Search results

What am I white knighting? Women frequently being portrayed as sexually vulnerable is readily observable. You're probably just unaware of what you're seeing. What, in your estimation, is the purpose of men wearing pants while women wear skirts? Or high heels? Or hair style differences? I'm...

Not at all really. I'm talking about primal behaviours that evolved long before society, or laws, or feminism, and that still dictate our sexual behaviours to this day. Men find easy sexual targets more appealing. It ain't rocket appliances.

Again, sexual invitation is not sexual aggression. I'd find it very difficult to perceive a woman who was on all fours presenting her buttocks as anything but submissive/vulnerable. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not all that interested in this debate.

Lithose, there is a difference between aggression and invitation. There is nothing sexually aggressive about the naked woman. Keep in mind, I'm talking about 'vulnerability' from a cave-man utilitarian perspective. We have already established that women are vulnerable (because they are...

Don't be fucking dumb. You know damn well I wasn't talking about all women. I'm talking about overall societal pressure that is observable in day to day life. Consume some media that is meant to titilate women, like erotic fiction, analyze the behaviours and internal narrative of the...

Alright. Women aren't encouraged to present themselves as weak or vulnerable (physically, emotionally, intellectually) to attract and arouse potential sexual partners. What ever was I thinking?

Which woman looks like she could more effectively resist your sexual advances if that were her desire?

Then sorry dude, you have no concept of what sexual vulnerability even is. It's blatantly in your face in that second pic.

I don't understand how that's possible. Both these women are attractive. Which one do you wanna fuck more? Why?

Google 'sexiest women' and 'sexiest men'. Take note of: Setting? Clothing? Pose? Lighting? Facial expression? I just did it and most of the women are under soft light, laying down, puckered lips, fuck-me eyes, pushed out hips/ass... sexual vulnerability. The men are for the most...

Hoping for a new Burnout game reveal. Also wanna hear more about Sea of Thieves.

This isn't a conversation about if women can look 'hot' when they aren't presented sexually... of course they can.

Well there are absolutely biological brain differences. Claiming otherwise is just silly. What I meant by 'not disputable' is that 'grooming' is absolutely responsible for some percentage of the female 'vulnerability as sexuality' relationship. Biology is certainly responsible for a portion...

Uhhhh I hope you're joking. That's the same kind of shit argument people use against Trump.

Hmmm I'll have to go back and read, cuz I didn't catch that. What I'm saying is that we as a society certainly recognize inherent female vulnerability, and then relate that vulnerability to sexual desirability. Young girls are absolutely encouraged to give off sexual vulnerability signals...

Is anyone arguing otherwise? I think the discussion is centred on the fact that we recognize, emphasize, and perpetuate vulnerability as sex appeal in women.

No. But it is an inadequate explanation for gender based sexual expression norms on its own. This is observable in the way men vs. women are posed/presented in pornographic material, or in things like common clothing styles, or grooming practices.

She tried, and your response was 'men are more visual - biology!' If you aren't at least willing to concede that nakedness has a relationship with sexual vulnerability, then there's no reason for her to continue the conversation into areas of more complex thought.

Mist is right on the money on this. You dudes are being fucking retarded.

And videotape her.

People on my Facebook feed liking the shit out of this one. It's pretty clear they, much like the owners of this salon, have zero knowledge of basic economics. Gender-neutral prices for haircuts introduced at Halifax salon - Nova Scotia - CBC News

I wonder if distance between points traveled is limited by the capacity of your hyper drive unless you've discovered the planets yourself. Otherwise, what would limit players who start a year after release from warping right to the center of the galaxy?

I'm not disagreeing that controlling shit with your mind would be just peachy. The issue is, as you state, it's decades away from being a consumer product. 'Holodecks' are even further out. I'll take a $500 VR helmet in the 20 year interim.

The whole 'it isn't social' thing doesn't make sense to me. I mean, when I'm gaming with bros on the couch it's not like I'm turning my head to look at them. I'm facing the screen, and all I need are my ears. Not to mention, 80%+ of my gaming takes place totally alone. Once the technology...

Will do: Quaid--

Anyone playing this on PS4?

You must be a real chill dude IRL. You'd 'dismiss your friends immediately' for their choice of entertainment? Yikes. I suggest you actually put one of these 'trash cans' on your head and give it a try before formulating an (absurd) opinion.

So VR helmets aren't compelling because the technology doesn't read your mind. Sounds reasonable.

Why the fuck are people under the impression you have to stand around flapping your arms like a moron to experience VR? For most games you'll just be sitting on the couch with a controller like normal... But you'll also be wearing a helmet.

playstationVR would have to suck really bad for there to be fewer than 2 million units sold in its first 12 months. PS4 just crossed the 40 million units mark.

Any form of meaningful multiplayer looks real doubtful at this point. They would have shown it off by now. It's a real shame... it would have been kinda (and forgive me) 'beautiful' to have to progress for dozens of hours alone through the vastness of space, with connection being the ultimate...

Everything is more-or-less stolen.

As long as the art styles of the games compliment the capabilities of the display, it should be fine. Attempts at hyper-realism will flop on PSVR.

Expectations are high apparently. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pla.../1100-6435717/

You need a PS4 and a PSVR come Christmas time.

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking.

It'd be almost impossible to go 'broke' unless you were actually trying. At absolutely zero growth, $2bn is like $135,000/day for 40 years.

It's not even close to the same dude.

Oh, well that's good. I take it back. He's still acting like a giant faggot though.

I'd fucking judge the shit out of anyone I knew who came into multiple billions of dollars and didn't seriously spread the wealth. Having that much money is pointless. Your grandchildren in 3 generations will still be counting it. Seriously, if that shit happened to me I'd hook every poster...