#selfies #amateur #nsfw #cellphone #teen #girl #nude
it's funny how the Miss Universe women are usually fairly flat-faced.
features that poke out are, generally, not considered very attractive.
personally, coming from a region of the world (Finnmark; Sami/Lappish territory), flat faces are the norm, so, to me, girls with more "projective" features are more attractive.
i think the main reason for this is that, if you look at the rules of genetics, if you're too genetically similar to someone, your child is more likely to develop inbreeding symptoms, so you want to mate with genetically dissimilar people to avoid that.
altho some ppl on fedi are toxic, there are still a lot of ppl that are really heccing cute and likable
44 posts ommited. Click [See All] to see the entire thread.
Eh, imo all this gender binary talk is a complete misunderstanding. Let me put it this way.
It's my position that the psyche is comprised of opposed forces, and they can be in light (conscious) or shadow (unconscious) to various degrees. So for example, most people could easily peg themselves as more of an introvert or more of an extrovert, but likely not to uniform degrees. I'm mostly extroverted but I have an introvert side too. Because it's not stigmatised and doesn't bother me, I can freely acknowledge this.
But in teams of masculine and feminine (which absolutely are existent and opposing forces, even if they're noumatically derived from sexual reproduction, which don't forget over 70% of ALL LIFE partakes in, including volcanic vent corals and shit) I could more easily peg myself as masculine, for sure.... But what about the feminine? Do I just have no feminine in me?
Or course not. But feminine men are stigmatised, and to appear or consider myself overtly feminine might compromise my social positioning, even just in my own marriage. On top of this, the idea of bodily feminising fills me with horror almost as bad as my teeth or hair falling out.
So where does this leave my "feminine face"? As a Shadow, where it is for most men. At least initially. The only way to resolve a Shadow is to integrate it, and allow it to become a Persona, but in masculine and feminine terms we're literally talking about integrating my Anima, which is so difficult that it's led millennia of questants to externalise the Anima as a goddess force. (Which is... Valid? Since "God" is just you, anyway, the collective face of your collective vs individuated psychological axis.)
Anyway what I'm saying is that I think if we're prepared to accept that masculine and feminine are existent and opposed forces then it's foolish to attempt to add artificial complexity to that opposition. Like colouring in a yin-yang. On the other hand, it's EQUALLY FOOLISH to assume that singular axis is all there is to a person's "internal identity" or "Unique", a term from Stirner that I find way more helpful than "Gender" (because Unique is self declared, Gender is about how others see you. I'm serious, look up the grammatical roots. Look up genders in languages that don't confine them to sexes. To speak a gender is to register how you see the person you are addressing, it's the opposite of self-actualisation: letting the world tell YOU what YOU are, not asserting your own individuation.)
So yeah, in short? I could definitely love someone who had more masculine than feminine in their personality. But I couldn't love someone who was more selfless than ego-driven, another "internal axis"; for me, that would be a deal breaker. Similarly, I could love someone who was more introverted than extroverted, but I couldn't love someone who was more servile than independent.
I guess what it comes down to is a feeling that reducing attraction to the flawed notion of "gender as sexual identity" just doesn't seem helpful. I'm generally far more attracted to the feminine than the masculine but at this point in my life I could be in a room full of cute girls and I'd ruthlessly investigate which ones were selfish, or shallow, or judgmental, instead of chasing them for their feminine charms. Hell, any who considered themselves "religious" rather than "spiritual" or "magical" would be on the "no thanks" list very, very quickly.
In light of this, how would a label like straight or bisexual even make sense for me? Where in all of this is the notion of an absolute binary to identity or attraction - even a binary to rebel against? It's swinging at phantoms. The target was never even there to hit.
But all of this doesn't matter to most people, because I guess they don't give a fuck about trying to explore the depths of the psyche and sentience and consciousness at all. For most of them, the more pressing issues are shit like whether they will be persecuted if they're seen as "gay". How bigotry holds the world back.
> that first impression is important.
no, the first impression can be very missleading most of the time. keep in mind that your first impression is mostly based on your own views. i have many friends i wouldn't have if i'd have go on my first impression of them
> I view people as being like animals.
i mean, we are all animals
i used to be one of those that posted quite much about politics, but for me it got really tiresome because on the net, most ppl that will interact with you on those topics have really extreme views with no space for allowing anything else besides that. thats why i tent to go easy on those topics, and only start posting about that stuff i truly care about and that are close to me
i mean, one of his statements was that no cute girls would be on fedi which is really stupid even in his mindset since he knew at least one of them
@oss what’s with this edit that uses a tiny plug
#natural #nude #woman #hips #bush #homemade #nsfw
nice mention bro
women should have short hair and men should have short hair
everyone cut your damn hair
46 posts ommited. Click [See All] to see the entire thread.
She's finally come around!
@caskd hungry now?
Please, enlighten me. How was it a compromise? What did they start with and what did they give up?