moltenlava

QUOTE The existence of Homosexuality negates your entire argument. Please. Homosexuality is not a rule, it's an exception, an evolutionary dead-end. It's an anomaly meant to slow the pace of overpopulation and uneven breeding schemas. If men and women aren't produced in equal numbers, then the entire natural system goes out of whack. We are now finding that the major of gay men are being born in a specific birth order. More times than not they come after one or more older brothers. Having two or more older brothers increases one's chance of being born gay several hundred percent. Homosexuality completely shuts off a man's desire for females, and it a natural setting, any possibility of him spreading his genes. IF he comes after two older brothers, he really should have been born a girl to even things out. Since he is not born a girl, nature makes him gay. QUOTE What I hear you saying here is that the only reason our race advanced at all is because men desperately female attention and work to achieve it. While this may be true for some men, I firmly believe that the majority of the great accomplishments came from people (both male and female) who felt passionately about something (Art, Music, Architecture, etc.) and worked to make their dreams a reality. It was not solely because of this "male gaze" you keep mentioning, it was a lot of other things too. I'm not saying that any of these things are conscious . That's not how Evolution or the human mind works. How it works is dependent on what proves to be beneficial to the survival of the individual. Way before humanity got its start, our predecessors who were the biggest, fastest, strongest and smartest found ways to obtain resources, mount females and protect offspring. The descendants of those with the strongest sex-drive, then themselves, also became endowed with a deviation in their genetic code that embues a 'strong' sex-drive. And, onward and downward through the ages of man. The sex-drive increases in strength in direct proportion to how beneficial that variable is to the survival of the genes. And, in our lot, Sex proves to be the largest motivating factor ever. But, a man who is figuring out how to design a house or write a play or symphony is not consciously thinking to himself that when this thing is finally done it will now afford him a bunch of new, sexual prospects. No, it's not conscious at all. It works because those of his ancestors who designed things in the past, and showed an affinity for music, went on to have many more sexual conquests than those in the community who didn't have these skills. And, because these folks were pumping much more of their DNA out into gene pool, they were outbreeding and thus outnumbering those without any of these skills....So, now, today, when a person is born with skills he doesn't know from whence they come, and he goes out and does what comes natural to him, he can actually tell himself that he's doing these things for the benefit of society, or the beautification of the world and whatnot, but nature knows the real, underlying reason. It's all very logical, very reasonable what I'm saying here. All you have to do is think about it, fight the denial which will surely creep in, and then know it to be true.

QUOTE (edgyspice @ Aug 19 2008, 05:17 PM) QUOTE (moltenlava @ Aug 19 2008, 02:13 PM) I'm already conscious of everything in it and I accept it all as necessary. ...uh, no, you're aren't really, but thanks for playing, Mr. Male Superiority! Edit: I felt bad after leaving this post, but then I reread yours. Men like to f*ck women, therefore we have tall buildings? You have got to be kidding me. See, but that wouldn't be any fault or mine, or reflection on me, if you aren't already well-read in Biology, Anthropology and Human Evolution. Remove the 'male sex-drive' from our species at any time during our long, painful past and see how far our lot advances. The answer is none. Try interjecting 'asexual' reproduction back during the Pleistocene and watch our species die dead in its tracks. There would be no societal advancement without the male's lust for the female form. There always needs to be that carrot-on-a-stick for men to put on their thinking caps and hit the drawing board. And, females have provided that down through the ages. You are a walking carrot on a stick. What you might call 'sexist', I call Objective Reality 101. And, to actually view these ideas as sexist is really just a comment on ignorance and not on the actual thing under consideration. There's nothing wrong with admiring women's bodies if it is done in a respectful manner, which is how my now-defunct thread began its life. First off, they told me the thread was to be moved right away. Which I was counting on. Then, that never happened. So, I don't know why the Mods don't just erase it completely at this point. If they truly don't want it to occupy space in this sub-forum, why not just erase it? Ya know how long it will take for that thread to sink to the bottom?

QUOTE Now if you would like to say anything that isnt an insult to any of the members here by all means. I only insult when insulted. QUOTE ...in a totally sarcastic way in order to mock the women in this forum and lash out over how butthurt you are that your thread went over like a lead balloon. No. In a totally sarcastic way to point out the glaring logical inconsistency. QUOTE No, you asked us to find spank material for you and tried to disguise that request as a critique of beauty standards. That's a mighty difficult way to go about getting material. You know you don't actually believe this. You just don't have an actual retort. QUOTE Since you're a self-proclaimed super-smart dude, why not read this? You say you're, like, way open-minded, so I know you will read it carefully and give the ideas therein some serious thought. This is precisely why 'feminism' lacks any and all credence and why it has gone the way of the garbage heap in terms of valid ideologies. IT attempts to alter or completely irradicate that which is totally natural. And, that will always be a recipe for disaster. 'The Male Gaze' is the fundamental reason and the foundation on which all societies have been built. It's the reason for the tallest skyscrapers and the largest banks. The female form has been expressly designed by nature to extract large amounts of sperm out of the male. And, it's been men's lust for the female form which has led to every advancement, every discovery and breakthrough in human history. It's a formuala you've witnessed every single day even if you haven't already intellectualized the recipe. Men are built with the desire to have sex with women. In order to appear attractive to members of the opposite sex they need resources, plenty of resources to make them stand out against their competitors. Personal ingenuity, work-ethic and perserverance has a direct, positive relation to the gathering of wealth. Thusly, those endowed with these particular traits will have amassed the most sexual conquests over their lifetime, which in a natural setting, will always translate into increased progeny, more offspring. So, 'The Male Gaze' is an INTEGRAL part of our society. In fact, it's the most important variable in the equation of any society. To remove 'The Male Gaze' is to take away the foremost important base instinct and driving force responsible for advanced societies. I'm not too sure why you pointed me towards that article. I'm already conscious of everything in it and I accept it all as necessary.

QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ Aug 19 2008, 10:56 AM) [ Exactly if you dont like it then dont come in the WOMENS FORUM!!!! Plain and simple although I understand how it might be asking too much for a mind as narrow as yours is. That, in of itself is hilarious. The LAST thing I could ever be accused of is narrowmindedness. If you only knew. You couldn't find a more open-minded, more intellectual-minded person if you scoured MENSA. Wow, you're horrible at reading people. All I pointed out is just how much nice and ripe man-flesh there is around this joint. But, I go and start a thread about attractive women (totally respectful, mind you) and all of sudden it's all about objectifying women and more along the lines of that double-standard nonsense. If there's anything I totally despise in another person it's logical inconsistency.

There's so much succulent juiciness 'round these parts. I just wanna take a nice big ol' bite of man-flesh right about now....Oh, break it off in me, Senor Soggybottom. Break-it-off....I think Alex looks like a pretty, eighteen year old German girl in the above photo.

Who would win in a knife fight, Richard Wright or Richard Wakeman?

QUOTE (fledgehog @ Aug 8 2008, 11:29 PM) i can't decide. at all. You don't have to anymore. Life is like a Chinese Restaurant. Pick one from Column A and one from B. But, save room for the fried ice cream. I heard it's to die for.

Wow. This one is real difficult, but have to go with the YES. 'Quantity' wins out here. Both are of high quality, but YES just has more stuff. Of all the many, many things I listen to, YES is probably my overall favourite band. Love all eras, almost equally.

QUOTE (grand phil-nale @ Aug 9 2008, 01:48 AM) QUOTE (moltenlava @ Aug 8 2008, 09:24 PM)QUOTE (grand phil-nale @ Aug 8 2008, 04:57 PM) Got all the DT albums. I have to listen to an entire album before I make any judgements. DT is stuck in a major rut, and are in real need of a producer, but sadly Portnoy's ego will never let that happen. Well, I guess the follow-up question would be....Why do you keep on picking them up? If you don't think they've done anything interesting in years, then why do keep on listening? You say that you have all the albums. I usually don't purchase discs for bands that I think aren't doing something exciting. Two out of the last four DT albums have been alright. I'll give the detractors that. Six Degrees and Systematic Chaos aren't consistent releases. But, ya gotta think, these DT albums are like 70+ minutes long. And, the average piece is what, 10 to 12 minutes long? So, even on alright album, if you walk away with two or three pieces that you dig, you're still a winner. But, the other two releases this decade were better than just alright. Train of Thought and Octavarium were damn solid. I think I'm finished. Done the same thing with others bands in the past. With Queensryche my ending point was Tribe. After the brilliance of Promised Land, it was saddening to hear HITNF, Q2K and Tribe. It's the same with Scenes and all the DT albums that have followed it. Ahaha. lol. I'm with you on the Queensryche assessment. I am a HUGE fan of things like the EP, Rage For Order and Mindcrime. Was also big on Empire and Promised Land as wel. But, then I made the mistake of picking up Trying to Fit in the Now, and what a joke. I gave up then....But, failing to pick up Mindcrime 2 would be yet another mistake. The core of that album is phenomenal. You get rid of the ultra weak opening and closing of that album and focus on just tracks 4 through 10 and you have something that is almost as intense as the original. Brilliant core to that album. So, that got me amped to look at the other things like Q2k and Tribe. Got Tribe and its nothing like OM2. Significantly weaker. OM2 is a must for the longtime fan.

QUOTE (grand phil-nale @ Aug 8 2008, 04:57 PM) Got all the DT albums. I have to listen to an entire album before I make any judgements. DT is stuck in a major rut, and are in real need of a producer, but sadly Portnoy's ego will never let that happen. Well, I guess the follow-up question would be....Why do you keep on picking them up? If you don't think they've done anything interesting in years, then why do keep on listening? You say that you have all the albums. I usually don't purchase discs for bands that I think aren't doing something exciting. Two out of the last four DT albums have been alright. I'll give the detractors that. Six Degrees and Systematic Chaos aren't consistent releases. But, ya gotta think, these DT albums are like 70+ minutes long. And, the average piece is what, 10 to 12 minutes long? So, even on alright album, if you walk away with two or three pieces that you dig, you're still a winner. But, the other two releases this decade were better than just alright. Train of Thought and Octavarium were damn solid.

I wish him the best. I just saw him in the most surreal roles of his career in the movie '10 Items Or Less'. What a crazy flick that is. But, he's such a likeable guy that he made the thing work. If there's anyone who deserves to get a full 100 years, it's this cat.

QUOTE (grand phil-nale @ Aug 7 2008, 05:36 PM) DT has not put out anything remotely interesting in years. You probably stopped listening to them long ago. I think the absolute best examples of songwriting in the DT catalog are on two recent recordings. Train of Thought (2003) and Octavarium (2005). And, I've been listening very, very intently to PT's body of work, so I'm just as qualified to compare them as anyone else who knows both groups inside and out. And, I see absolutely no difference in the 'quality' of songwriting between any of the three 'big guns' of Progressive Rock/Metal. Those being: Dream Theater, Porcupine Tree and Opeth. All three are on the absolute top of their game this decade. The only paramater that DT stands above the other two is on the musicianship. And, this says a lot because both PT and Opeth are really great bands....Word from Wilson is that there will sometime in the next year or two be a collaboration of members of all three outfits.

QUOTE (ILSnwdog @ Aug 5 2008, 02:14 PM) I've never been able to get into Dream Theater. There stuff just doesn't seem to have much soul. It kind of sounds empty to me. Ya know how many times I've heard that sentiment expressed in relation to Rush over the years? I actually felt the same way when my very first obsession with music was centered around Led Zeppelin. Zep was all about the blues, soul and feeling. I used to tell the kids who were into Rush that the music sounded all cold, mechanical and intellectual. Then I became those things and I finally 'got it'. lol.

For me, PT is a rather recent phenomenon. Which is shameful for the band, because it means that their stuff hadn't been getting out to the masses like it should've. I remember the first time I heard them. It was about five or six years ago, and the first thing that came to mind was a comparison to Radiohead. Something to do with the modern, British vocal delivery. But, I was indignant over how a crumby band like Radiohead could be so popular, when most of their tracks are just a loop of one single, mundane musical idea, and PT was delivering something of a much higher artistic quality and intelligence. But, so is the way of the world where those who appeal to the lowest common denominator reap the large rewards. Dream Theater, I had been familiar with since the early 90's. Didn't really think twice about them during the Grunge era. When I was out partying all I wanted to know about was Soundgarden, AIC, The Pumpkins, The Peps and NIN. Then, the early 00's rolled around and I finally heard Metropolis and was impressed. Was always a big fan of Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime, and here was something else that could at least compete with that. Then, I think the band just got better and better. They became tighter than they ever were before on titles like 'Train of Thought' and 'Octavarium', which are now my all-time favourite. I love PT. I was gunna say especially this one or the other. But, the band has been fairly consistent since Signify. That's one thing that PT has over DT. Much more consitent. But, there isn't one single PT album that I think can compete with either of my favourite DT titles. There's tracks on those that are just compositonally perfect.