This thread is a thread of lighthearted discussion and posting of animals. Here we will post pictures of either our own pets and/or of some of our favorite animals that roam the world. We can then share with the community why were like and/or prefer certain animals over others.
I guess I should get it started then.
ok for real...
I am a cat person. I like cats, both house cats and wild cats. I am not entirely sure why I like cats more than dogs but it may be because they have more of a tendency towards being independent. I also think that cats look much more graceful than most other animals.
I totally argee, I'm a huge cat fan. Although my cats Spore is the least graceful cat I've ever seen. He's also very fat and stinks.
I'm more of a fan of less famous felines like Servals. I love their ears !
Also Ocalots
.I'm also a huge fan of whales and sharks. My favorite being river dolphins.
However, I'll share a few of my many many favorites.
Wolves
A Grey Timberwolf
ZOMG PUPPIES!!!1!1!
A Grey Timberwolf
ZOMG PUPPIES!!!1!1!
Rizen_Isstaria: I do have to admit that the Servals have some good ears but I do personally like the Lynx ears better.
Show
I think mice are cute. Not sure why, but something about the way they look so nice and innocent. But then I open up my pantry and see a little mouse stuck in a bag of uncooked egg noodles and then I have to throw it out to the wild cats that live next door.
I think mice are cute. Not sure why, but something about the way they look so nice and innocent. But then I open up my pantry and see a little mouse stuck in a bag of uncooked egg noodles and then I have to throw it out to the wild cats that live next door.
Ah, and here I thought you were going to try to have a discussion using animals as stand-ins for things we can't mention by name. Similar to Animal Farm I suppose.
That would be a bit above the level that our Censor-in-chief would be able to comprehend, wouldn't it?
I might as well post some pictures.
meerkat
I am not sure why but I have always liked these little critters.
I am not sure why but I have always liked these little critters.
Finally found the respect they deserve.
(The Rumplestix nimbly bounds out of the clearing.)
Ummm...who is that?
Olivia Munn, just hit reply and the name is listed in the image tag.
...And she does?
What she does is look good.
However, if you look within the img tag, it is listed at a site called chickipedia. You can find out what she does at that site. Not that I bothered to look at that site or anything. No. Not at all. Nope.:D
I like the mammary glands on this human...
Why?
Maulorn, why do you like those mammary glands more than mammary glands on other humans?
> I like the mammary glands on this human...
Why?
probably a Darwinian thing: males of a species are attracted to females who seem fertile and well able to carry offspring.
(males that aren't quickly get extinct)
@calronmoonflower: that kitty motivational poster: it also exists as "super saiyen cat" IIRC
Six years ago, I was walking in the woods (in northern Canada) with my girlfriend (European) and showing her the diversity we still have. We encountered a ground squirrel and I proceeded in telling her there population was rapidly decreasing these last years. Before we would have seen many of them and this one was the first I had seen that month.
The squirrel then spotted us. Freaked out and commited suicide by jumping down a old abandon mine chimney. The thing is probably 50 meters deep with water at the bottom. It took a second or two before we heard the "splash" of the squirrel hitting the water. No way the little guy survived...
I don't know why that splash is still with me. I am an hunter, I have killed things before. But that little squirrel commiting suicide at the mere sight of us, all the while I was commenting the fact that there population was declining. It seemed so sad...
Why?
Why not?
probably a Darwinian thing: males of a species are attracted to females who seem fertile and well able to carry offspring.
(males that aren't quickly get extinct)
probably a Darwinian thing: males of a species are attracted to females who seem fertile and well able to carry offspring.
(males that aren't quickly get extinct)
Bah. Give me five years and I'll pass on my genetic material without ever being bothered by this "attracted to big breasts" habit so many men seem afflicted with.
Modern science, subverting instinct and natural selection as often as damn possible.
I like puppies. :D
Considering where that fell in the dialogue, my first thought was "sweater puppies?"
Bah. Give me five years and I'll pass on my genetic material without ever being bothered by this "attracted to big breasts" habit so many men seem afflicted with.
Actually, if you look at the pic, what you said doesn't apply. B cup at best.
Considering where that fell in the dialogue, my first thought was "sweater puppies?"
Yeah, that didn't come off quite the way I meant.
Timing is everything, right?
I was actually talking about real puppies.
I was actually talking about real puppies.
As opposed to augmented puppies? ;)
probably a Darwinian thing: males of a species are attracted to females who seem fertile and well able to carry offspring.
(males that aren't quickly get extinct)
If so, I still ask "Why?"
When looking at the female in question, "fertile" is the last thing that comes to mind. "Too skinny," yes. "Flat," yes. But "fertile?" Eh.
If so, I still ask "Why?"
When looking at the female in question, "fertile" is the last thing that comes to mind. "Too skinny," yes. "Flat," yes. But "fertile?" Eh.
true, and hence, not really my cup of thea.
(some speculation, and things I might remember incorrectly)
hmmm ... perhaps some deeper interference. IIRC humans subcounciously form a picture for their ideal mate very soon (<10 years of age). If - by social factors - skinny humans are regarded as 'more attractive', then a next generation will be more attracted to skinny people.
This helps natural selection, as social factors are (or are supposed to be) partially dependant of outside factors (environment, ...) .
If so, I still ask "Why?"
When looking at the female in question, "fertile" is the last thing that comes to mind. "Too skinny," yes. "Flat," yes. But "fertile?" Eh.
QFT, that chick is waaaaaaaaaaay to skinny. Am I the only guy that finds skinny chicks a turn off? I want me a girlfriend that's normal sized. Also is it just me or does she look ill?
If so, I still ask "Why?"
When looking at the female in question, "fertile" is the last thing that comes to mind.
Actually, without seeing her body it is hard to tell. Seeing the body, most men have an innate ability to be attracted to fertile women. But, can't tell from this pic.
If so, I still ask "Why?"
When looking at the female in question, "fertile" is the last thing that comes to mind. "Too skinny," yes. "Flat," yes. But "fertile?" Eh.
Mammary glands only became a focus of sexual attraction in humans after we had developed the ability to walk upright. Before then, they were purely utilitarian and much less... impressive. We focused on other things that were more readily apparent from a position on all fours.
Mammary glands only became a focus of sexual attraction in humans after we had developed the ability to walk upright.
Which is the entire history of the species h0m0 sapiens.
Which is the entire history of the species **** sapiens.
Under that designation, yes. Our ancestors, however, had to make calls about the potential fertility of a mate based on things other than breast size.
Under that designation, yes. Our ancestors, however, had to make calls about the potential fertility of a mate based on things other than breast size.
Actually, if you read studies on the subject, breast size isn't as related to fertility as other physical cues. So not relevant anyway.
Actually, if you read studies on the subject, breast size isn't as related to fertility as other physical cues. So not relevant anyway.
Well, breasts are a big subconcious indicator of gender in our species. Especially back before personal grooming was a priority, they were a good way for the females of the species to attract male attention and to "prove" that they were female. Their importance has been blown out of proportion somewhat in more modern times, though.
We as a species aren't generally known for making our choice of mate based on rational reasons, though. Lots of cues that have been interpreted as beauty and desirability over the course of even recorded history have been counter-productive for those looking for someone purely as the second half of a reproductive pair. Things like corset-bound figures and a lack of leg and armpit hair don't make any sense as sexual cues from an evolutionary standpoint.
Well, breasts are a big subconcious indicator of gender in our species.
Right, but it isn't a trigger for the males to determine fertility. This has been the subject of peer reviewed studies.
Right, but it isn't a trigger for the males to determine fertility. This has been the subject of peer reviewed studies.
It's not an effective way of determining a woman's potential fertility. That doesn't mean that it's not being used as such.
Not that most guys make snap judgements of women via their physical appearance that include the notation "I bet she could have a LOT of kids." Fertility is kind of a secondary concept in the male sexual paradigm and probably always has been. Men haven't spent millenia making their choices of mates based on who they think is the most fertile; they've been having sex with the ones that they were attracted to and hoping that worked out for them. For those that were successful in producing offspring, their proclivities were passed on, and that's how ideas of sexual attractiveness have evolved to dovetail with fertility.
It's not an effective way of determining a woman's potential fertility. That doesn't mean that it's not being used as such.
You should track down the studies if you're interested. They were very interesting. When/if you read them you'll instantly recognize what's going on, and what's not.
You should track down the studies if you're interested. They were very interesting. When/if you read them you'll instantly recognize what's going on, and what's not.
Care to link to them?
From the conversation we're not really having at this point, the only thing I could think of that would apply from those studies is if they lined up a bunch of guys and had women come out and the guys rated them on some sort of fertility (not attractiveness, not sexiness, straight up fertility) scale. The human mind doesn't work that way, at least not when you're actually looking for potential mates.
Care to link to them?
Didn't read them on line. I remember one was done in the UK, I think. If you search under relevant terms you'll probably find a ref.
Care to link to them?
From the conversation we're not really having at this point, the only thing I could think of that would apply from those studies is if they lined up a bunch of guys and had women come out and the guys rated them on some sort of fertility (not attractiveness, not sexiness, straight up fertility) scale. The human mind doesn't work that way, at least not when you're actually looking for potential mates.
I actually vaguely recall reading about this sort of thing as well. What I read, and found highly fascinating, was that men and women alike were attracted to people based on visual cues that were representative of certain genetics, that would lead to healthy or advantageous offspring. It helped explain that whole "love/lust at first sight" phenomenon, "animal attraction", and how sometimes one person is dating another who looks to be "out of their league", or otherwise doesn't fit with that person's normal "type" of partner.
That is, a man may find a certain woman whom he objectively doesn't find to be "beautiful" to nevertheless be attractive, to experience "animal attraction" towards her, because the shape of her body, her facial features, her smell, and her haircolor together subconsciously tell him that this woman and he are genetically rather compatible, and will make healthy babies together. A woman likewise might find a man she objectively finds to be rather meh to be someone she instantly knows she wants to have sex with, because his facial features, build, etc, give her subconscious cues that they are genetically rather compatible, in terms of the health of their kids.
It was very fascinating, but I don't remember which journal I read it in.
I actually vaguely recall reading about this sort of thing as well. What I read, and found highly fascinating, ...
Sounds like we read the same or very similar study. Alas, I can't remember the journal either.
Fertility is kind of a secondary concept in the male sexual paradigm and probably always has been. Men haven't spent millenia making their choices of mates based on who they think is the most fertile; they've been having sex with the ones that they were attracted to and hoping that worked out for them. For those that were successful in producing offspring, their proclivities were passed on, and that's how ideas of sexual attractiveness have evolved to dovetail with fertility.
To a degree. Obviously, sexual attraction is based more on the traits considered better for the long-term survival of the species over fertility, but fertility plays a role as the means of passing on those traits.
Looking at my own personal tastes, the women I'm most attracted to are thinner and more athletic. Coming from a nomadic culture, my most attractive mate would be a woman capable of sudden flight and less likely to be taken down by predators. Fertility becomes a secondary concern over survival. Large breasts mean a more attractive target for predation, therefore smaller breasts are more attractive to me. It's not something that is normally in the forefront of my thinking but it is there, hidden deep in the lizard-brain. In this case, fertility would be a bonus trait over those traits that would be of most benefit to the continued survival of the pack, herd, clan, tribe, et cetera.
Now, with that in mind, fertility among the female of that particular body-type ensures passage of those traits and that body-type on to the next generation. The question arises, however, is it the traits that are more attractive or the fertility that is?
And for the record, the mammary glands that started this derailment were perfectly fine. Although I generally prefer something a little smaller.
The question arises, however, is it the traits that are more attractive or the fertility that is?
According to studies, it is the traits that indicate fertility to that particular male.
Orangutans
Orangutans are incredibly ugly creatures but for some reason I have always thought that they were neat. Well the babies do look cute, but babies of almost every species looks cute. I gained a lot of respect for them when it was found that they used sticks and rocks as tools to get to food.
Orangutans are incredibly ugly creatures but for some reason I have always thought that they were neat. Well the babies do look cute, but babies of almost every species looks cute. I gained a lot of respect for them when it was found that they used sticks and rocks as tools to get to food.
Orangutans
Orangutans are incredibly ugly creatures but for some reason I have always thought that they were neat. Well the babies do look cute, but babies of almost every species looks cute. I gained a lot of respect for them when it was found that they used sticks and rocks as tools to get to food.
Mammary glands only became a focus of sexual attraction in humans after we had developed the ability to walk upright. Before then, they were purely utilitarian and much less... impressive. We focused on other things that were more readily apparent from a position on all fours.
And you have this on good authority from talking to which non-upright hominid?
I am not questioning the point of what you're saying, but it is speculation, we can't actually say we know this is true. We believe it to be true based on the behavior of other non-upright apes, etc. But we don't empirically know it.
Who knows, maybe the human specii have always had a "thing" for breasts? I'm just saying....
And you have this on good authority from talking to which non-upright hominid?
I am not questioning the point of what you're saying, but it is speculation, we can't actually say we know this is true. We believe it to be true based on the behavior of other non-upright apes, etc. But we don't empirically know it.
Who knows, maybe the human specii have always had a "thing" for breasts? I'm just saying....
Think about crawling on all fours. Now think about modern human breasts. Now think about rug burn.
Fun, huh?
Think about crawling on all fours. Now think about modern human breasts. Now think about rug burn.
Fun, huh?
Neither H0M0 Sapiens or its immediate ancestor crawled on all fours.
Neither H0M0 Sapiens or its immediate ancestor crawled on all fours.
But they did spend some time on all fours. Having flesh pendulums coming off of your upper body is a pretty silly adaptation to have if you're going to be spending a good portion of your travel time with your chest parallel to the ground.
But they did spend some time on all fours. Having flesh pendulums coming off of your upper body is a pretty silly adaptation to have if you're going to be spending a good portion of your travel time with your chest parallel to the ground.
I udderly disagree. ;)
Lets try and get this back on topic. If you want to continue the current discussion then you can PM each other.
I udderly agree. ;)
I udderly disagree. ;)
Those are closer to the hind legs and nothing like breasts in how they attach to the body.
Human-like breasts on any creature that spends some time moving on all fours would be constantly bouncing off of things and getting cut up by brush.
As opposed to augmented puppies? ;)
I guess I walked right into that one too.
What if I said, little soft playful furry slobbering puppies?
Is there a joke that can be made out of that too? :D
I guess I walked right into that one too.
What if I said, little soft playful furry slobbering puppies?
Is there a joke that can be made out of that too? :D
Replace soft, playful and furry puppies with
and slobbering to soaked in , ya there's a joke.
What if I said, little soft playful furry slobbering puppies?
So you're into furries then? :P
Actually it's just my bad camera, he had just started to move when I snapped the shot.
So Minja you like these things. \/
Those are closer to the hind legs and nothing like breasts in how they attach to the body.
Human-like breasts on any creature that spends some time moving on all fours would be constantly bouncing off of things and getting cut up by brush.
Meh. Hangin' stuff is hangin' stuff. And, where brush is concerned, anything is a liability. I've seen cows that had their eyes pulled out of their heads from brambles, for example. It really doesn't mean too much, IMO, though. And I really only tossed that out there because I am udderly unable to resist the opportunity to craft a terrible pun. ;) :D
So, uhh, back to fun pics I guess. Yep. That's the ticket.
Sorry, had to repost from Motivational Posters @ Previous Editions, General