|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #2213 on CommentsLevel 326 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
OfflineSend mail to Nihatclodra Block Nihatclodra Invite Nihatclodra to be your friend flag avatar
I have watched over 1000 anime series from start-to-finish. If you want any anime recommendations, or source on an anime image, feel free to ask me. I don't know all the anime series out there, but I know more than most.
- Text/Links 3
- Pictures 19
- YouTube 22
- Animated Gifs 1
- Favorites1 new695
- Friends 60
- Comments11 new14491
- Channels 10
- All 15310
latest user's comments
|#180 - That's some top-tier androgyny right there... I love it.||11/09/2014 on i think im in love.||0|
|#52 - A fetish for navels is actually quite common actually. [+] (1 new reply)||11/09/2014 on Being Polite||0|
|#10 - not me, I always look at the navel. [+] (21 new replies)||11/08/2014 on Being Polite||+6|
#36 - anonymous (11/09/2014) [-]
I look at the whole woman and this one's nice but mostly I'm a vulva_luva!
#64 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
"nothing sexual" is really stretching it when you're referring to one of the most insanely sexually charged creatures on the entire planet, the female human. There really isn't anything about the body that isn't sexual. That particular area would be extremely important to find attractive on a woman if you think about it biologically.
#68 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
1. Female humans are only sexually charged if you see them as such. I don't. Women are people first and formost, not sex objects. For example, the nose isn't sexual, the feet aren't unless you have that fetish, really only the sexual organs are pertaining to sex 100%. It's like if I found a man's navel or his ring finger sexy, which I don't.
2. I'm a woman so I don't see how that area is extremely important to find sexually attractive.
3. I'm not sexually attracted by the navel either, I just always look at it first on a woman. Then her tits. Which makes more sense.
#71 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
That's a complete lie, regardless of whether it makes you feel bad or not but it shouldn't. The only reason you're here right now is because humans were so successful in sexual reproduction in a really unique way. Your entire evolutionary framework is centered around having sex. This makes you a "sex object" in a biological way that's completely separate from your opinion. I'm not sure you're aware of how completely ridiculous and unique human genitals are compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
I don't know how open minded you are but some experience studying anthropology would really take you for a spin. At least it would force you to think about sex in a totally different way.
#73 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
In fact we as humans evolved to be different in such a way not due to sex, although you're right that it's the framework.
Our big brains developed as a direct result of cooking food, making our digestive system a lot smaller and yet able to take on plenty of calories from our diet of processed and cooked food. As a result of our big brains, we survived and conquered the entire planet. This of course pleased our genes whose sole desire is to ensure we reproduce.
HOWEVER, we must take into account that sex drives us just as much as hunger and pain. Just like any other animal. Freud's theories no longer hold true in the world as we discovered this, sex is actually not everything, it's just the basis- and because we have that awareness, we can deduce that sex is not the ultimate goal in the modern world. Henceforth, as we mature in our intellect and focus more on what lead us to the discovery of clothing ourselves and feeding ourselves uniquely, people are having less children. Japan has a population crisis. America's population isn't booming in educated areas. Pretty much every country with a high education rate is at a standstill when it comes to birth rates.
This is because, in order to ensure our survival in a world of limited resources, we must STOP having so much sex at some point. Our brains in this way have actually counteracted the nature of our genes, making your point that sex is everything invalid.
#74 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
I just cannot let you get away with actually claiming that we've somehow "counteracted the nature of our genes" by using our brains to avoid sex? This sounds like something YOU might be doing personally, rather than any actual societal or anthropological observation.
You're also completely ignoring some very serious key differences in human genitalia and sexuality that make people unique. The men don't have bones in their penis, which is extremely interesting in comparison to other mammals. The dicks are also insanely HUGE in proportion with our bodies which is incredibly interesting to biologists. Women's sexual characteristics are also incredibly ridiculous and would be incredibly dangerous and disadvantageous if it weren't for their function in sex.
While there's truth to the idea that the human brain saw a period of extreme growth during the same time we began to cook our food, it isn't exactly a cause and effect. This has to do with switching to a higher calorie and protein diet. This isn't really a reason that humans evolved unique brains, it's just the fuel that allowed it to happen. What really makes human development unique is the stage of extremely extended infancy. This required complex sexual relationships that led to humans being the creature with the most prominent presence in parenting.
You go on about how sex is not some ultimate goal in the modern world and I'd really like to see some references as to where you got that information. The very idea that our sex drives may have somehow begun to unconsciously realize that we need to stop having sex at some point is just too ridiculous. There's just no truth at all to that.
To me it honestly looks like you're in denial of the sexual role of human development. Because of your lack of knowledge of the human reproductive organs and their uniqueness in the animal kingdom I find it hard to believe that you've actually studied anthropology in any meaningful way.
#75 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
Don't call your observation anthropological. Anthropology doesn't generalize or say all humans follow the same pattern.
Cooking food increases the amount of calories we can take from it. Where do you think the higher calorie diet comes from?
I understand the sexuality of human development, and also, anthropology isn't just about sex. Doesn't make it any more or less meaningful to not study sex. Human reproductive organs are NOT anything unique. Our use of parenting and extended infancy is different, but that has nothing to do with the organs themselves.
Having penile bones doesn't make something any less of a penis which uses the same function to reproduce as humans.
You want sources, simply google it. It's common knowledge.
And, look around. Anywhere that the population exceeds the limit, disease and starvation knocks it back down. However in today's world, instead of this occurring, Japan and American birth rates are lower than they've ever been. Look with your eyes at the world not at a book.
#72 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
Then by that logic, men are also sex objects.
Not really, the rest of the mammalian kingdom follows the same reproductive organ system as humans. There's a penis, a glans, testes, ovaries, a uterus and vagina. Regardless of what animal you look at. The shape is different but not much else including functionality.
I've studied anthropology and I've found that people are people across the border, both different and the same at the same time. We didn't go into sex but we did go into the different "mating rituals" of different groups of people around the world.
Our evolutionary framework, just as any other animal- is centered around sex. However, humans have an awareness that our genetics may have instilled as a means survival until we reproduce- an awareness that life is not just about sex but a multitude of other things.
We don't reproduce any more uniquely than any other animal, either.
#77 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
I've already commented on our use of clothing. None of those have anything to do with reproductive organs as you're saying, except for the penile bone which does not make or break a penis in the animal kingdom.
We still use sperm, the manner of conceiving is the same across all mammalian species.
None of this backs up your thesis that human reproduction is the only thing that matters to being human.
#81 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
I meant to post this with that as well. It's the comparison to other primates that raises some serious questions about human sexual characteristics.
I've spent a lot of time in this area of biology and even though i'm open minded to challenging information I don't really want to debate this with you like this. More importantly I want to know why you believe this way. Why does it feel you are discrediting the sexual role in evolution?
Basically what we originally we talking about was what are called Fisherian traits, or traits related to sexual attraction that can be illogical otherwise. When it comes to the navel it's attractive because the entire area and female body is attractive in general. It doesn't have to be "fuckable" to be sexual. That would make boobs pretty useless outside of feeding because they are also not "fuckable" in a traditional sense. I was pointing out that the entire body is sexual so an attraction to any part, especially those close to areas important for sexual selection makes complete sense.
#82 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
Yes, post the abstract with no data or anything else.
Also, this sentence disproves your statement that we are entirely unique in our sexual reproductive method.
"extended copulation during the ovarian cycle is the norm among simian primates"
" Although the human neonate matches the typical precocial pattern of primates in most respects, a fetal pattern of brain growth continues for a year after birth, such that the human infant is "secondarily altricial" in terms of its dependence on parental care. Nevertheless, the "natural" lactation period of humans is probably about 3 years, fitting the expectation in comparison to other hominoids."
We're not that unique in terms of sex, at all. Freud is dead, let it go. I'm not discrediting the sexual role in our evolution, I'm saying it's not the only thing which factored human evolution and it certainly is not the basis of how we view people. Women and men are not sex objects, they are people. Humans have an awareness, as I've said, which leads us not to seek a mate but to seek a whole range of factors within a mate which have nothing to do with sex. Otherwise we would NOT be staying so long with our partners after copulation to help raise the child. I want to know why you see humans as super-sexual creatures when we really aren't.
You can argue that looking at the overall health is important in sexual selection all you want, I don't disagree. However that is a very generalized statement that has nothing to do with any one particular pat of the body, and the naval has nothing to do with the health of the individual. Meanwhile breast and ass/thigh size help to see how a female, both in apes and humans, would give birth to and rear a child. Having larger areas here is seen as good, therefore, your thesis holds. But the navel has nothing to do with whether or not a child will be raised well. It's definitely a Fisherian trait.
#83 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
"Freud is dead, let it go" is not an argument. That's pretty brutally amateur to be honest. I haven't even mentioned Freud and you go on about it. Darwin is dead too but you seem to be able to recognize some of his ideas as having validity. I haven't even gotten into psychology yet here, it's been pretty strictly about natural selection so far.
I think it's really important that you believe this way about Freud but it's largely inconsequential to finding a part of a midsection attractive on a woman. I'd also having to seriously disagree with you that being a "sex object" is a bad thing at all. People are very sex-y by nature and describing them are sex objects isn't entirely incorrect but it is vague.
I see people as "super sexual" because they are. If you have any evidence for the contrary then I'm more than willing to see it. The truth is that sex is huge our species and we've done a great job dominating our environment by using it. Sex should be something you can celebrate and not hate. That's why i'm curious about why you argue these ways.
#84 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
What I mean by that is that Freud's ideas have been DISPROVED. It's dead, done.
Being a sex object means you're seen as nothing but an object for sex. Have you ever been in a relationship with meaning? People chose partners based on far more than just sex, or at least, in relationships that last they do. That alone discredits your last point.
People are not super sexual. Love, compatibility, enjoying someone's company all are concepts that do not relate entirely to sex and are huge in deciding a mate for life in humans.
I don't hate sex, I don't see why you think I do. My opinion on sex is that IT IS NOT EVERYTHING, as you seem to think.
#78 - romanlettuce (11/09/2014) [-]
Now you're going to strawman me with a thesis I never even came close to asserting? I would argue that sex was HUGE for human development and was an extremely successful strategy for dominating the planet.
You can just shove me off to Google but I have some serious resources you can actually review to back up what I'm saying.
#79 - elcreepo (11/09/2014) [-]
The one you gave me didn't back anything up.
Our brains arguably did more for dominating the planet then sex. Sex was just the basis of our larger brains' development, but sex itself did not dominate the planet. It just let us reproduce more.
Our brains were what figured out how to survive just about everywhere, as I've said.
#37 - anonymous (11/09/2014) [-]
Actually, I like the girls' navels that are shaped like a slender tear-drop but her's is nice too!
|#35 - yup||11/08/2014 on I have bags in bags in bags...||0|
|#59 - yup||11/08/2014 on What Are You Afraid Of||0|
|#32 - hundreds of freaks, from tens of thousands of fans...||11/08/2014 on Good job joshlol||-1|
|#19 - can someone inform me of what the significance of this content is? [+] (1 new reply)||11/08/2014 on Glorious Leader||+3|
|#37 - yes.||11/08/2014 on Sooo... What's up with Japan?||0|
|#90 - Yes you did. I still have your tears, they're as delicious as always.||11/08/2014 on A girl with something extra||0|
|#123 - ... I think that's 30-40 chapters behind.||11/08/2014 on To all the NaruSaku fans||0|
|#102 - where is the anime at now? [+] (6 new replies)||11/08/2014 on To all the NaruSaku fans||0|
#117 - anonymous (11/08/2014) [-]
>Not going on MangaStream
Come on guy
|#105 - Being mugged is likely the closest thing he'll ever have to an…||11/08/2014 on What's the problem||+3|
|#141 - I'm pretty sure some company bought the company that made Dark…||11/08/2014 on The Four Horsemen||0|
|#137 - Darksiders IS getting a 3rd game, it's just that this content … [+] (2 new replies)||11/08/2014 on The Four Horsemen||0|
|#3 - It does, doesn't it?||11/07/2014 on Dungeons and drags||+2|
|#239 - "Princess Mononoke" and "Howl's Moving Castle&q…||11/07/2014 on Rule 63||0|
|#1 - This seems as good a place as any to share it... this last ses… [+] (2 new replies)||11/07/2014 on Dungeons and drags||+6|
|#141 - absolutely nothing to do with American measuring systems, that…||11/07/2014 on Metric Master Race||0|
|#112 - Something that, i assure you, has never and will never happen. [+] (2 new replies)||11/07/2014 on Metric Master Race||+3|
#135 - randpaulravemaster (11/07/2014) [-]
What do you think the point of NAFTA was?
|#107 - not necissarily. There are times when you'd have to convert th…||11/07/2014 on Metric Master Race||+1|
|#94 - Yeah. If i remember correctly, the actual wording was more alo…||11/07/2014 on Adan and Eve||0|
|#39 - My inner thoughts would end with have my town's women being pr…||11/06/2014 on Inner voices n shit||+1|
|#119 - 148.1 is just a small rectangle for me... [+] (1 new reply)||11/06/2014 on Rule 63||0|
|#114 - Rule #148: You don't get any cookies. No exceptions. [+] (3 new replies)||11/06/2014 on Rule 63||0|
|#111 - Welp... I want to **** all of them...||11/06/2014 on Rule 63||+1|