Well, I have the Electric Sheep screensaver... does that count? True, but you derailed your own thread
Well, I have the Electric Sheep screensaver... does that count? close enough. "Androgynous" Android is what i was going for. now cover your ears. :laugh: i figured if anybody here would be geek enough it might be you. True, but you derailed your own thread Double Bonus Points! ou: actually no, i'm not the one who started the inqusition about your sex this time. that was 70aqua_custom. i'm just helping! :beers2: it's only right that the masculine should be the "active" and the feminine should be the "objective". it looks like everything is working just fine to me. :error::Brow:
it's only right that the masculine should be the "active" and the feminine should be the "objective". What qualifies as "masculine" IS completely objective. What qualifies you? And, today's theory is: Truzi is Tokyo Rose.
You guys really need some warm weather so you can get out and play with the cars or barns or whatever.Cabin fever has officially hit you guys !!!:bla: :laugh:BTW Annie,your new avatar really suites you !!! Nice job !!!
Well, crap. We've been officially scolded by the old guy: "You kids go outside and play!" Next it'll be "Get off my lawn!", "Shouldn't you kids be in school?" and "Hey, stop bogartin' that!" :eek2: ooopppppssssss...... Annie,your new avatar really suites you !!! Nice job !!! Thanks! The leg part is in the works. Just need to figure out how to grow a foot taller and lose 100 lbs!!
"You kids get off my lawn !! " and Stop bogartin' that !! " are two of my favorite lines and I will not stop using them anytime soon.!!! And stop slammin' my screen door !!!
Do any of the posts remind anyone of Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) and Suzi? mwahahahahahahahahahahaha. i should aspire to be that cool. :bglasses: What qualifies as "masculine" IS completely objective. [references Truzi] hmmmm. are you sure you have a point there. anywho, the female tends to be the objective ( def 4 ) of the objective ( def 5 ) so i guess it's all good. What qualifies you? i'm thinking, the double Y chromosome. Truzi out of idle curiosity, what is your d2:d4 ratio? mine is definitely d2 < d4.
Some sexually dimorphic features result from exposure to hormones in utero. Since gender, gender role, and sexuality are three separate stages of fetal development, things don't always line up. Actually, if they did, there would be little difference within each gender. Sexually dimorphic features are interesting, but certain things, like race/ethnicity, can confound. That said, my index and ring finger (on the right hand) are very close, with the ring finger being a tiny bit longer. Are you going to ask where I lie on the Kinsey Scale next? :laugh:
Since you brought it up... I can't speak for Bob but I'd like to know your Kinsey scale number. When I woke up this morning I had no idea I'd be staring so much at my right hand. :laugh: By eye, D2 seems about .5" < D4
not knowing the proper way to measure I just drew an imaginary line, perpendicular to the Y axis, from the tip of D4 over to D2 and measured how far D2 was over the line. A pen works for the line as well... I hope I did it right? I'm going to start checking on this theory with people I know just for fun. UPDATE: Just checked 5 women, all 5 showed D2>D4 by 1/16"-1/2" it was quite obvious they were women by looking at the hand alone. I checked one man and D2<D4. from wikipedia..."The digit ratio is the ratio of the lengths of different digits, fingers or toes, typically as measured from the bottom crease where the finger joins the hand to the tip of the finger. It has been suggested by some scientists that the ratio of two digits in particular, the 2nd (index finger) and 4th (ring finger) is affected by exposure to androgens such as testosterone while in the womb and that this 2D:4D ratio can be used as a crude measure for prenatal androgen exposure. 2D:4D is sexually dimorphic: in men, the second digit tends to be shorter than the fourth, and in females the second tends to be the same size or slightly longer than the fourth. Some would prefer to say that this trait is 'sexually differentiated' rather than 'sexually dimorphic' in recognition of the fact that the effect size is fairly small (2D:4D distributions of the two sexes overlap to a great degree), especially as compared to other sexually dimorphic traits such as height. Digit ratio research often meets with a considerable degree of skepticism due to the obvious parallels to palmistry, phrenology and other discredited traditions within the field of anthropometry." So I was measuring wrong, but so far the difference has been easy to see by eye and all I've looked at have followed the theory.
I stopped keeping up with this thread a few weeks ago and this was the first post I read since. Imagine my imagination going wild with such a post. I have no idea what all of you are talking about, but I'm certain it should be rated PG-13 at the very least. I think I may start taking note of this board more often. Perhaps we all have begun to lighten up?
"IS THAT A PLEDGE PIN!!!!!!!!!!" (with gratuitous and generous spittle) IMHO Animal House is a classic
I have no idea what all of you are talking about, but I'm certain it should be rated PG-13 at the very least. d2:d4 is about as innocous as you can get. the thread was PG-13/R a LONG time before i dumped that into the mix. :laugh: Since gender, gender role, and sexuality are three separate stages of fetal development, things don't always line up. i am well aware the d2:d4 is not a tool for sexing a subject. that's why i figured you'd answer the question. the Kinsey scale, on the hand, i've never looked into. i assume that is the one where he was going on about 'degrees of straightness'? Annie and Dee are arbitrary and capricious. there. fixed that for you. :bla:
Many so called "sexually dimorphic" traits were examined a long time ago in Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis. Although he noted traits (and so-called deviancy), he also noted way back then that his observed sample may not be representative of the population in general, for many reasons. He noted the possible limitations of his observations. The work is considered by some to be the first "scientific" (or at least "clinical") approach to the subjects he covered. Yep
Quote: <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by bob k. mando the Kinsey scale, on the hand, i've never looked into. i assume that is the one where he was going on about 'degrees of straightness'? </td> </tr> </tbody></table> Yep so. what's your Kinsey score? :laugh:
Ok enuff of the Madness... Truzi... Male or Female..I'm done with scales, scientific findings..etc...uzzled:
