Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/22/14 09:15 PM, Estella wrote: So to stay girly I will watch The Red Shoes and much more Fellini.

Or you could think, act and live like the gender you feel suites you best. It's not about mirroring what we see on TV, or the likes. It's an actual state of interaction between the mind to which gender works best with in relation to our ideals and lifestyle. It comes with a collective system of feeling, which comes to another point; dancers are also very feminine. People that fight and engage in primitive measures are never feminine. Having popular girls attack other girls like an animal cancels out their feminism.

In the year 2014, Man wages war against... words.

At 2/22/14 09:03 PM, Estella wrote: Okay how would i CHANGE my gender now?

You can't "change" gender. What you do is "exchange" animus over anima, or vice versa. For an example, a guy feels like a girl (they could dress like them, they could think like them, they could act like them, they could talk like them, they could desire to be one physically); the guy picks anima over his animus by doing this. When we think, our brains create reactions throughout our physiological system. Certain thoughts will lead to animus, or anima. Having thoughts that is equivalent to the female's thoughts will eventually shape you into a female. Vice versa. Females are related to the abstract, emotional and attracted easily like a cat. Males are related to the construct, rational and focused and like an instinctive animal. When you understand the frames of each gender, you'll see exactly where one psychical aspect out-weighs the other. This is why male artists seem to be very girly. They started thinking about abstract rather than construct.

Male = Fire Female = Water

At 2/22/14 08:35 PM, Estella wrote: Well actually it is just me that is closed minded, the doctor and everyone else are open minded because they can alter their gender. Here is the thing let's say I'm anima now, if I watched Expendables fifty times would animus take over?
And if not why not?

I see. I'm not sure you understand how anima, and animus works. I explained to you that such is not physically impacted, but psychically impacted. This means having a preference to "this" and "that" does not decide your gender. There may be psychical reasons why being a particular gender will cause you to stay clear from, say, watching football for being a male submissive type that is into lighthearted, non-violent activities, while a female dominant type that is into rough stuff and violent activities would be -- unless other psychical properties stand in the way, such as a traumatic experience that involves any reminiscence of football. However, having preferences to shows, colors, clothes, designs or anything else is way too intrinsically involved to have any definition on your sexuality.

At 2/22/14 08:00 PM, Sensationalism wrote: 1. Ch
2. K
2. J
3. M

Is it strange that my brain made out the name, Micheal Jackson from these letters?

At 2/22/14 08:14 AM, Piggler wrote: This thread is cancer.

The only thing killing Newgrounds is the user base obsessed with it's death.

Your post quality is a cure to NG cancer. What do you think about that, my good sir?

At 2/22/14 08:20 PM, Estella wrote: I think this is what the doctor meant but I didn't know how to phrase it.

If that is what your doctor meant, I'll only be amused how knowledgeable that doctor is, knowing how you allegedly live in a place full of close-minded people.

So basically, we all have male and female traits within us. They aren't structural types, like one has their genitalia inside-out or outside-in, but rather psychical influences which are integrated by biological constituents. This is why the human mind has no gender, and also why both sexes can become an animal that doesn't react to its gender, but its anger.

At 2/22/14 08:15 PM, Scintillating wrote: I don't think you understand. I'm saying a biological clock is an ACTUAL physio chemical phenomenon that many organisms have. It is not something that is instilled in us because of upbringing, it is an actual phenomenon that relies on cues such as a certain level of light falling onto the retina in the eye which activates various chemicals. You can read more about it online.

This is why I am asking this question, Scintillating. I understand the science behind it and the biology that runs our bodies, however I also know that there are many things in science that has to do with the human mind which was abruptly misconceived for far too long; I like to touch on such questions to make sense out of something that is missing pieces, which demonstrates the consensus is not fully accurate, or I am the one that is missing something.

My question is, to which we observe biologically, can this reasonably be a correlation to the state of time? Or is it merely interactions within a reactive system that doesn't necessarily constitute "time"? I want to know this because I know that our experiences are individualized by moments, but I feel that "time" is too broad of a brush to paint this question with.

At 2/22/14 07:57 PM, Estella wrote: Do you mean anime?

Not at all. What those terms mean, is "male", and "female". They are terms that explain why a society needs both women and men to fulfill their roles (I do not mean that women should be submissive and men should be dominant). If there is no men, then women will always be sensitive, lacking of power and imbalanced; if there is no women, then men will always be insensitive, leisure of power and imbalanced. When both are intertwined, they cancel each other like fire and water, while filling each other in. There is a mutual bond between the two in a psychical sense that is extremely important for everyone to consider.

At 2/22/14 05:53 PM, Sensationalism wrote: I always knew I liked you.

Daw~

At 2/22/14 07:39 PM, DM692 wrote: If my body was 99.9% estrogen and the remaining .1% were an X and Y chromosome, I'd still be a male.

Are you familiar with the terms, "animus", and "anima"?

At 2/22/14 07:35 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: The breast size was an example, I'll also like girls for their waist, be it small or large, but in both cases it will be for that specific reason. And I don't think the big breasts were about any kind of specific symbolic, it's a preference I developed going in a relationship with a girl who had big breasts. But I'm not looking for girls who have large breasts specifically in life, but I may like this specifically on a girl.

It may not even be the size of the breasts, that drives you; it's the breasts, themselves. When you write and respond to me, I can tell that your mind is fixated on the breasts of these girls in a more than explanatory way. Your desire is wrapped around it in the same way the waist and the breasts are one of the most grasp-prone areas of the human body. I believe that if you think on this idea, you'll come to a conclusion which explains your desires. I'm not afraid to go into the red zone of questioning, but I'll do it for the sake of inquisition. Here's my theory: I believe that the reason why you're attracted to breasts and waist-lines is because they are easy to grasp; grasp being a form of comfort and warmth, like a hug. You might be even the cuddle-type. I'm not sure of your relationship with your mother, but I believe that this could stem from it.

Don't you need to have a subjective perception of life as a collection of elements placed in dualistic positions to even have this kind of desire? I totally get how we have desire that we are trying to fulfill, I just don't see how these are supposed to be opposites of "my whole". How is my whole defined if it varies in times and according to my life experiences?

Think of it like this. Our created image is both interchangeable, and integral. Therefore on the surface you change, but internally you are environmentally and biologically framed.

At 2/22/14 07:16 PM, Zachary wrote: Well, time on a clock is a completely different thing than the time we actually experience. Also, you could say we inherit everything, even life.

Those are the distinctions I made in my OP. You did ask an interesting question, however. I would argue that in order for us to inherit "everything", as you say, we would have to have an already integral system to make such inheriting possible. Therefore I do not believe that we "inherit" everything -- we inherit some; ignore some, but there has to be an integral system to make inheriting possible. Distinguishing the differences between what is inherited and what is integral would help us better understand whether not time is post-birth or pre-birth.

Time, on a clock (the concept created by man), clearly comes after bird. Time as a force is something we always have. Even before we were born actually if you think about it.

Time as a force is the extrinsic state (it's not a thing of itself, but a result created by other things, just like how a tornado doesn't exist more than a concept; it is the result of other forces), and when we inherit that force, it becomes an intuition.

My question here is, when we are borne into this world, is the force of time already an integral part of us? Or do we have to inherit it first?

At 2/22/14 07:18 PM, Profanity wrote: Random fact: brain scans of male and female brains have shown obvious and macroscopic distinctions between the way men and women think.

That's environmental. The brain scans forget to consider such, and it prevents us from understanding the relative nature of our bodies and the distinctions of gender involved.

At 2/22/14 07:02 PM, DM692 wrote: You chromosomes end up with XX or XY. It's certainly a binary measurement, not a human idea.

You forget we contain enough of both gender-based chemicals and biological constructs to be both -- depending on what we desire. In the end, both genders become an animal when they stop playing the acting game.

At 2/22/14 06:47 PM, Elitistinen wrote: There were much much bigger trollings you have pulled on NG, and I witnessed most of them.

I have a grand question for you, grasshopper. Can one troll, without being "a" troll?

At 2/22/14 06:22 PM, Sensationalism wrote: No. Homosexuality exists.

You can be homosexual, but you can't be "a" homosexual. Homosexuality is a fetish, therefore it's based off a noun -- the same way you can be heterosexual, but you can't be "a" heterosexual. Sometimes I wonder why I know more about sexual orientations than those that live through them everyday. It demonstrates that there is much hubris and myopia involved in these movements. I wish people would settle down and accept the simplicity behind their desires, personally.

At 2/22/14 06:47 PM, Zachary wrote: Changing of perception does not equal changing of the actual thing. How you perceive something is personal. You may perceive time as going by fast, but for others at the same moment they are perceiving it as going slow.

Still hung up on that, huh? I never said perception equates to an actual property. I know perception is personal; I'm arguing that time isn't integrated into us at birth -- time is inherited by us. If it's inherited, then it's not integral. Time doesn't come with our birth; time comes after our birth.

Time is a state that exists as a result created by the distancing of planets, and the distinctions observed in universal cycles such as day and night. Its actual form cannot be altered, but our perception of it can be altered to our heart's content. My question is, does time come as an intuition before our birth? Or after our birth?

I attempted to get one of my songs into OCRemix. I was very close, but then the technical issues got in the way and prevented me from carrying the act through.

At 2/22/14 06:37 PM, mandog wrote: The age limit should be 16, no more no less, how many 16 year olds aren't sexually active in some way?

To be biologically accurate, a girl is able to give birth when her period starts. However, we live in a world that prevents girls from maturing as early, so such cognitive responsibility is generally found in later ages. I believe the age was set because fathers were too trigger happy about their daughters mindlessly fucking and giving birth to a baby they had to raise financially, which is just another pointless burden on their shoulders. It explains the anger and hatred toward women that got raped, or had sex before legal age; how back then they would torture her in hopes of forcing her to have a miscarriage.

At 2/22/14 06:27 PM, Zachary wrote: Time does not become slower or faster because we can not alter time because time is constant. What changes is our perception of time.

We cannot alter time, but the perception of time, of course. Why does our perception of it change, however? In order for perception to change, this means that we're weaving in and out of two forms of experiences (it's very similar to weaving in and out of a dream and reality). Why do both experiences contain "time"? Why are we able to ignore "time"? Or create "time", (as an intuition, and not an extrinsic state).

At 2/22/14 06:22 PM, Lemonardo wrote: The passage of time is the essence of everything: it is what defines the then and now, and the difference in between, which is what allows everything and anything to change, and thus, exist.

I have a thought experiment for you. Let's say a society built a utopia underground that did everything the same way, everyday, as a ritual with no breaks or deterrence. What then is the "passage of time"? If there never is a new moment or a way to recognize experience, as it is all entirely molded into a vapid cycle that goes on and on, within a place that is equivalent to living in a world where in there is no moon or sun to distinguish a sense of "time". If "time" can be blocked out, then how is "time" an intuition borne into us?

At 2/22/14 06:16 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I find this analysis to have very restrictive understanding of sexuality. It defines sexually as being totally irrational and impulsive. If I agree that these things play a role in defining the sexual preferences of someone, I think there is more to it. I take myself as an example. I know that I desire that I have, what I've had and what I've never had. I don't want to and even some that contradict each other. You talk about being a dominant male, which I also am, most of the time, but I like to take a less controlling part in my sex life sometimes, because of the diversity it brings. And I've also been with very different girls in terms of sexual behavior and body types, and I know I've developed specific preferences for certain body types because of this, but these various body types are "total opposites". An example of this, it that I've been with a girl who wears A-cup bras, one with C-cup, and one with F-cup bras. I know that it has affected me and my actual sexual preferences. I will be attracted by girls with these specific features, for these specific features, but in a none-restrictive way. So if I like girls some would call "busty", I also like girls who have smaller breasts, but specifically for that reason.

It may not be as restrictive as you think, however. There could be underlying properties found in these girls with different breast sizes that are very much the same, which is opposite of which you desire. Also, I'd argue that if you're solely attracted to their breasts, it could actually be a sign of fertility -- that you don't have in your life, in the same manner that many people have been found dating a particular sex because they lacked it as a parental figure (sex could be a perversion of love, which would explain the strange love pedophiles have for children that turns into a sexual inflammation). The mind does strange things to fulfill us; to keep us positive (i.e stockholm syndrome).

I understand how the forbidden and inaccessible plays a big role in our sexuality, as the desire takes over because of the incapacity to rationally control it. I think it's an interesting element to bring into a wider understanding of human sexuality, as I don't believe that "the total opposite of ourselves" is what we crave for.

We want what fulfills us. We desire to fill a hole -- that hole is the opposite of our whole. We live in a dualistic, parabolic chamber made up of realities and constituents complimented by thereof.

At 2/22/14 06:15 PM, Lemonardo wrote: It [homosexuality] is a mental illness

Actually, it's a fetish. All fetishes are based on consequential minds, so everything that we're sexually attracted to can be deemed as a mental issue, but not an illness. This means that whether you fuck the same sex, your dog, a child, the opposite sex (non-reproductive agenda) or food, you're not going to gain anything from it in the long run, and such act is only the product of psychical inflammation.

At 2/22/14 05:58 PM, Zachary wrote: Well considering time is a force that affects everyone, even babies who have not been born yet, of course it is. You can not avoid time. It really is impossible to be oblivious to time because everyone can automatically realize that something in the past happened in the past. There is no mix up between past and future and that alone can make us aware of time.

That is not affecting anyone, however. Living in a moment does not mean we're time-dependent. I don't think different moments is synonymous towards "time", and so I do believe time can be avoided, hence why staring at a clock can tear you away from your timeless mind and systematically draw you into the society's system of time. Why else would time become slower or faster, depending on what we're doing? Explain why having great fun causes time to race forward. I also believe that time is linked to boredom, that boredom is the result of time slowing down to a still (in other words, caught up in a moment).

At 2/22/14 05:54 PM, Scintillating wrote: Time is ALSO an instinct we are born with, because of internal biological clocks that automatically synchronize with the diurnal cycle.

That's exactly why I started this discussion; I want to figure out if we're genuinely synchronized, or if it's something we got environmentally caught up in, which is similar to our languages and the society we were borne into. I argue that we're not borne into this world with time as an intuition; we're instead inheriting it as an intuition, to then incorporate it it into our lifestyles as we do with any other form of analytic projection. There are people out there that do not share our "biologically driven cycle of time", thus there is incentive to believe that "time" does not exist in us, as much as it can be embraced by us by incorporating what is otherwise an extrinsic state.

At 2/22/14 05:50 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Do you mind developing a little more on the last section? The one that goes: "but out of personal reasons that are majorly associated to the person's insecurities, which is why everyone's fetishes are on the opposite side of the spectrum of their normal morals and practices."

In that our desires are about what we don't have; what we've never experienced. The human mind's imaginative paradox can lead to a Pandora's box which leads to information we want to experience, that yet is constrained by our morals and the explicit security of others. We want the thrill -- many of us act upon that thrill -- while disregarding the well-being of ourselves and others. For an example, I am a dominant male, however I fantasize about dominant females. I want what I don't want in one way, but want in another way -- a way to satiate myself temporarily, by experimenting with new and innovated pleasures. I believe the reason why we want everything backwards when we're hungry and need to satiate ourselves again (this is why the entire werewolf mythology was created by the way; it's the symbol of a man that feeds at night where in he changes into something terrifying), is because by wanting everything opposite of what we want as a human being, is exactly like, "being in-touch with our inner animal".

At 2/22/14 05:45 PM, Maltos wrote: That has nothing to do with sexual orientation

Sexual orientation = Desire

At 2/22/14 05:35 PM, nonono1 wrote: Yes you can! it's called marriage.

One fuck is always better than the other.

At 2/22/14 05:32 PM, Jester wrote: I would certainly hope that any fucking that's occurring is mutual.

Fucking is never mutual.

At 2/22/14 05:35 PM, Maltos wrote: Homosexuality is NOT a choice just like being straight is not a choice

All things that come with desire is a choice. Desires are deeply rooted into our psychical domain where in the flustering and festering of our personal attributions create desires to compensate for what ever it may attempt to fill. This is why sex is always linked to psychical hunger -- it's a void that we're drawn into repeatedly, and cannot escape because it has never been a beneficial part of ourselves, which is why it leaves us empty after everything is said and done for the umpteenth time; it's why you forget about it and end up doing it again to the equivalent of, "drinking your problems away".

It's an extrinsic property that exists as a state, but not as a thing in itself. The reason why it does not exist in that way, is because the concept of time is created by existent forces (pole-dancing planets) that have created distinctions such as distance and days. Many people argue that time exists as an integral part of our intuition, which is why we're able to enforce the concept of time by making out schedules and mapping out time with symbolic awareness, but here I bring to NG an argument to get this going:

Is time an intuition that we're born with? Or does it exist as an extrinsic state with or without our knowledge? If you are borne into a system that practices time, you'll use it as if it was an intuition; but if you are borne into a system that is oblivious to time, you'll basically experience a non-biased lifestyle where in day and night aren't experienced based on an internal clock, but rather what goes on during those times which could benefit you most.

At 2/22/14 05:24 PM, nonono1 wrote: fuck the system!

Can't fuck what already fucks you.