Poll: Who is hotter? Poison Ivy or Harley Quinn?

[Katherine Kerensky]

-Yes, My Lord Snip-

Fair enough.

It's not really the same. Your DNA is either lacking the gene which codes for proper hormone regulation or reception. That would mean normal stimulus wouldn't effect you and if everyone was the same, the race would simply stop copulating. But luckily we've reached a stage in technological advancement where that isn't really an issue. We can always artificially inseminate.

Girl meets Girl

Interesting by default XD

The mutation is likely on a genetic level, not physically with the hormones. Although it's possible it's not genetic at all. Something may simply have been damaged or just not fully developed through out the course of your natural life.

There is an argument that these things are entirely environmental. That would mean it's physiological. I personally don't buy this. As there is far to much proof that biology plays the deciding card. Psychological factors may contribute to something like this though.

In all honesty. This would probably make a very interesting case study.

Hmmm... I'd say that the psychological factors may have some merit. It has something to do with when I originally became nonsexual.
I wanted to be nonsexual, to cast off the weakness inherent in most humans (Well, seeing as it is a way yo bypass a lot of defenses, I'd say it is a weakness), then I woke up nonsexual one day. It was brilliant. I had never felt so at peace with everything. It could have also had something to do with my entertainment at the time, seeing as I was watching Kashimashi, and reading the Misfile webcomic.
I think willpower may be a much over-looked solution to some things. It managed it for me (And I couldn't go back, even if I wanted to :3).
Oh, yes, and Kashimashi does feature a love triangle between three girls. Not really the sort of thing I am interested in, but it was still a funny and cute animé :3
Still, also loving the idea that I may be damaged somewhere inside :3 I already know I am a defective model, so this could just be a bonus :3
Yes, I think like that >.> If I can't have any good natural bonuses, then I will revel in the bad ones that I overcome and put to my advantage >.>

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

-Nippon Banzai Snip-

Sexuality is not something you can control in that manner.

You can't just decide that one day you're going to be gay for example. Hormones still play the deciding factor into attraction. So if you are truthfully unable to be attracted to a person. That would have to be biological.

It's possible that as you were going through this outwards crisis, whatever was the internal cause happened simultaneously. Whether or not your mental state facilitated or catalysed this changes is very interesting. But also doubtful.

By the standards of you last comment. You are basically saying sexuality is a choice. I think a lot of homosexual people will be dead set against that. I know for a fact I couldn't make myself become attracted to another man. What I'm attracted to is programmed into me. I can't change it.

Not saying it is a choice, but perhaps it is possible to influence, as could be shown by my rather odd case.
Even if it was a coincidence, it is a coincidence I am glad for, and would never get rid of. Life has been so much better (Still in a crap kinda way) since I effectively 'woke up' with a head clear from such distractions. Plus, it is nice to think how people will freak out about certain things, and I can just laugh silently at them as they squirm. Although that may just be... what was I...
I can't... huh... is that so...

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

-Snip-
I still highly doubt there is anything a person can do to physically influence what they are attracted to.

When someone is attracted to a person. You can measure the hormone level changes when they see these people. You can also look for external signs that are results of these hormones changes. Such as increased sweating. Or physical mannerisms and pupil dilation.

They are all primal tell-tale signals that alert potential mates that they may be about to get lucky (so to speak)

These things aren't controlled manually. They're as out of your control as your heart beat.

To say that you could influence what triggers these reactions. Without drastic treatment, like aversion therapy. Well it's a bit mad.

We're all a little crazy. I'm no exception, and you certainly aren't either :3

 

[silversun101]

Seriously? I leave for a day and this thread jumps the rails from shallow, hypothetical "who's hotter?" to heated philosophical discussion of all the different facets of sexuality? We got to this point from a Harvey vs Ivy thread?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

That and in some depictions, such as Arkam Assylum, she's tinted friggin green! That's not sexy.

Says you my friend, the trope of Green Skinned Space Babe exists for a reason, Ivy is just a, closer to earth example.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

That and in some depictions, such as Arkam Assylum, she's tinted friggin green! That's not sexy.

Says you my friend, the trope of Green Skinned Space Babe exists for a reason, Ivy is just a, closer to earth example.

Trope only counts for aliens. Sorry.

snip

snips

sniparoo

sniptastic

Now, there's been a lot of chatter about sexuality in this thread, and rather than making a wall of text with quotes and such, I'm just going to throw up some bullet point (kinda) for people and make sure all the big players are quoted above to ensure I can offend everyone at once!

-Homosexuality is still considered, medically, to be a disorder because it doesn't follow the established convention of our mating process

-Calling someone a moron is wrong. Having a poor choice of words is not. Meaning to call someone ignorant when they prove nothing is accurate. Demented Teddy certainly was being ignorant.

Blatantly stating "I don't find this fruitful because I~'m a demisexual!" is fairly common of an attention whore. Attention whores are not warmly welcomed here at The Escapist. Intelligent people are. If you having nothing useful or relevent to add to a thread, don't post in it. No, stating your sexuality and how you think this poll is pointless for only you is not relevent.

-Using false philosophy or grade one philosophy is not a valid argument, Cuddly Razor. The "Why? Why not?" train of thought makes you look dumb and just as "superior" as you're claiming dathwampeer was being, while also creating a strawman in which philosophy frowns upon greatly. On a further note, your argument is also invalid because hormones are used and created far before a person has intellect or life. Now, I cannot say that the brain doesn't remold itself through experiences, because that's also ignorant, but to say that we can control what our brain does is idiocy. "Human consiousness" does not control our basic functions, I'm sorry to inform you. Sexuality is a basic function.

-Not everything needs you to bring out a case study. Some knowledge is just commonly accepted. If you are against this, then you are in the wrong by social standards and your thoughts are invalidated by social norms.

-Everything in this world can easily fall under the three forms of sexuality: hetero, homo and a. Just because Rabger wanted to coin a phrase to make himself notable within the scientific community does not mean he's correct. Considering that hetero/homosexuality is simply defined as the attraction to the same/opposite sex, and asexuality is the abscence of both, it is therefore reasonable to state that there can be no other sexualities! You are simply hetero/homosexual with a heavy preferance on personality rather than appearence. This also could be disproved at a later date, as not everyone is slobbering over every girl/guy, but rather very specific things. I know I'm that way, but I'm still considered hetero for the purpose of sexuality because I date girls.

-Intelligent arguments that accept the well established points of a person's argument and then swing into a counter points is a solid basis for debate. Kudos to Greyfox105 for understanding this. Simply stating that "I'm not wrong, I just have a different viewpoint" is a terribly ignorant a blatantly strawman argument and could be considered moronic. Congradulations to Demented Teddy for coming across as just that.

I think that's about it. I know I sound harsh, but I'm a brash person. I don't hold any of this against anyone, nor do I think that anyone is lying about their current sexuality. I'm just pointing out flaws in a harsh manner to hope that you remember the sting and avoid appearing as unintelligent next time, because as this thread has gone on, you've all proven you're very coherent in the basic idioms of debate.

That, and Harley is totally hotter!

 

[HellsingerAngel]

*TROLL TRAPPED*

BAM! You've activated my trap card, dear Cuddley Razor: Flames of the Anti-Troll! Now I'll use my magic card, Strawman's Lement, and prove why you're full of crap.

1. Again, using the strawman "philisophical" of "why not" is a poor argument, my friend. Unfortunately your philisophical point of view is rendered moot by the entire fact that we're looking for emperical evidence, which your argument has none of. The fact that hormones effecting our thought process has gone through the scientific method is a far better basis to platform an argument on. And in such it does state that once something has been agreed upon by the majority of people, it is fact! You've put forward a theory, something that could possibly be correct. dahtwampeer has put forwards something scientifically proven and socially accepted. Whether or not the inner workings of the universe agrees with humanity or not is irrelivant, for as a species, we have delcared this fact until proven otherwise with the same methodology, which you cannot produce!

2. Logical proof on an entirely text based format is easy to provide within one post which Demented Teddy decided to squander with pure speculative arguments. Like I said, the word dathwampeer was most likely searching for was "ignorant" and I can forgive a slip of the tougne when it comes to vocabulary, but defending ones point, especially in a media form in which you are not pressed for time is very inexcusable, as thoughts conveyed over an entire post are far easier to correct as a "typo" than simply a thought portrayed over one word.

3. Science cannot be incorrect. Science is the scientific method. If a "fact" can be proven to be wrong through the method, it is no longer fact and the old "fact" is disproven. [t]That[/i] is science, my friend, not the accumulations of factoids, but the proof of them and the advancement of knowledge. Why do you think we have string theory and quantum physics? If they can be proven and commonly accepted within the social context of our system, then they are fact. The scientific method clearly states that science is a social enterprise which leads me to my fourth point...

4. Commonly accepted = objectively right! Unless you can disprove dathwampeer with the scientific method, you are wrong and he is correct, simply because his theory is more commonly accepted right now. That's all there is to it, and you, my good sir, can go taste your delicious foot!

P.S. As for your theory on a consiousness beyond our "reality", you need to further define reality. Are you talking sting theory of multiple universes, or string thoery with what we percieve on this dimension of existance? (Third Dimension) It's difficult to understand you when you use vague terms and don't epxlain yourself.

 

[Scarecrow]

Harley. If a psychotic clown with a pasty white face and a huge nose has a chance...well, I've just accurately described myself.


Didn't like Harley's look in AA though. Never got the nurse thing. Maybe I'm just kinky for the full body jumpsuit.

That is one of the greatest moments in T.V history for me.