Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives?

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:00 pm

I mean in photographs.
I believe social media has made many people very critical of themselves.
This woman is absolutely right. Many people look at pics of ourselves and see the negatives, others will look and not even notice them.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/womans-identical-bikini-photos-show-why-we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-our-faults/ar-AApi5i1?li=AA9SkIr&ocid=spartanntp

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:53 pm

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? Mybetter_self

I don't see what she sees till she points it out....even then the good points way over shadow the bad points.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:53 pm

Attention seeking.

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:58 pm

Possibly...but she does have a point.
So many people seem to airbrush or photoshop pics before they put them on social media, I think its made people more conscious of their own flaws and faults.

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:11 pm

Syl wrote:

I don't see what she sees till she points it out....even then the good points way over shadow the bad points.

I see happiness.

I see her glowing with her smile.

It makes me smile, as I see her happy, which i want everyone to be. Laughing

I see beautiful scenery. of which she is a big part of that beautiful scenery.

People only put themselves down, because they have been taught to look too critically at themselves. As if they should have the perfect body and looks. Its society and its views that brings this about. This makes some people insecure, because we place a pedestal on what is perfection when it comes to looks.

Which is daft really, as in reality we are only attracted to who we are attracted to.

I may not be attracted to many women and only some light my eyes up, yet to those I did not think were attractive, countless other men or even some women will. Hence emotions come into play again. This will have been caused generally by people constantly putting someone down for their looks.

So why do people not look to the root cause where some people do attention seek?

Again its about overcoming fears and being confident. Some people find it hard to accept who they are.

As when they are rejected by someone, they find it that much harder to deal with.

We are back to the same root cause problem here.

Being able to move on.

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:14 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I don't see what she sees till she points it out....even then the good points way over shadow the bad points.

I see happiness.

I see her glowing with her smile.

It makes me smile, as I see her happy, which i want everyone to be.

I see beautiful scenery. of which she is a big part of that beautiful scenery.

People only put themselves down, because they have been taught to look too critically at themselves. As if they should have the perfect body and looks. Its society and its views that brings this about. This makes some people insecure, because we place a pedestal on what is perfection when it comes to looks.

Which is daft really, as in reality we are only attracted to who we are attracted to.

I may not be attracted to many women and only some light my eyes up, yet to those I did not think were attractive, countless other men or even some women will. Hence emotions come into play again. This will have been caused generally by people constantly putting someone down for their looks.

So why do people not look to the root cause where some people do attention seek?

Again its about overcoming fears and being confident. Some people find it hard to accept who they are.

As when they are rejected by someone, they find it that much harder to deal with.

We are back to the same root cause problem here.

Being able to move on.

That's what I see...its a lovely carefree photo. Cool

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:15 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I see happiness.

I see her glowing with her smile.

It makes me smile, as I see her happy, which i want everyone to be.

I see beautiful scenery. of which she is a big part of that beautiful scenery.

People only put themselves down, because they have been taught to look too critically at themselves. As if they should have the perfect body and looks. Its society and its views that brings this about. This makes some people insecure, because we place a pedestal on what is perfection when it comes to looks.

Which is daft really, as in reality we are only attracted to who we are attracted to.

I may not be attracted to many women and only some light my eyes up, yet to those I did not think were attractive, countless other men or even some women will. Hence emotions come into play again. This will have been caused generally by people constantly putting someone down for their looks.

So why do people not look to the root cause where some people do attention seek?

Again its about overcoming fears and being confident. Some people find it hard to accept who they are.

As when they are rejected by someone, they find it that much harder to deal with.

We are back to the same root cause problem here.

Being able to move on.
That's what I see...its a lovely carefree photo.

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:16 pm

I see a sort of bikini which doesn't match, and which could do with adjusting a bit. Laughing

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I see a sort of bikini which doesn't match, and which could do with adjusting a bit.

You're just being picky now. Laughing

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:33 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I see a sort of bikini which doesn't match, and which could do with adjusting a bit.

That is because you look negatively at everyone else.

Its a defense mechanism

Someone happy within themselves would not need to look at such a beautiful picture negatively

You look for fault in others.

I mean is it really a bad picture?

No, but I bet you look to find fault in other women, as you are not comfortable about how you look yourself.

Hence you maybe ruled by negative emotions Rags.

Not knocking either

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:35 pm

She does have a point when she says when in a group many times people wont agree which is the best shot.
They are looking at themselves and seeing the faults they have....so they wont agree which pic is the best one.
The will pick the one they look good even if everyone else looks awful. Razz

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:38 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I see a sort of bikini which doesn't match, and which could do with adjusting a bit.

That is because you look negatively at everyone else.

Its a defense mechanism

Someone happy within themselves would not need to look at such a beautiful picture negatively

You look for fault in others.

I mean is it really a bad picture?

No, but I bet you look to find fault in other women, as you are not comfortable about how you look yourself.

Hence you maybe ruled by negative emotions Rags.

Not knocking either

The girl has got a bit of an unintentional wedgie going on though Thor....Rags wasn't finding fault in the girls looks. Laughing

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is because you look negatively at everyone else.

Its a defense mechanism

Someone happy within themselves would not need to look at such a beautiful picture negatively

You look for fault in others.

I mean is it really a bad picture?

No, but I bet you look to find fault in other women, as you are not comfortable about how you look yourself.

Hence you maybe ruled by negative emotions Rags.

Not knocking either

The girl has got a bit of an unintentional wedgie going on though Thor....Rags wasn't finding fault in the girls looks.

Off course she was, as why even look at faults here Syl?

The only reason people do is to make themselves feel better..

They get off at looking down at people.

There is a big difference between looking at a funny picture of a situation, than looking at a person to find fault with them.

As I say, people do this to make themselves feel better at the expense of others.

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:48 pm

I think many people are too critical of themselves as well......and its true that others don't see the faults we see in ourselves.

I read one that a new lover will never ever notice cellulite on his partner unless she points it out herself...that amused me.

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:59 pm

Syl wrote:I think many people are too critical of themselves as well......and its true that others don't see the faults we see in ourselves.

I read one that a new lover will never ever notice cellulite on his partner unless she points it out herself...that amused me.

But that is the point. We grow up in a society, where we place people onto such a high pedestal on their looks and status. When looks are subjective, this is highly stupid to think and yet people become so insecure over their looks, because we rarely cast people who would not be considered as attractive. As the lead roles in films, adverts, modelling. As seen a set standard is made to how people want to aspire to be in looks, when we really cannot change them. Only superficially with plastic surgery. This is what creates insecurities in some people or anorexia etc. We are look great and yet with time our looks fade. People need to come to terms with that and they dont.

In reality looks are superficial. Yes we are often physically attracted to someone, but that is not what makes us fall in love with someone. Its who they are, their traits, actions and character. The reality is some people are different in looks and never accept who they are and how they look. When people first learn to be happy with how they look and who they are. Then little will ever phase them.

by HoratioTarr Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:02 pm

What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:04 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

Case in point

The picture is looked negatively based on a perceived view on what a women would wear

Not on how its a beautiful picture

As i say, some people need to constantly pick themselves up.

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:41 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

Have you never stripped off to your undies and had an impromptu splash about in the sea? I have...last week to be exact. Laughing

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:45 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:I think many people are too critical of themselves as well......and its true that others don't see the faults we see in ourselves.

I read one that a new lover will never ever notice cellulite on his partner unless she points it out herself...that amused me.

But that is the point. We grow up in a society, where we place people onto such a high pedestal on their looks and status. When looks are subjective, this is highly stupid to think and yet people become so insecure over their looks, because we rarely cast people who would not be considered as attractive. As the lead roles in films, adverts, modelling. As seen a set standard is made to how people want to aspire to be in looks, when we really cannot change them. Only superficially with plastic surgery. This is what creates insecurities in some people or anorexia etc. We are look great and yet with time our looks fade. People need to come to terms with that and they dont.

In reality looks are superficial. Yes we are often physically attracted to someone, but that is not what makes us fall in love with someone. Its who they are, their traits, actions and character. The reality is some people are different in looks and never accept who they are and how they look. When people first learn to be happy with how they look and who they are. Then little will ever phase them.

The media has a lot to do with that.
I think its normal to have a few insecurities about the way we look...we would be pretty arrogant if we didn't have, and most people do care about how they look....even if its to please themselves and no one else.
You are right about what makes us fall in love....after the initial attraction looks are way down the list I think, sense of humour and kindness are way more important.

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:47 pm

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

Have you never stripped off to your undies and had an impromptu splash about in the sea? I have...last week to be exact.

A splash?

Sorry could not resist

lol!

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:51 pm

Cheeky get....there is no comparison with my splash and that one. Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 3201073460

Its my idea of heaven to be in a boat and see a sight like that.....one day hopefully.

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:53 pm

Syl wrote:Cheeky get....there is no comparison with my splash and that one.

Its my idea of heaven to be in a boat and see a sight like that.....one day hopefully.

Sorry Syl. Its just you said splash, and I had just watched that only yesterday... Cool

Never give up on your dreams...

I am sure you will see that one day..

Laughing

by Syl Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:56 pm

None of us should ever give up on our dreams Thor.

Have to go...be good. x

by Guest Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:06 pm

Syl wrote:None of us should ever give up on our dreams Thor.

Have to go...be good. x

Have a good evening Syl

x

by eddie Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:22 pm

Because I knew what the thread was about before I clicked on it, I decided to look at the picture first before I read anything.
First thing I noticed was her hair - really liked it, then I saw her smile.
Then I read the "negative" comments and really couldn't see any faults i.e. her nose was fine and what cellulite??

I think we do judge ourselves more harshly than others and I've always been a bit "this is who I am and what I look like, if you don't like it, don't look!"

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:28 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

Exactly, and her knickers seem to have gone adrift a bit. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:38 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

That is because you look negatively at everyone else.

Its a defense mechanism

Someone happy within themselves would not need to look at such a beautiful picture negatively

You look for fault in others.

I mean is it really a bad picture?

No, but I bet you look to find fault in other women, as you are not comfortable about how you look yourself.

Hence you maybe ruled by negative emotions Rags.

Not knocking either

The girl has got a bit of an unintentional wedgie going on though Thor....Rags wasn't finding fault in the girls looks.

Who cares what he thinks? He spends all day putting others down, so he has no room to talk anyway.

by Guest Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The girl has got a bit of an unintentional wedgie going on though Thor....Rags wasn't finding fault in the girls looks.

Who cares what he thinks? He spends all day putting others down, so he has no room to talk anyway.

Ah bless, I think my words hit a raw nerve it seems.

There is a mass difference between us here Rags

I am critical of you based on what you say and believe, not on how people look. As you do of others.

The fact you look for support, further proves my point, how insecure you are... Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:14 am

eddie wrote:Because I knew what the thread was about before I clicked on it, I decided to look at the picture first before I read anything.
First thing I noticed was her hair - really liked it, then I saw her smile.
Then I read the "negative" comments and really couldn't see any faults i.e. her nose was fine and what cellulite??

I think we do judge ourselves more harshly than others and I've always been a bit "this is who I am and what I look like, if you don't like it, don't look!"

Me too. I saw a kind of person I'd like to be with...with a great ass. Razz

Don't know if I'd call her beautiful, but she certainly draws you in...and I don't mean the ass part. Laughing

The suit and mix and match of colors didn't bother me.

by HoratioTarr Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:20 am

Syl wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:What the fuck's she wearing? Looks like she's out in her bra and knickers.

Have you never stripped off to your undies and had an impromptu splash about in the sea? I have...last week to be exact.

I bet that was a sight for sore eyes tongue

No, I don't do running around in my undies. I don't go shopping in my jim jams either.

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:02 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:

Have you never stripped off to your undies and had an impromptu splash about in the sea? I have...last week to be exact.

I bet that was a sight for sore eyes

No, I don't do running around in my undies. I don't go shopping in my jim jams either.

Thankfully it was pretty secluded. Razz

I don't go shopping in my pj's either...its sheer laziness.
Have you seen the ad advertising a particular make of car....all the women driving them have dropped the kids off at shool still wearing their pj's and dressing gowns. The ad makes out its a great thing to do...so buy the car and be like them. Rolling Eyes

by Victorismyhero Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:08 pm

ah...its about body image....

when I saw the title I thought Faults??? what faults...I havnt got any faults save too much modesty.....

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:22 pm

Seems this obsession with body image starts dangerously young.

When nine year old girls want vagina reconstructions because they dont think their bodies fit the porn image of how female genitalia should look....the questions why/how/wtf ?? HAS to shine on their parents first and foremost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40410459

"Girls as young as nine are seeking surgery on their genitals because they are distressed by its appearance, the Victoria Derbyshire show has been told.
Dr Naomi Crouch, a leading adolescent gynaecologist, said she was concerned GPs were referring rising numbers of young girls who wanted an operation.
Labiaplasty, as the surgery is known, involves the lips of the vagina being shortened or reshaped.
The NHS says it should not be carried out on girls before they turn 18.
In 2015-16, more than 200 girls under 18 had labiaplasty on the NHS. More than 150 of the girls were under 15.
Some experts fear that pornography and images viewed through social media are leading young girls to have unrealistic perceptions of how their genitals should look."

by Original Quill Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:28 pm

Syl wrote:Seems this obsession with body image starts dangerously young.

When nine year old girls want vagina reconstructions because they dont think their bodies fit the porn image of how female genitalia should look....the questions why/how/wtf ?? HAS to shine on their parents first and foremost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40410459

"Girls as young as nine are seeking surgery on their genitals because they are distressed by its appearance, the Victoria Derbyshire show has been told.
Dr Naomi Crouch, a leading adolescent gynaecologist, said she was concerned GPs were referring rising numbers of young girls who wanted an operation.
Labiaplasty, as the surgery is known, involves the lips of the vagina being shortened or reshaped.
The NHS says it should not be carried out on girls before they turn 18.
In 2015-16, more than 200 girls under 18 had labiaplasty on the NHS. More than 150 of the girls were under 15.
Some experts fear that pornography and images viewed through social media are leading young girls to have unrealistic perceptions of how their genitals should look."

I have to comment: all this obsession with sex, genitals and porn, is just the left-overs from two or three centuries of atrophied religious indoctrination. Sex is a body function, same as eating or peeing. Leave it alone, already! We don't need all this talk and peripheral concern about it. Dogs and cats have no porn industry...and they have no religion. Do you see a connection?

And WTF does a gynecologist know about psychology? She's just another opinion on the Internet keyboard. A gynecologist--trained in hard science--studies certain body parts/functions, not attitudes, and certainly not values.

Labia rescission was originally just a surgical correction for women experiencing pain with intercourse. It had nothing to do with visual image. I can't help but feel that all this religion-based huffing and puffing over sex parts is what draws kid's attention to the body, and the misuses of surgical procedures.

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:42 pm

Your comments are welcome Quill..especially on topics that some men may shy away from.

Having said that I don't agree. Razz

I don't think religion has anything to do with this...blame the unsupervised access to porn sites on the internet for young girls feeling their genitals don't match the women they see on certain sites.

Little girls vaginas are not supposed to look like a grown womans vagina....and if that's what these kids are comparing themselves to its a crying shame.
God knows how they will feel about their bodies once they hit adulthood.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:11 pm

Syl wrote:Your comments are welcome Quill..especially on topics that some men may shy away from.

Having said that I don't agree.
I don't think religion has anything to do with this...blame the unsupervised access to porn sites on the internet for young girls feeling their genitals don't match the women they see on certain sites.

Little girls vaginas are not supposed to look like a grown womans vagina....and if that's what these kids are comparing themselves to its a crying shame.
God knows how they will feel about their bodies once they hit adulthood.

Porn sites wouldn't exist if there weren't hyper-religious types who condemn talking about it, and try to hide sex, making everyone curious. It's a known axiom of economics that you reduce supply to raise interest (and hence price) in something. Body parts wouldn't get all the attention if religion didn't make it a big deal...especially with trying to hide it. Believe me, we've got the worst of them in our southern Baptists.

Go back to my original metaphor: there's no porn industry in the animal kingdom. Animals haven't got religious piousness making a big deal regarding sexual parts. It's no big deal to them. It's only when you make a big deal out of hiding it, that everyone gets curious.

I firmly believe religion is the start of our obsessive preoccupation, not only with porn, but with the whole industry of beauty and body shaming. You withhold the product, then release it in small portions, you then create interest and people rush to get some.

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Your comments are welcome Quill..especially on topics that some men may shy away from.

Having said that I don't agree.
I don't think religion has anything to do with this...blame the unsupervised access to porn sites on the internet for young girls feeling their genitals don't match the women they see on certain sites.

Little girls vaginas are not supposed to look like a grown womans vagina....and if that's what these kids are comparing themselves to its a crying shame.
God knows how they will feel about their bodies once they hit adulthood.

Porn sites wouldn't exist if there weren't hyper-religious types who condemn talking about it, and try to hide sex, making everyone curious. It's a known axiom of economics that you reduce supply to raise interest ( and hence price) in something. Body parts wouldn't get all the attention if religion didn't make it a big deal...especially with trying to hide it. Believe me, we've got the worst of them in our southern Baptists.

Go back to my original metaphor: there's no porn industry in the animal kingdom. Animals haven't got religious piousness making a big deal regarding sexual parts. It's no big deal to them. It's only when you make a big deal out of hiding it, that everyone gets curious.

I firmly believe religion is the start of our obsessive preoccupation, not only with porn, but with the whole industry of beauty and body shaming. You withhold the product, then release it in small portions, you then create interest and people rush to get some.

Well I cant speak for the attitudes in the American South, but certainly here in the UK, especially over the last 3 or 4 decades, religion doesn't play a role in many peoples lives....yet the porn industry has soared.
So that's the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying.

Comparing humans with animals doesn't really work for me...animals act on instinct and are without morals....so there is no connection really.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:45 pm

Syl wrote:Well I cant speak for the attitudes in the American South, but certainly here in the UK, especially over the last 3 or 4 decades, religion doesn't play a role in many peoples lives....yet the porn industry has soared.

So that's the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying.

Comparing humans with animals doesn't really work for me...animals act on instinct and are without morals....so there is no connection really.

Religion has taken over human consciousness, from at least Constantine the Great, forward. It led to the Dark Ages, according to Daniel Boorstin...centuries of atrophied development in western civilization.

Little question that religion had an unhealthy preoccupation with the sex glands. Modesty and piousness go hand-in-hand, and religion gave rise to it all. You don't see the same religious taboos around eating, breathing, indeed...peeing and pooing. But so many cultural rituals around the sex organs and their use, make it obvious that religion was trying to suppress something.

And the southern Baptists are only the tip of the iceberg. The same thing goes on in all religion-influenced societies. Look at your own Cromwell and the English Civil war...just another example of an over-zealous religion taking over.

Finally, the metaphor of animals is simply another way of comparing Nature, if there were no religious-ideological influence. It's no wonder you reject it ("doesn't really work for me"). One of the constant themes of religion is that the State of Nature is the evil. Remember? That's what original sin was all about. That's what the snake in the Garden of Eden myth taught us: following our own instincts, or "Nature", is bad, while rejecting our instincts and following some unseen deity is somehow good. Rolling Eyes

Such a fundamental principle in religion.

You just can't see the forest for the trees.

by Cass Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:20 pm

I guess I was thinking more in the abstract than on this particular photo.

Seems we are coded to remember negative rather than positive things. Who here remembers the rude waitress rather than the great food? It's why there's so much negativity at the forefront of the media rather than the positive. Bad news = good ratings.

I found the following articles to be interesting

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/14/do-we-remember-negative-events-more-vividly-than-positive-ones/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html

Btw, I think it's a nice picture. Someone happy and enjoying the moment.

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Well I cant speak for the attitudes in the American South, but certainly here in the UK, especially over the last 3 or 4 decades, religion doesn't play a role in many peoples lives....yet the porn industry has soared.

So that's the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying.

Comparing humans with animals doesn't really work for me...animals act on instinct and are without morals....so there is no connection really.

Religion has taken over human consciousness, from at least Constantine the Great, forward. It led to the Dark Ages, according to Daniel Boorstin...centuries of atrophied development in western civilization.

Little question that religion had an unhealthy preoccupation with the sex glands. Modesty and piousness go hand-in-hand, and religion gave rise to it all. You don't see the same religious taboos around eating, breathing, indeed...peeing and pooing. But so many cultural rituals around the sex organs and their use, make it obvious that religion was trying to suppress something.

And the southern Baptists are only the tip of the iceberg. The same thing goes on in all religion-influenced societies. Look at your own Cromwell and the English Civil war...just another example of an over-zealous religion taking over.

Finally, the metaphor of animals is simply another way of comparing Nature, if there were no religious-ideological influence. It's no wonder you reject it ("doesn't really work for me"). One of the constant themes of religion is that the State of Nature is the evil. Remember? That's what original sin was all about. That's what the snake in the Garden of Eden myth taught us: following our own instincts, or "Nature", is bad, while rejecting our instincts and following some unseen deity is somehow good. Such a fundamental principle in religion.

You just can't see the forest for the trees.

Quill...cant you drag the topic back to the 21st century...you are making my brain ache. What a Face

by Syl Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:33 pm

Cass wrote:I guess I was thinking more in the abstract than on this particular photo.

Seems we are coded to remember negative rather than positive things. Who here remembers the rude waitress rather than the great food? It's why there's so much negativity at the forefront of the media rather than the positive. Bad news = good ratings.

I found the following articles to be interesting

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/14/do-we-remember-negative-events-more-vividly-than-positive-ones/

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/your-money/why-people-remember-negative-events-more-than-positive-ones.html

Btw, I think it's a nice picture. Someone happy and enjoying the moment.

I do think we tend to remember negative over positive often...for eg, how many compliments can you remember and how many insults can you remember?
I remember insults, where I was, who said it, how hard I slapped him etc... Razz

Compliments are nice, but they rarely have much of an impact for long.

Your links are interesting . x

by Original Quill Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:57 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Religion has taken over human consciousness, from at least Constantine the Great, forward. It led to the Dark Ages, according to Daniel Boorstin...centuries of atrophied development in western civilization.

Little question that religion had an unhealthy preoccupation with the sex glands. Modesty and piousness go hand-in-hand, and religion gave rise to it all. You don't see the same religious taboos around eating, breathing, indeed...peeing and pooing. But so many cultural rituals around the sex organs and their use, make it obvious that religion was trying to suppress something.

And the southern Baptists are only the tip of the iceberg. The same thing goes on in all religion-influenced societies. Look at your own Cromwell and the English Civil war...just another example of an over-zealous religion taking over.

Finally, the metaphor of animals is simply another way of comparing Nature, if there were no religious-ideological influence. It's no wonder you reject it ("doesn't really work for me"). One of the constant themes of religion is that the State of Nature is the evil. Remember? That's what original sin was all about. That's what the snake in the Garden of Eden myth taught us: following our own instincts, or "Nature", is bad, while rejecting our instincts and following some unseen deity is somehow good. Such a fundamental principle in religion.

You just can't see the forest for the trees.

Quill...cant you drag the topic back to the 21st century...you are making my brain ache.

You can't think today's thought, without picking up where we were on yesterday's thought. There is no discontinuity. We are what we are.

by veya_victaous Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:11 am

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:Your comments are welcome Quill..especially on topics that some men may shy away from.

Having said that I don't agree.
I don't think religion has anything to do with this...blame the unsupervised access to porn sites on the internet for young girls feeling their genitals don't match the women they see on certain sites.

Little girls vaginas are not supposed to look like a grown womans vagina....and if that's what these kids are comparing themselves to its a crying shame.
God knows how they will feel about their bodies once they hit adulthood.

Porn sites wouldn't exist if there weren't hyper-religious types who condemn talking about it, and try to hide sex, making everyone curious. It's a known axiom of economics that you reduce supply to raise interest ( and hence price) in something. Body parts wouldn't get all the attention if religion didn't make it a big deal...especially with trying to hide it. Believe me, we've got the worst of them in our southern Baptists.

Go back to my original metaphor: there's no porn industry in the animal kingdom. Animals haven't got religious piousness making a big deal regarding sexual parts. It's no big deal to them. It's only when you make a big deal out of hiding it, that everyone gets curious.

I firmly believe religion is the start of our obsessive preoccupation, not only with porn, but with the whole industry of beauty and body shaming. You withhold the product, then release it in small portions, you then create interest and people rush to get some.

Well I cant speak for the attitudes in the American South, but certainly here in the UK, especially over the last 3 or 4 decades, religion doesn't play a role in many peoples lives....yet the porn industry has soared.
So that's the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying.

Comparing humans with animals doesn't really work for me...animals act on instinct and are without morals....so there is no connection really.

I just want to pick up on this as it seems to be untrue

Some animals do seem to have a moral code, like humpback whales will save seals from killer whales and foxes (male and female) will adopt orphaned foxes both in captivity and in the wild, animals particularly mammals do seem to have a sort of moral code by which they conduct themselves. it is a subject that needs more study but many do seem to operate above instinctual behaviors. Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 202592697

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 202592697

by Syl Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:49 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well I cant speak for the attitudes in the American South, but certainly here in the UK, especially over the last 3 or 4 decades, religion doesn't play a role in many peoples lives....yet the porn industry has soared.
So that's the exact opposite of what you seem to be saying.

Comparing humans with animals doesn't really work for me...animals act on instinct and are without morals....so there is no connection really.

I just want to pick up on this as it seems to be untrue

Some animals do seem to have a moral code, like humpback whales will save seals from killer whales and foxes (male and female) will adopt orphaned foxes both in captivity and in the wild, animals particularly mammals do seem to have a sort of moral code by which they conduct themselves. it is a subject that needs more study but many do seem to operate above instinctual behaviors.

Its a nice thought and I hope one day more research is done into this.
When we hear of pets...dogs especially, staying by the side of its masters grave and fretting till it dies itself... or knowing elephants will stay with a wounded herd member till it dies, apparently sometimes dying themselves through lack of food or water, it makes you wonder.
Swans do mate for life...magpies couple up and scare off any interlopers.....yep, it certainly makes you think.

I still don't go along with Quills line of thinking though. tongue

by magica Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:51 pm

I think we are more critical of ourselves because we see ourselves in the mirror everyday and can't hide the bits we hide when in private. If this makes sense Shocked

by Original Quill Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:33 pm

Case in point is this recent story of a lioness in the wild, adopting and nursing a leopard cub:

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 01-leopard-suckling-lion.adapt.945.1

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 01-leopard-suckling-lion.adapt.945.1

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 02-leopard-suckling-lion.adapt.945.1

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 03-leopard-suckling-lion.adapt.945.1

By Jason Bittel
PUBLISHED JULY 13, 2017

African lions and leopards are not what you'd call friends. In fact, lions have a habit of killing leopards.

So it was quite surprising when a five-year-old lioness was seen nursing a weeks-old leopard cub recently in Tanzania's Ngorongoro Conservation Area.

“It’s unprecedented,” says Luke Hunter, president and chief conservation officer for Panthera, a global wild cat nonprofit. “We never see this in the wild.”

It’s unclear exactly how the lion and the leopard came into contact, or where the leopard’s true mother might be, but for now, Hunter says it seems as though the lioness’s aggressive instincts have taken a back seat to her maternal ones. (See "A Lioness Killing a Leopard Cub Floored These Filmmakers.")

You see, this female lion, known as Nosikitok, also has a few cubs of her own hidden in the bush. What’s more, the lion cubs are almost the same age as the leopard cub, according to KopeLion, the Tanzanian conservation nonprofit that has been tracking Nosikitok by radio-collar.

While the arrangement is unusual, Hunter says there’s nothing physiologically that should prevent the lion from raising the leopard. Both species produce similar milk and undergo comparable nursing periods. But these are not the only factors to consider.

“This is all speculation, and I’m hoping for the best,” says Hunter, “but I think the challenges to this little fellow surviving are really immense.”

SURVIVING THE GAUNTLET
While it’s not impossible, if the leopard cub were to survive, here’s what would have to happen.

First, Hunter says the lioness would have to bring the cub back to her litter. Right now, the only photos we have show the lioness nursing the leopard out in the open. But eventually, she will return to her den where several other hungry mouths await.

Even if the other cubs don’t put up too much of a fuss and the lioness continues to nurse the leopard, the denning period is no cake walk.

Thanks to other threats such as hyenas and wildfires, Hunter says the mortality rate for a lion litter in their first year averages is about 50 percent. (See" 14 Incredible Photos of African Predators in Action.")

“So the odds are against this poor little thing even if it becomes part of her litter, just because the litter itself might not survive the den period,” he says.

Next, the leopard kitten would need to be welcomed into the lion pride. Female lions go off on their own to give birth, but then return to the group when the cubs are around six to eight weeks of age.

At this point, it’s pretty likely that the rest of the lions—possessing neither the lionesses maternal hormones nor whatever connection she may have developed while nursing the cub—would kill the leopard on sight.

AGAINST THE ODDS
And even if that doesn't happen, the story comes to a similar end. In a normal situation, a leopard would remain with its mother until 12 to 14 months, however some orphans have been known to survive on their own at seven to eight months.

If the leopard survives long enough to be brought back to the pride, it will be just two months old—still much too young to survive on its own.

“Lion females are incredibly devoted and diligent mothers,” says Hunter.

But even with the best adoptive mother in the world, it might require a bit of a miracle for this story to end on a note as adorable as it began.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/leopards-lions-cubs-nursing-tanzania/

by Original Quill Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:50 pm

Syl wrote:I still don't go along with Quills line of thinking though.

Your point was:

Syl wrote:Quill...cant you drag the topic back to the 21st century...you are making my brain ache.

So, you are anti-history. How long something lasts--how far back one has to go to trace a trend--is not of my making. It's just...well, history.

If we are talking: religion >> present-day attitudes, we are going to have to go back pretty far. Religion is pretty old.

Moreover, the bigger the influence, the greater the history. Ergo: something of a major influence, like sexism in Christianity, is going to go back many, many centuries.

by Syl Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I still don't go along with Quills line of thinking though.

Your point was:

Syl wrote:Quill...cant you drag the topic back to the 21st century...you are making my brain ache.

So, you are anti-history. How long something lasts--how far back one has to go to trace a trend--is not of my making. It's just...well, history.

If we are talking: religion >> present-day attitudes, we are going to have to go back pretty far. Religion is pretty old.

Moreover, the bigger the influence, the greater the history. Ergo: something of a major influence, like sexism in Christianity, is going to go back many, many centuries.

No, my point was that its only recently children have been asking for genital reconstruction because they think they are not as 'neat' as the women they are comparing themselves to (ie porn stars)
Its only recently that children have sadly been able to easily access porn in order to compare.

You blamed porn on religion, took us back to the English civil war, the dark ages...and I believe you even dipped as far back to the first couple ever to inhabit the earth...allegedly.

This is a MODERN phenomenon....I don't think you can blame societies recent obsession with bodily perfection on Adam and Eve.

by Raggamuffin Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:37 pm

Surely if someone thinks they have a big nose, they may well have a big nose, but so what? Unless they have surgery, there's not much they can do about it. Laughing

by Original Quill Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:26 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your point was:

So, you are anti-history. How long something lasts--how far back one has to go to trace a trend--is not of my making. It's just...well, history.

If we are talking: religion >> present-day attitudes, we are going to have to go back pretty far. Religion is pretty old.

Moreover, the bigger the influence, the greater the history. Ergo: something of a major influence, like sexism in Christianity, is going to go back many, many centuries.

No, my point was that its only recently children have been asking for genital reconstruction because they think they are not as 'neat' as the women they are comparing themselves to (ie porn stars)
Its only recently that children have sadly been able to easily access porn in order to compare.

You blamed porn on religion, took us back to the English civil war, the dark ages...and I believe you even dipped as far back to the first couple ever to inhabit the earth...allegedly.

This is a MODERN phenomenon....I don't think you can blame societies recent obsession with bodily perfection on Adam and Eve.

You ask a question...you raise a point...who knows where the conversation will lead? When you talk about phobias and shaming associated with body image, you have to talk about whence it came. Well, you are inviting a discussion about way-back...religion, and where these imbecile attitudes came from.

You can't come around again and say, Oh, I don't like that answer because it's in a category of history...I don't like history. Fact is fact, and it doesn't care if you like it. Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 2190311264

Why do we see the faults in ourselves and others see the positives? 2190311264

by Sponsored content