EVE General Discussion

Just a head's up before I start: your post was very painful to read; extremely rambling and repetitive.



What? They state very clearly that they are drawing on feminist psychology for their survey and definitions, citing something like 10+ sources to that effect.

Unless you're referring to other sources you haven't mentioned, none of the other studies look at the correlation. So... it doesn't have to discredit anything, it's just exploring new research.



I'm not sure why you're so proud of having access to academic databases. That probably makes you... a college student, or a college employee, or at a library, or somewhere within wifi range of a college/library, or someone with any amount of googling ability. In any case, I just linked you scientific evidence. While it admittedly depends on how you define sexism, sexism itself is not a particularly scientific concept.



Uh... ok?



I claimed nothing of the sort. I merely referenced a study which found they are correlated.



My search was literally for "breast size preference". Psychology is very influenced by philosophy and bias in general, but that's not particularly my fault.

My characters epic breasts are camouflaged by the background so no one will ever see them coming.

Don't lie. The evidence is in your post. You asserted it after posting the studies, but nowhere in your assertion did you state, "according to this research", or try to justify the research as legitimate. This was a statement made by you, as if it was a well established fact, when it is nothing of the sort.



This is how I know you're not a scientist, at least, not one qualified in psychology. This statement is utter rubbish.

Do not compound this. Most of what you provided was scientifically literate, but I'm merely pointing out what is wrong with your assertion that attraction has anything to do with sexism. This has simply not been demonstrated by anything you've posted, and even the crap study you put up is incredibly inconclusive. The other reason why I stated I had access to these databases was to indicate that I've been able to read more of the studies than just the abstracts, which is all you have provided. An abstract is a good way to find out what an article is about, but it's no way to determine its methodology or many other aspects of its accuracy or the author's expertise on the matter.

I have done you the courtesy of explaining what was wrong with that assertion, instead of just saying, "that's wrong, you're an idiot". Do me the courtesy of at least providing a legitimate argument with merit and citations or evidence in response, or conceding the point. Stating something like "psychology is based in philosophy and bias in general" without demonstrating how or why that is the case is merely an assertion without evidence, and it will be dismissed as such.

I'm over this quoting nonsense, and you are being deliberately obtuse. So I'm just going to address your points without quoting them, and be done with it.

1. By basing those definitions on the premise that the topic is subjective and bias without justifying what makes it so, makes the premise false and therefore, the definitions are irrelevant. The topic is not subjective, the paper is utter rubbish.

2. The results are already discredited by a) the bias, and b) the myriad of studies that already exist using more substantial methodology that present results to the contrary. Why should I do research that has already been done? You're a 'scientist' aren't you? You should already be capable enough of finding the articles in Nature or The Lancet yourself. (FYI, those are hints on where to start your research if you're actually man enough to admit we all have more to learn). You presented a fallacious study. I told you what's wrong with that study. It's not up to me then to prove it, when no proof has been offered from your side to begin with, it is up to you to either prove what makes the study conclusive, or continue your research, or just cover your ears and cry "lalalalala" deny deny deny.

3. Preface that point when you make the claim, not after the fact when you get called out on it, then we'll talk.

4. That's all well and good for people that have access to the databases where that information is stored, but when you only link to an abstract without providing some discussion of the paper and just establishing the conclusions with nothing in between, you are not making a case worthy of discussion.

5. I didn't misquote you, I copied and pasted your words directly, and even provided a link to where it can be found. This is your second obvious lie, and your intentions to save face rather than man up and concede on one small point are becoming more and more obvious. I have no stomach for intellectual dishonesty.

6. If you can't handle reading through my explanations, or you can't understand them, then why should I believe that you can understand a single one of those papers you posted to begin with? Why should I believe that you've read them through? My posts have been less than 10% of the total word count of each one of those papers. You call it rambling, but I'll bet you the majority of people reading it won't have a problem with it, only those that either refuse to accept rational explanation in lieu of preconceived and biased notions of sexuality.

7. "More formal fields" is a laugh coming from you. You've demonstrated the kind of scientific illiteracy and ignorance and/or denial of discussion I expect from a Playboy Playmate by the name of Jenny McCarthy, or her idiot ex Jim Carrey. Your first failure is that you think psychology is a field unto itself. There are many fields of psychological science, and it is far from a 'soft' science. It's actually a common trait of creatards to dismiss psychology as a 'soft science', but there isn't a real scientist on the face of the planet that dismisses it so easily. There are certainly fields of psychology in their infancy, but don't think for one second they haven't garnered considerable scientific interest. In fact, biologists have worked very closely with psychological researchers on a number of occasions to make some incredible findings.

However, I'm not being paid for this, I don't have to try to help indicate where you went wrong, so yes, I'm doing you a courtesy. You COULD have, at any point, checked on MY assertions and provided arguments against them. So far, you haven't. Just assertions. And yes, just stating "psychology is a soft science" is an assertion without evidence, and could have just been dismissed without evidence. But, now it's up to you to consider what I have told you and decide for yourself whether or not you want to check the facts and find out what's true, or continue to think your own opinion is more relevant, ignore the facts, and keep yourself in the dark on the topic, in which case, you'll probably never be taken very seriously on it, or if you are a scientist, which I know you aren't, laughed out of academia.

Here's what confuses me the most, though. Everything else you claimed was fine, and supported by plenty of research. I'm only pointing out one claim you made that was fallacious, and you're throwing a tantrum about it. What's wrong with, "Oh, well, I guess I'd better check it out then," at the very least. I don't even expect you to admit you were wrong, or concede defeat, I'm not trying to compete, just establish the facts. You seem to be having trouble with accepting the facts, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but using the excuse that I'm rambling is offensive, especially considering the irony you show in such an incoherent defence with zero merit of a single point of contention.

And then, you go and claim you're a scientist, as if an argument from authority will do the trick? Mate, I'm a science writer, I do this **** for a living and I don't get my material from the Australian Science Media Centre (which isn't a terrible resource for less scientifically literate journalists, like those just starting out), I get it from the scientists and the journals. I'm telling you now, if you are a scientist, then whoever gave you your PhD was drunk. Anyway, I wouldn't care if you were a hairdresser, the fact is, you still got most of what you said right. I'm talking about one little thing you got wrong. And you're kicking up a stink as if I insulted your mother.

Bottom line is, there is nothing BUT subjective reasoning linking what a male perceives as attractive to sexism. What about all those men that find other men attractive? What about all those men who are asexual? ****, the article is titled with and filled with assertions that male thinking is oppressive by nature, and that there is no exception. This is the premise on which its arguments are based, and they have not justified the premise. This is the primary reason why that article is just terrible, and along with its citations, suggests a radical feminist agenda. If you're going to base your conclusions on that, go for it. Fortunately, for the rest of us, your assertions, and your opinion, are not supported by the facts, so we can continue to enjoy life and learn from it while you carry on about sexism and the false notion that it is the cause of anything.

It's quite simply not the cause of anything. Sexism is the effect, of which there are MANY causes. But it is not a cause itself, and it in no way determines who or what men or women find attractive. It can certainly determine what men or women might CLAIM to be attractive for the sake of social acceptance, but that is as far is it goes.

There's so much more to a woman than the size of her rack and so much more you can express with the character creator.

As far as skinny goes, it's hard to make a decent looking obese character using the character creator. Women just get bigger butts and chunkier arms, but there are no apple shapes.

Is it just me or is this a Hey Im a girl thread in disguise ?

No. This was not my intention. Although EVE Online is a mostly men dominated game I very appreciate the opionions of the girls/women playing EVE Online to have also the "other (gender-) side".

Without defame our gay community I am totally hetero but I prefer female characters in games. I would say 30% of all male EVE Online players play a female character. It would be a completly new thread to ask why male player prefer female characters. But why should female players not play male characters. But this would lead us back to the topic. Would female players playing a male character create it in their imagination of beauty... and from where comes this imagination ... and is it likewise stereotype like that from the men ... ? There was one reply about that.