#2 2008-09-23 21:33:30
If people walked around naked all the time, you can bet we could do it too.
Offline
#3 2008-09-24 01:30:17
If we had bright red asses and wore no clothes, then I suspect we'd be gauging our companions by their posteriors as well. The ass, however, being universal to males and females, would only be a gender typing feature if it was significantly different from the norm; i.e, bony or junk-in-the-trunk. We're still just primates, so there has to be some vestige of this "sensibility" left in how we identify prospective mates. I think the contemporary philosopher Fergie put it best when she discussed her "lady lumps."
Offline
#4 2008-09-24 01:47:18
pALEPHx wrote:
The ass, however, being universal to males and females, would only be a gender typing feature if it was significantly different from the norm
Bullshit. Men and women have drastically different hip structure, what with women being 'designed' for 'ease' of baby passage.
Offline
#5 2008-09-24 03:29:46
jesusluvspegging wrote:
Bullshit. Men and women have drastically different hip structure, what with women being 'designed' for 'ease' of baby passage.
It's not complete bullshit. I figured someone would pick up on this dimorphic distinction. I've known men with broader hip structures and women with taller/narrower hip ratios. It all evens out, ultimately. I'm not saying there IS no difference, but that the difference must be great to separate the two. You might disagree, but you might also look at fewer asses than I do.
Offline
#6 2008-09-24 04:22:17
When it comes to underlying bone structure you're both right, both a bit off base. It takes a fair bit of practice for a forensic anthropologist to confidently tell the difference between a male and female pelvis, and even then, they're trained to look at other parts of the body - notably the skull - for confirmation. And a significant number of skeletons are in the grey zone - could be a man, could be a woman, could be pENIx. The real problem here is the assumption that the pelvis determines the look of the ass - but as is fairly obvious, general muscle tone, lumbar curve, waist size, buttock cleavage and the disposition of the infragluteal crease all play defining roles in the general shape of our shit cannons. Many africans have a "gluteal shelf" for example, whereas Asian women have asses like 12-year old boys. Their pelvic bones, however, do not necessarily reflect or determine these differences.
Offline
#7 2008-09-24 07:02:19
Wilber - I appreciate the learned discussion, but being a simple man, I would like an illustrated guide so that I may fully understand and appreciate your comments. Indeed, it would warrant a separate thread, with pictorial challenges thrown your way. For your first challenge, perhaps you can provide an anatomical explanation for this:
Last edited by Fled (2008-09-24 07:03:53)
Offline
#8 2008-09-24 10:18:53
WilberCuntLicker wrote:
When it comes to underlying bone structure you're both right, both a bit off base. It takes a fair bit of practice for a forensic anthropologist to confidently tell the difference between a male and female pelvis, and even then, they're trained to look at other parts of the body - notably the skull - for confirmation. And a significant number of skeletons are in the grey zone - could be a man, could be a woman, could be pENIx. The real problem here is the assumption that the pelvis determines the look of the ass - but as is fairly obvious, general muscle tone, lumbar curve, waist size, buttock cleavage and the disposition of the infragluteal crease all play defining roles in the general shape of our shit cannons. Many africans have a "gluteal shelf" for example, whereas Asian women have asses like 12-year old boys. Their pelvic bones, however, do not necessarily reflect or determine these differences.
I'll have to agree with the Canuck for once - the underlying structure appears to be less important than the flesh which is laid over it.
Offline
