Leg hair debate

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

More people who think like Ryan.

Unfortunately you are too smug and callous to understand my point, which is this – Most humans (over 90%) are grossly inadequate as far as enlightenment is concerned.

I’ve only met a handful of women that were worthy of receiving sperm, and that is only if the offspring turned out to be a male.

Unfortunately you are too smug and callous to understand my point

White man speak with forked tongue.

Okay - time for another break from GF.

[rpl]

Elizabeth,

I wish that people would only see each other for our minds, but we must deal with the fact that we have bodies.

This maybe out of context, but Isn't that sort of the same thing, in that both are the way they are, not by choice, but by nature. Sure, we can change to varying degrees, but we're always going to have to deal with something that we had (or have) no choice over. I like to look at it in this way: we are the way we were meant to be, now, how can we improve... Not judging others seem to be a pretty good start.



Dan,

If, hypothetically, I were to sleep with a woman it wouldn't worry me that she didn't shave her legs.

Shahrazad,

It wouldn't worry you, but it may not turn you on either.

Wouldn't one need to get emotional to be turned on. If they don't get emotional, then there wouldn't be a point to sex, unless of course, it was to reproduce, which is the whole point of sex to begin with. In that case, it wouldn't matter.

Mind over matter.

Shardrol,

If that smooth-as-silk feeling were all that leg-shaving was about, how come more women don't shave their heads so as to enjoy even more of that silky feeling?

LOL:D

I find this thread rather interesting and not just because of this:

Elizabeth,

And that a couple of hours of smooth as silk (for the first shave anyway, as the upper thigh on some of us will have perpetually raised bumps from shaving after that unless the hair is grown back out or plucked)

Shahazad,

I have never shaved my thighs (except the part right next to the crotch), since they feel smooth without having to shave (the hairs there are very thin and far between)

I must admit that gave me the tingles, though, it's rather annoying when I'm trying to think. Even the word "silky" is so powerfully sexy.

Elizabeth,

Dan, you look fine. Attraction of substance is between minds, so if the attraction is true, then the furriness of the body just means all the more hair for the partner to run her fingers through.

LOL!!!Good one!:D [Seriously, Dan, you should have warned people! Although, it had a cold shower type of effect...:D]

Boyan,

What about men? Do you think men should shave their legs? How would you feel about a man with his legs shaved?

I shaved my legs (I'm a guy) a few years ago (as an experiment)... I really liked the feel!

Seriously, though, without the emotional component, sex would be seen as a disgusting act and completely ridiculous. Why is that? (~Although, with time, things become old fashioned.).

[Carl G]

Poor Elizabeth! Criticized here by both women and men.

How did you end up with first and last name the same, by the way? I find that interesting.

[Dan Rowden]

Elizabeth is on her own in being criticized by both genders? Or did you perhaps unconsciously give that fact more significance because she's female? I don't think I'm necessarily making a great point in saying that, I'm just interested in whether you think it's hitting on something.

[DHodges]

Basically, I think it is ridiculous for either sex to attempt to look more desirable for sexual reasons. And women may say that they are doing it for themselves, but this basically translates into, “I’m doing it to please men”.

From talking to women, my impression is that these things (fashion, makeup, leg shaving) are done much more for other women than they are for men. It is, generally, women who pressure women to conform to these things.

[Dan Rowden]

Mostly, men watch the world go by, and mostly wonder, just wonder, why.

[Shahrazad]

rpl,

Wouldn't one need to get emotional to be turned on. If they don't get emotional, then there wouldn't be a point to sex, unless of course, it was to reproduce, which is the whole point of sex to begin with. In that case, it wouldn't matter.

To be turned on, he'd have to have a libido, and some people wouldn't consider libido, or arousal, an emotional state. If what you're saying is that if he fails to get aroused after he sees the hairy legs, then sleeping with this woman would be pointless, then I agree. If what you're saying is something else, please explain. You may have totally missed the point I was trying to make.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How did you end up with first and last name the same, by the way? I find that interesting.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~danrowd ... zabeth.htm

My mother's mother made my mother keep me, so I was named after her (Elizabeth). My father said they couldn't name the baby after her mother without also naming it after his mother, so my second name was named after my father's mother (Isabelle). When I got divorced, I dropped my ex's last name and did not want to pick my father's last name back up because I am not, nor will I ever again be, the property of any male - so I refused to wear one of their names like some kind of branded cow. When you drop your lawnmower or whatever off to have it serviced - they put your last name on it because it is your property. I am no one's property.

[DHodges]

When I was in college, my feminist/marxist girlfriends

Ah.

American women don't realize the short history of makeup and fashion in the United States. It is strictly a Twentieth Century phenomenon, as two world wars broke America out of its provincial, isolationist coccoon.

This is not historically correct. The use of makeup goes back to ancient Egypt, and was in use by both men and women around the 17th Century.

Fashion as we know it mostly dates back pretty much to Louis XIV, in the 17th Century.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges,

From talking to women, my impression is that these things (fashion, makeup, leg shaving) are done much more for other women than they are for men. It is, generally, women who pressure women to conform to these things.

But the two are interrelated. Women compete with each other for the same reason men do, to look the most appealing in the eyes of the other sex. It is an animalistic impulse - . Women striving to look sexier in competition isn’t all that different from female baboons competiting for the penis of the alpha male.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

But the two are interrelated. Women compete with each other for the same reason men do, to look the most appealing in the eyes of the other sex.

That isn't necessarily the case. Humans are pack animals and don't want to be rejected by the pack, and females are even more driven by this than males (as evidenced by how many women go to the bathroom with other women, but men don't tend to make toileting a group effort). Being different tends to get one rejected by the pack. If the group has decided to shave, wear make-up, put flowers in their hair, whatever - then whoever doesn't go along with the group is being different, and risking rejection. People don't like being rejected, and being rejected by the entire group is much worse than being rejected by just one or a few.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth wrote:

That isn't necessarily the case. Humans are pack animals and don't want to be rejected by the pack, and females are even more driven by this than males (as evidenced by how many women go to the bathroom with other women, but men don't tend to make toileting a group effort). Being different tends to get one rejected by the pack. If the group has decided to shave, wear make-up, put flowers in their hair, whatever - then whoever doesn't go along with the group is being different, and risking rejection. People don't like being rejected, and being rejected by the entire group is much worse than being rejected by just one or a few.

Yes, but conforming to the pack values usually leads to sexual competition, and a hierarchy. That is why many females have a difficult time keeping long-term ‘friends’ because there is so much backstabbing, gossip behind ones back, subtle attempts to sabotage romantic relationships, and all the rest. And so sexual women have a very difficult time getting along with each other, even after the pack values have been established.

Men compete in different ways, they will work longer hours, make more money, buy a better car, buy a better surround sound home theater system, and so on to impress women. And when they speak with their male ‘friends’, they make sure to boost what what they have, and how much they make. And this fuels the jealousy wars between them, and all this behavior is rooted in sexual competition as well.

Generally speaking, women are attracted to wealth and power, whereas men are attracted to physical features of fertility, and so all competition and striving is based on this dynamic. That is why a sage has a difficult time staying motivated to work a hellish job because most of the animalistic impulses within him have been totally extinguished.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Men do as you state above, and there are times that women compete as you state above, but overall, women are more likely to cooperate to make everything better for everyone than what you are saying, or than how men tend to do. In a dire emergency or if they team up in a "men against women" competition - like at this board - then men will cooperate with each other. If men do not perceive the stakes as particularly directly of consequence to them, they are likely to mess with others - male or female - just for the "fun" of messing with someone. This is not a trait of females.

Ryan, you will never understand females by equating them with males. Males and females are different creatures. Males and females should have equal rights and equal opportunities to prove and carry out equal abilities - but we are not identical. Women are better at some things, and men are better at others. That does not make either men or women better than the other - and certainly does not mean that either gender should be relegated to gendercide.

In recognizing what individuals are made for, then those individuals are free to do what they individually are best suited to do. Generalizing for genders is only mildly useful. One of the uses is for proving that neither gender is so bad that the the world would be better off if the entire gender were exterminated. Another is to prove that neither gender should be looked at with automatic disgust or automatically be considered hopeless just because of the gender.

I am not going to belabor this point further Ryan. Either your mind will open in its own time, or you will remain closed-minded forever. It is not my job to beat you up with the truth.

[brokenhead]

This is not historically correct. The use of makeup goes back to ancient Egypt, and was in use by both men and women around the 17th Century.

I wasn't talking about world history. I was talking about American history.

[brokenhead]

Ryan Rudolph

That is why a sage has a difficult time staying motivated to work a hellish job because most of the animalistic impulses within him have been totally extinguished.

Satiated would have been a better word. You work for a paycheck. That's motivation enough.

[brokenhead]

Males and females are different creatures. Males and females should have equal rights and equal opportunities to prove and carry out equal abilities - but we are not identical. Women are better at some things, and men are better at others. That does not make either men or women better than the other - and certainly does not mean that either gender should be relegated to gendercide.

Common sense.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Elizabeth,

Then men will cooperate with each other. If men do not perceive the stakes as particularly directly of consequence to them, they are likely to mess with others - male or female - just for the "fun" of messing with someone. This is not a trait of females.

I’m not ganging up on females or messing with them, that is your own egocentric interpretation. My main point is that in a few centuries, robots and enhanced technologies will replace a large percentage of the labor that is necessary, and the skills that are left will be able to be done by men. Women will be out of a job, and unless they start being able to reason like men, then their existence won't have purpose.

And btw, Men didn’t get off the hook in my criticism either. Most men are not worth the amount of flesh in their bodies, as related to potential for enlightenment, so men will have to be radically altered at the genetic level, and they will not resemble any man in existence now. In essence, a totally new species will be born, but it will be born from man, it will be born of the masculine foundation.

I envision an alien like species that neither resembles the male or female, but whose genetics are grounded in the masculine footprint.

[brokenhead]

It's cold in Nova Scotia.

[Tomas]

It's cold in Nova Scotia.

Yeah, i can dig it...

Robots and genetically-altered males doing everything but the dishes and vacuuming, while Ryan lives with his genetically-inferior dad, brother and great-grandparents. He let his mom off the hook :-/



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

[Tomas]

.

Thought I better "preserve" Ryan's words before he deletes (or edits) the family nuts (jewels)...


I'll take this apart after the Los Angeles Lakers game :-)

Brokenhead,

Sex is certainly not something sacred. But a respectful attitude towards it and procreation are probably psychologically beneficial, both to the individual and the community. Not all chocolate chip cookies are created equal.

Yes, at this stage of our evolution, man-woman sexual procreation is the only crude way to propagate the species. However, I'm hopeful that as biotechnology evolves, technology will play more of a role in engineering the species into something much greater than our present feeble state.

Furthermore, I've only met a handful of women that were worthy of receiving sperm, and that is only if the offspring turned out to be a male. And even if the offspring is a male, it could turn out fairly unconscious, and what a waste of energy that would be.

Also, I don't trust my own genetics, as I attribute much of my intelligence to the fact that I was born left-handed, as my brother, father, grand-grand parents are all fairly dull and mediocre, so I don't trust my own sperm, so this is why I don't have a respectful attitude towards procreation because it is definitely tricky business, and a gamble at best given the current method of reproduction.

.

[Carl G]

I envision an alien like species that neither resembles the male or female, but whose genetics are grounded in the masculine footprint.

Masculine footprint, ha. I envision a drone race that slaves away for their masters without asking why. Oh wait, that's basically what we already have. What could cause it to change from that?

[Carl G]

How did you end up with first and last name the same, by the way? I find that interesting.

My mother's mother made my mother keep me, so I was named after her (Elizabeth). My father said they couldn't name the baby after her mother without also naming it after his mother, so my second name was named after my father's mother (Isabelle). When I got divorced, I dropped my ex's last name and did not want to pick my father's last name back up because I am not, nor will I ever again be, the property of any male - so I refused to wear one of their names like some kind of branded cow. When you drop your lawnmower or whatever off to have it serviced - they put your last name on it because it is your property. I am no one's property.

So, your dad basically didn't realize that Elizabeth and Isabelle are basically the same name?

There is even a repeating phonetic in "izabe- isabe-." And bracketing that is another in the "El" which begins the name and the "elle" which ends it. And interestingly, perhaps subconsciously connected, you seem to repeat yourself when writing, at least semi-regularly, I've noticed. Fascinating.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

Masculine footprint, ha. I envision a drone race that slaves away for their masters without asking why. Oh wait, that's basically what we already have. What could cause it to change from that?

Carl, here is what I foresee in the next few hundred years. Nanotechnology will eventually be able to create small bachelor size living complexes constructed out of some sort of metal-organic substance for less than $5000.00, and cars will get smaller, like the smart car, and cheaper, maybe around $1000.00 new. They already have a $2600 car in India. And eventually nanotechnology will produce food replicators that create food from atoms alone, and this type of gadget will be in every home. Technology will also become intelligent enough to do much of its own self-maintenance and self-repairs.

Survival will become much easier, and so the need to accumulate wealth will be totally redundant. A greedy person will be outdated, and it will become almost impossible to enslave people because each person will only have to work a few hours a day to sustain civilization…That seems like the direction we are moving in…

And as for the rest of you, you lack imagination, and a sense of what is possible. The human species is heading for a significant transition over the next few centuries, and the romantic man-woman family pair-up will be totally transcended, in favor of something much more intelligent.

The human spiritual movement is still in its infancy stage…

[Carl G]

Elizabeth is on her own in being criticized by both genders? Or did you perhaps unconsciously give that fact more significance because she's female? I don't think I'm necessarily making a great point in saying that, I'm just interested in whether you think it's hitting on something.

Elizabeth sought support for her leg shaving -- and does generally for her ideas on the validity of the feminine. She does not get that from the men here -- except for the girly-man Laird, who swoons over shaven and otherwise pleasing to him females. That is understandable, knowing the crowd the QRS philosophy attracts. But she was also criticized by Sue (while being supported by ultra-feminine Sher, true, an admittedly sparse (and equally split) representation from her own gender). I guess I found it ironic, and a bit sad, that Elizabeth cannot garnish more support for her ideas here.

But yes, unquestionably all posters run the risk daily of attracting critical argument from anyone, male or female. The difference here may be that the actual subject is gender, and that it's author is Elizabeth.

[Shahrazad]

Eliz,

I thought you were seeking support for not shaving your legs.