The Male and Female Species

[kiraownsurmom]

short:i think every1s jus equal an some speices r beautiful in each sex

 

[kiraownsurmom]

It's lips with a rainbow over it?

i thought it was a bubbleut: lol i guess im wrong

 

[kitkat_bar]

hehe u called him sweetie ....

by the way, naturally i think females would be more attractive b/c society looks up on motherly beings...
idk

im tired

Uh I'm a girl too. Hence the quote under my name. Marisa, I did read it but I did not know you were a girl. What I failed to read was your name so I do appologise. Knowing you are a girl now changes what I have said to some degree....a degree I don't really have time to explain...and no it isn't sexist or feminist either so don't go there. I thought you were a boy which if you read what I wrote knowing that makes more sence.

 

[~Marisa~]

Uh I'm a girl too. Hence the quote under my name. Marisa, I did read it but I did not know you were a girl. What I failed to read was your name so I do appologise. Knowing you are a girl now changes what I have said to some degree....a degree I don't really have time to explain...and no it isn't sexist or feminist either so don't go there. I thought you were a boy which if you read what I wrote knowing that makes more sence.

Naw, it was mostly my fault. I went back and read what I had writen (Didn't proof read earlier) and realized that wheather or not I'm a boy or girl, it wasn't very well put together lol. Mostly, because they were a combination of random thoughts while I was bored. So I appologize for the sloppyness and for not making my point more understandable.


Btw, I know this is like wayyyy off topic and I'm not bi or a lesbian or anything - but I saw your MySpace and you're amazingly gorgeous

 

[Wiinoob]

Naw, it was mostly my fault. I went back and read what I had writen (Didn't proof read earlier) and realized that wheather or not I'm a boy or girl, it wasn't very well put together lol. Mostly, because they were a combination of random thoughts while I was bored. So I appologize for the sloppyness and for not making my point more understandable.


Btw, I know this is like wayyyy off topic and I'm not bi or a lesbian or anything - but I saw your MySpace and you're amazingly gorgeous

uhhhh.... thats hot. lol. :yikes:

 

[kitkat_bar]

Naw, it was mostly my fault. I went back and read what I had writen (Didn't proof read earlier) and realized that wheather or not I'm a boy or girl, it wasn't very well put together lol. Mostly, because they were a combination of random thoughts while I was bored. So I appologize for the sloppyness and for not making my point more understandable.


Btw, I know this is like wayyyy off topic and I'm not bi or a lesbian or anything - but I saw your MySpace and you're amazingly gorgeous

Lol...why thank you! I don't think I have ever heard that from a girl before. Your not too bad yourself lol. Oh boy can I see where this is going from the guys point of view....you sickos lol

 

[~Marisa~]

Lol...why thank you! I don't think I have ever heard that from a girl before. Your not too bad yourself lol. Oh boy can I see where this is going from the guys point of view....you sickos lol

Rofl yeah - they're a buncha sickos! :hand:

 

[Rolex]

Part 1
in many species the male is more beautiful than the female. For example view the following:

...what do you think stands in our species? Looking at this from an outsider's view, judge it only on our organic appearances.

Remember, try not to base this on attraction, base it on an outsider's view

Marissa - you keep pulling the deep and meaningful out...LOL

With part 1 I've gotta say that this is a real toughie, especially when trying to base it on an outsiders view - but seeing as I am a moody loner then it shouldn't be that difficult!! :blush2:

Looking objectively I would have to say that it's 50/50, for me there are some incredible looking people about that's for sure.
When looking at both male and females in the au-naturale state then there would be certain aesthetics to consider - shape of features, height, weight, facial gestures (do they look smiley or austere) so without taking the celebrity route to elaborate with then I will sit on this fence (in fact the fence is quite attractive, without any paint on of course). [A bit of a wanky answer, I know]

-----------------------Part 2 of the thread-----------------------
And to go even further in-depth....in many species the male is the dominant one. The one to initiate mating in order to instinctively preserve it's species. I know in many cases the woman is bigger because it does the hunting but the male is almost always the leader of the pack.

In light of this, (disregarding reproduction) does it mean male and female need eachother to co-exist? Could we live in a world where children are genetically created through preserved sperm? Or do we need eachother?

Another question I have is I know in MANY species, the male is dieing out. Even in our own species, woman by far exceed the number of men. If in other species, men can die out...can this be true for our species as well? And if this is the case, how would the world go about recovering the dramatic loss in males? Would we indeed, preserver the sperm and genetically insert it into the women to save the species? And if this does happen...like I said earlier, do we need eachother to co-exist? Would we survive by instinct by using artificial insemination?

The one to initiate mating in order to instinctively preserve it's species.

I agree that we as a whole are initiating sexual changes towards reproduction - the porn industry is booming but child birth is down..it speaks volumes but it's not all down to women - I don't want children for example and I'm certainly not alone among my peers.

I would like to answer this all at once - the female of the species are effecting changes on a genetic level against the traditionally male - (although history shows strong women like Boudica, Cleopatra, Pankhurst etc etc have always thought like this anyway) - and changes in the male dominated business world a proving ground for the changes to come, women are becoming male thought orientated (but with common sense and guile, men don't have a chance) to the point that they can blend into the male arena (think Dr's, Lawyers, Engineers, Polititians & Teachers - hell even Welders and Fitters) with such force and vim that others are inspired to follow - hence the revolution!!! Women don't need to be bigger just more daring - after all it's proven that women are better at men at...well...most everything!!

As for the question of co-existence and the survival of the race without: shall we say: a definate male female species; I'm no Darwin but I think this highly unlikely and not for the genetic reason you imagine (i.e. sperm) - it's as complicated as emotions, the need to love, care & be cared for is embedded in all the species! This isn't a physical item which can be replicated with lab conditions. Sci-fi always predicts the future without emotions but in reality this is what separates us from charcole, steel, sand, concrete etc.. these ethereal feelings prove that science can't demonstrate or replicate individuality and it takes two to tango - male / female (and whatever other combo you can think of). I don't buy into the theory that without men all women would either be lesbian or asexual and just take the turkey baster option. Cyclic fluctuations of the male / female populous are common through history - hell China practised it! We still need passion to feel alive, if things ended up like that then to live wouldn't be worth the credit card it's charged to.

 

[echopeus]

well... in the species where the male is more attractive their the ones searchin for females... if the female dosnt like she just goes on.. the male has no choice but to take what he can. Well in our culture its a bit of both.. alot has to do on morals and the way your braught up... some say beauty is skin deep and some say the body needs to be taken care of just like the mind for true enlightenment. So in essence true beaty is what you make it... I often ask women that think their beautiful "who are you comparing yourself to?" most actually say some super model or actor I laugh... the correct answer should be "to myself"

 

[wolfang]

Rofl yeah - they're a buncha sickos! :hand:

HEY!, I didn´t say a thing!

 

[Squall7]

Well, I think it's very difficult to say, as we basically have to strip off our gendered identities to actually answer this question truthfully (by that, I mean not seeing females from a male perspective and not seeing males from a female perspective). On the whole, I think females are easier on the eyes (in general), although the concept of beauty is really up to one's own definition. I think my concepts of beauty more revolve around mood. The happier a person seems, the more beautiful they appear. There is also other factors such as affiliation and the longer I am around them (or longer I look at them), which may heighten an attraction to beauty.

If an outsider really did come and try to judge how 'beautiful' each gender is, then they'd have to have a concept of beauty for themselves, and as such already have their own 'beauty' ideals. For example, in an impoverished society, the concept of chubbiness (rubanesque - I think that's how it's spelt) may be more an important factor. Thus to actually have a concept of what beauty is, you've already got a an idea of what features are 'beautiful'.

In light of this, (disregarding reproduction) does it mean male and female need eachother to co-exist? Could we live in a world where children are genetically created through preserved sperm? Or do we need eachother?

We no longer 'need' each other to procreate, but I feel we 'need' each other to help develop the world (and develop as a species). Also, taken from frozen sperm, we would need some males to 'top-up' the count every now and then.

Another question I have is I know in MANY species, the male is dieing out. Even in our own species, woman by far exceed the number of men. If in other species, men can die out...can this be true for our species as well? And if this is the case, how would the world go about recovering the dramatic loss in males? Would we indeed, preserver the sperm and genetically insert it into the women to save the species? And if this does happen...like I said earlier, do we need eachother to co-exist? Would we survive by instinct by using artificial insemination?

To be honest, we could still cope with a reduced population - it may actually be healthier for everyone. I think also, it doesn't matter as much about women being higher in numbers. If that were to happen significantly, I do think that society would have to embrace polyogamy (or at least dualogamy - yes that is a word I just made up, but it does make sense). Fertilization from only frozen sperm will enevitably slow down the evolution of the species (even in terms of getting faster, stronger, more intelligent) as all of the sperm would come from a frozen moment in time - new sperm not being used means that no advances in terms of generational achievements could come about (not significant ones anyway). Also, since it's the sperm itself which decides the gender of the baby (X and Y Chromosomes) some babies would be male, others would be female. Depending on whether this mono-gendered society has come about by natural or artificial means (if Man was hunted and killed by women), then that may either breed in men again, or you'd have to kill of half of the new-borns.

Anyway, this is a very sombre subject really (though philosophically interesting), so I'm off to get me a dose of coffee. Ciao.

 

[kitkat_bar]

it's as complicated as emotions, the need to love, care & be cared for is embedded in all the species! This isn't a physical item which can be replicated with lab condition.

The cared for part is getting less and less. Women are being forced to be stronger due to the hardships of married life, relationships, ect. Statistics show that more men cheat on women than vice versa. Women are finding themselves either finding replacements for the missing love or just doing without it all together.

 

[wolfang]

You should blame society´s morale, I heard the sadness Is becoming the world´s bigggest "disease" and that´s because as humans, we must follow and respect certain rules we don´t like, that leads you to hide your true self in order to be aproved by people around you, that becomes frustrating and causes you to get depressed, and eventually sad.

 

[Squall7]

You should blame society´s morale, I heard the sadness Is becoming the world´s bigggest "disease" and that´s because as humans, we must follow and respect certain rules we don´t like, that leads you to hide your true self in order to be aproved by people around you, that becomes frustrating and causes you to get depressed, and eventually sad.

Is it sadness or depression you're refering to?

To be fair, most of the time, governments are formed when almost half of the people don't vote them in, and why should we follow the rules of people we didn't elect? The worst part of it is when we have our rights taken away (contrary to it's definition), against our will by the same government we didn't elect, in the name of "national interest". Methinks "V for Vendetta" wasn't too far off the truth sometimes...

 

[~Marisa~]

Is it sadness or depression you're refering to?

To be fair, most of the time, governments are formed when almost half of the people don't vote them in, and why should we follow the rules of people we didn't elect? The worst part of it is when we have our rights taken away (contrary to it's definition), against our will by the same government we didn't elect, in the name of "national interest". Methinks "V for Vendetta" wasn't too far off the truth sometimes...

I must say that I agree 100%