Females arent attractive

[PsychoSarah]

What are the implications-genders have remarkable face differences?

There really aren't any, other than we can usually tell what gender someone is by looking at them. If there was no gender dimorphism in humans, it might make sexism less of an issue in our species, historically, but there are no guarantees of that.

 

[Sammy-San]

There really aren't any, other than we can usually tell what gender someone is by looking at them. If there was no gender dimorphism in humans, it might make sexism less of an issue in our species, historically, but there are no guarantees of that.

So other than privates and face, men and women basically look the same?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So other than privates and face, men and women basically look the same?

Hips are a big difference between men and women, and estrogen and testosterone make the body shapes generally different as well. There are lots of body shapes men and women can have, and there is a bit of overlap, but the most common body types for each biological gender are ones without much overlap. It's easier for us to tell men and women apart with the face rather than body, because of that brain structure we have for facial recognition. While differences in the face become more pronounced after puberty, differences in body shape hardly can be detected without looking at the bones themselves prior to it.

Just compare the mammary glands of women to those of men, they are usually comparatively far larger and less flat after puberty. Prior to puberty, you can't tell a female chest from a male one. Not to say there aren't women with minimal curves and small breasts, there are, hence why the body is a more difficult distinction outwardly than using the face.

 

[Sammy-San]

Hips are a big difference between men and women, and estrogen and testosterone make the body shapes generally different as well. There are lots of body shapes men and women can have, and there is a bit of overlap, but the most common body types for each biological gender are ones without much overlap. It's easier for us to tell men and women apart with the face rather than body, because of that brain structure we have for facial recognition. While differences in the face become more pronounced after puberty, differences in body shape hardly can be detected without looking at the bones themselves prior to it.

Just compare the mammary glands of women to those of men, they are usually comparatively far larger and less flat after puberty. Prior to puberty, you can't tell a female chest from a male one. Not to say there aren't women with minimal curves and small breasts, there are, hence why the body is a more difficult distinction outwardly than using the face.

What do you mean gender face differences arent remarkable? So they are minor?

 

[Radrook]

I have seen some scowling women, very broad at the shoulders and narrow at the hips, who look like walking Sherman Tanks or refrigerators. So gender dimorphism can't always be counted on.

 

[Radrook]

So other than privates and face, men and women basically look the same?

That is the stuff nightmares are made of!

 

[Sammy-San]

That is the stuff nightmares are made of!

What do you mean?

 

[Radrook]

What do you mean?

deleted

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, if the only difference between men and women is their faces and reproductive organs, and the rest is the same, narrow hips, chiseled muscular chests, muscular shoulders, bulging biceps, then that is definitely a nightmarish scenario. Imagine Marylyn Monroe's face with the body of a Lou Ferrigno or an Arnold Schwarzenegger.

men and women is their faces and reproductive organs, and the rest is the same, narrow hips, chiseled muscular chests, muscular shoulders, bulging biceps, then that is definitely a nightmarish scenario. Imagine Marylyn Monroe's face with the body of a Lou Ferrigno or an Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Lou Ferrigno

A lot of guy dont go working out, so I don't understand how biceps are relevant.

 

[Radrook]

A lot of guy dont go working out, so I don't understand how biceps are relevant.

LOL!

 

[Eudaimonist]

What about the Bible calling us fearfully and wonderfully made?

I'm not familiar with that reference, but what does that have to do with anything?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm not familiar with that reference, but what does that have to do with anything?


eudaimonia,

Mark

You said our design is not perfect.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Many may not think that. But try to compare two bald humans, one male and one female. Doesn't their bodies look the same? Yes. And why is that? Its the same with animals, one women and one man. You wanna know why women arent attractive, because they are here for reproduction, man and woman to simply create a new life form. And thats it. So you may have seen some wicked stuff online whether it is fanart, inappropriate contentography or any bad stuff. But i tell you, its an illusion of lewdness that in the bible is considered sinful. It may look nice. But its a trick. What i mean by that is that it is a logical reason to why it is not ok to do so. And its not just because god just said so(Although he knows the best). But there is a reason. It degenerates you. Like whether it is homosexuality or inappropriate content or anything, anything lewd is degeneration by itself.

But to help you understand why its not really attractive, you can just compare a pic of a bald women and men, and there you have the answer, the body parts is purely for reproduction. And thats all!

I'd like to hear your views though?

Hmm...

Even mannequins are asthetically different...

I know of, and have seen too many beautiful bald women in the world.

And, (to me, at least,) they are more attractive than men by far - objectively speaking even.

But, that is my personal opinion. If you want my biblical take:

I don't think Adam paid too much attention to Eve's asthetically beauty underneath her radiating white robe of light. In fact, none of us would be worried about physical beauty if we didn't fall, and lose those robes of light.

Now, we measure beauty not by holiness, truth and spiritual beauty (white raiment,) but by the degree at which these rotting meat suits please our yet deteriorating eyes (carnality.)

 

[Sammy-San]

Hmm...

Even mannequins are asthetically different...

I know of, and have seen too many beautiful bald women in the world.

And, (to me, at least,) they are more attractive than men by far - objectively speaking even.

But, that is my personal opinion. If you want my biblical take:

I don't think Adam paid too much attention to Eve's asthetically beauty underneath her radiating white robe of light. In fact, none of us would be worried about physical beauty if we didn't fall, and lose those robes of light.

Now, we measure beauty not by holiness, truth and spiritual beauty (white raiment,) but by the degree at which these rotting meat suits please our yet deteriorating eyes (carnality.)

So only faces and necks were visible?

So reproduction as we know it is impurity from the Fall?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So only faces and necks were visible?

So reproduction as we know it is impurity from the Fall?

Not at all what I am saying, but I get your apprehension.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were clothed with white light - like the bodies we will get after Resurrection. Even if their faces werent covered with light, there was still much more to appreciate about her unique female beauty besides her physical, carnal looks.

Aesthetic beauty is a fleeting attribute of carnality. Adam, pre fall, would have been too innocent, and spiritually focused to be preoccupied with the magnitude of Eve's physical beauty.

God was literally walking with them in the garden. Who knows how many archon, angels, principalities, powers, etc. visited and communicated with them - pre-fall.

In terms of reproduction, it was likely NOT the bastardized "morphology" of our carnal version of "sex." Sex was, to them, a function for reproduction - not an activity of pleasure or lust. It was a gift from God that Intercourse is pleasurable, and it is a mark of the "image of God" to represent our procreation as a pleasurable, and longed for experience.

Instead of nature solely dictating our reproductive activity, we have the gift of knowing what it is like to want to have children (as opposed to "clockwork."). Pre-fall, Adam knew what to do with that.

Post-fall, EVERYTHING became polluted. So, the fact that aesthetic (carnal) beauty is a major factor in our decision to procreate (as opposed to, say, Godliness) is a commentary on our imperfection, and spiritual degeneracy. Reproduction itself is a God-given gift of being in His image - we can procreate, or "co"-create with God, as some put it.

We have distorted the complete purpose of "sex," and therefore "attraction," and therefore our relationships.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not at all what I am saying, but I get your apprehension.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were clothed with white light - like the bodies we will get after Resurrection. Even if their faces werent covered with light, there was still much more to appreciate about her unique female beauty besides her physical, carnal looks.

Aesthetic beauty is a fleeting attribute of carnality. Adam, pre fall, would have been too innocent, and spiritually focused to be preoccupied with the magnitude of Eve's physical beauty.

God was literally walking with them in the garden. Who knows how many archon, angels, principalities, powers, etc. visited and communicated with them - pre-fall.

In terms of reproduction, it was likely NOT the bastardized "morphology" of our carnal version of "sex." Sex was, to them, a function for reproduction - not an activity of pleasure or lust. It was a gift from God that Intercourse is pleasurable, and it is a mark of the "image of God" to represent our procreation as a pleasurable, and longed for experience.

Instead of nature solely dictating our reproductive activity, we have the gift of knowing what it is like to want to have children (as opposed to "clockwork."). Pre-fall, Adam knew what to do with that.

Post-fall, EVERYTHING became polluted. So, the fact that aesthetic (carnal) beauty is a major factor in our decision to procreate (as opposed to, say, Godliness) is a commentary on our imperfection, and spiritual degeneracy. Reproduction itself is a God-given gift of being in His image - we can procreate, or "co"-create with God, as some put it.

We have distorted the complete purpose of "sex," and therefore "attraction," and therefore our relationships.

What do you mean by that? Feminine face instead of body?

Are you saying couples who marry and don't have children are sinning? Or that it wasn't the original intent of creation but due to the parameters it is okay?

Fact that there are reproductive aspects involved doesn't mean it isn't a multifaceted thing.

 

[Sammy-San]

There really aren't any, other than we can usually tell what gender someone is by looking at them. If there was no gender dimorphism in humans, it might make sexism less of an issue in our species, historically, but there are no guarantees of that.

How does that mean we dont have remarkable differences?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What do you mean by that? Feminine face instead of body?

Exactly what I said. I don't think masculine bodies on females is attractive, or feminine bodies on men.

Are you saying couples who marry and don't have children are sinning? Or that it wasn't the original intent of creation but due to the parameters it is okay?

Neither, I don't know where this came from. Christ Himself said that some people will be chaste for the sake of the kingdom - that includes people without children.

Couples without children aren't sinning.

The orginal intent at creation for Intercourse IS to enjoy each other, literally join to become one flesh (like Adam was before God split him,) and desire to procreate - for the purpose of filling the planet with Godly children who will replenish the earth.

Fact that there are reproductive aspects involved doesn't mean it isn't a multifaceted thing.

No, but our entire understanding of Godly reproduction - or basic intercourse even - is polluted.

 

[Sammy-San]

Exactly what I said. I don't think masculine bodies on females is attractive, or feminine bodies on men.



Neither, I don't know where this came from. Christ Himself said that some people will be chaste for the sake of the kingdom - that includes people without children.

Couples without children aren't sinning.

The orginal intent at creation for Intercourse IS to enjoy each other, literally join to become one flesh (like Adam was before God split him,) and desire to procreate - for the purpose of filling the planet with Godly children who will replenish the earth.



No, but our entire understanding of Godly reproduction - or basic intercourse even - is polluted.

Do you think eventually there wouldnt be space for people to comfortable move around? How is our understand of godly reproduction and intercourse polluted?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Do you think eventually there wouldnt be space for people to comfortable move around? How is our understand of godly reproduction and intercourse polluted?

Nope, I have no biblical evidence of this, but I think the earth would accommodate - grow, change in dimension, whatever.

But, pretend the earth won't grow. If we remained perfect, I don't think we would have the "want" to have many kids in the first place. Borrowing from biology, we wouldn't have the need to be immortal through genetics because we would have been immortal through Providence. So even if people had multiples, on average the population of the planet after 40,000 years may be comparable to what it is now (to "guestimate").

And, I think we would be allowed to explore and possibly stay at any of the many "mansions" God has built in the universe. God appointed four stars to Adam; that is at least four stellar systems.



On Intercourse it is very simple: our view of it is polluted because we are carnal. The command to be fruitful, and multiply was a vindication of, and justification for their role in procration/"co"-creation given to them by God. It was a commandment given to go through the physical activity of spiritually uniting with your mate/spouse - to become one flesh. This is why divorce is nothing spiritually for people who have "married" under God - by having sex.

We are carnal. We are constantly polluting things, and justifying it. Sex is no different. (So, you may see why I may be in the extreme minority on my views about sexual behavior and activity.)