" even as used by other men compared to the more positive context of "stud."

It seems as though a "womanizer" is characterized as more of a callous "taker" leaving women distraught and unsatisfied, while a stud is a characterized more as the "fulfillment of a woman's fantasy," leaving women satisfied with the experience.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MehGuy
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,253
20,260
US
✟1,450,892.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Women by definition have more childlike features than men on average. Even the ones that dont (or men with neotonous featues) have somewhat of an appearence that matches their anatomy.

Women are mocked but they arent treated like ojbectifiers.

Yeah, they are. My daughter talks about it, bitterly. I knew a young Naval officer, a devastatingly lovely mixed-race Asian/Caucasian woman who had been a fashion model in Japan speak with outright anger about it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MehGuy

A member of the less neotenous sex..
Site Supporter
Jul 23, 2007
55,909
10,822
Minnesota
✟1,161,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"Womanizer" and "stud" essentially describe the same outward activity, but indeed, there is a pejorative context in "womanizer" even as used by other men compared to the more positive context of "stud."

It seems as though a "womanizer" is characterized as more of a callous "taker" leaving women distraught and unsatisfied, while a stud is a characterized more as the "fulfillment of a woman's fantasy," leaving women satisfied with the experience.

Alright makes sense. Whenever I hear the term "womanizer" I cannot help but think of Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons, lol.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
"Womanizer" and "stud" essentially describe the same outward activity, but indeed, there is a pejorative context in "womanizer" even as used by other men compared to the more positive context of "stud."

It seems as though a "womanizer" is characterized as more of a callous "taker" leaving women distraught and unsatisfied, while a stud is a characterized more as the "fulfillment of a woman's fantasy," leaving women satisfied with the experience.

Why is there no feminine version of that callous word?
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, they are. My daughter talks about it, bitterly. I knew a young Naval officer, a devastatingly lovely mixed-race Asian/Caucasian woman who had been a fashion model in Japan speak with outright anger about it.

She was mocked or treated like she objectified men?
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, they are. My daughter talks about it, bitterly. I knew a young Naval officer, a devastatingly lovely mixed-race Asian/Caucasian woman who had been a fashion model in Japan speak with outright anger about it.
Transexual Satanist Anarchist Wins Primary for Sheriff in NH

That person has masculine features that he was born with that are blurred and distorted to feminine.Transexual Satanist Anarchist Wins Primary for Sheriff in NH

Since a neotonous looking man and a handsome woman arent treated like women or men people are born with features that are symmetrical to their anatomy, excuse me if I sound crass.

This is why I think a lot of gender role differences exist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, they are. My daughter talks about it, bitterly. I knew a young Naval officer, a devastatingly lovely mixed-race Asian/Caucasian woman who had been a fashion model in Japan speak with outright anger about it.
"Womanizer" and "stud" essentially describe the same outward activity, but indeed, there is a pejorative context in "womanizer" even as used by other men compared to the more positive context of "stud."

It seems as though a "womanizer" is characterized as more of a callous "taker" leaving women distraught and unsatisfied, while a stud is a characterized more as the "fulfillment of a woman's fantasy," leaving women satisfied with the experience.

I think the term womanizer is a reference to that its sleazy to treat people like they are objects.
 
Upvote 0