I'll split your post in two replies, to adress the two ideas seperatly.
Quote:
Originally posted by IAmThumper:
Oh man why are you going guys doing this to me(LOL)! There is a lot going on in my life right now which is affecting my language/words and my tone. Also I've been typing Thoran alot when I mean to type Luvian so look out. AND once again CloudyBringer I'm sorry.
quote:
And for the record, I found Nataile Barnet to more appealing to me. I really dislike Barbie kind of women.[/qb]
|
Yeah I think Barbie women aren't appealing either. (A natural women would have been a better example). There is a part of me that likes fake breasts but it's just so unnatural. Part of my brain likes and another finds it unnatural so the end result is it confuses my brain so much it makes me ill. Anyway....[/QUOTE]At least we agree on something...
Quote:
quote:
Men's genes have been selected to allow faster and larger muscle growth and most wome were not, but that does not mean it could never happen.
|
Are you arguing about in the future or right now?[/QUOTE]I was talking about genetic potential in theory, without regard to time.
Quote:
|
I'm saying that RIGHT NOW men DO have a genetic advantage to gaining muscle mass. No one seems to refute this.
|
I don't either
Quote:
|
Are up saying if we took the average man and the average women and started training them at the age of ten the woman could get just as strong as the man. Take two glasses and start filling them with water. Fill one at 1 1/2 drops per second and the other a 1 drop per second. After a minute which one has more water. I'm saying (ON AVERAGE) no matter how hard a woman trains a man training just as hard will get bigger muscles. I'm saying the rate at which the glasses get filled depends on the genes (sigh. ftr not that glasses have genes). Sure if a woman trains as hard as she could she might get 1 1/2 to 2 but if a man trained as hard as he could he might get 2 1/2.
|
Of course, this is a very good example of the average.
Quote:
quote:
Sure, slim women are actually the most popular, but it does not mean all women are like that. There are bigger women, there are stronger women...
|
We're not talking about some women and some men. We are talking about the average. I'm not saying all men are stronger than all women. (That's just crazy talk)[/QUOTE]I dislike eliminating everyone outside of the average. By doing so, we elimitate all our diversity and our achievment as human beings. You remove all the Einchtein and Bruce Lee and leave only the "mediocre" and boring. In my opinion, any logic based on the average is flawed, as it does not take into account our real nature. Averages themselves are flawed. If a school's average grade for a test is 50%, there will probably be a lot more result between 0 to 40% and between 60% and 100% than there will be that are around 50%.
Quote:
|
I won't believe that if for the next generation if there was no social pressure for women to look any particular way that women would be just as strong as men. We're talking about thousands (perhaps millions!) of years of evolution. We're not talking about the future we're talking about right now.
|
As I said in other posts, not long ago men looked for big boned women with big hip. Almost all of them were like that, and farmer women were even heartier and stronger. That was not long ago, and yet today, most women are slim and don't even have hip.
And by the way, I didn't say no social pressure, I said there would be social pressure for women to be strong. I didn't talk about only one generation, either.