She is a BOA

Who is she?

But seeing those two versions shows marketing to Americans is about sex not talent.

BoA Kwon isn't selling sex.. that woman can sing. Look up any song on youtube.. she's got a great voice, she can dance.. the girl has been on stage since she was 9 years old, and she is a superstar in the Asian market.

Someone paid for that and thought spending that money made sense.

Have a song from her without the auto tune (any language?)

No one sounds like that in real life.



Pretty sure I don't need to hit the smiley drop down and click the appropriate one.

That first one is great as I love ballads. I read she sings in 3+ languages so that's why I said any language.

But this one isn't.

Well he sings about "Apeman", she is BOA!

There are certainly days that, despite being so so educated and so civilized... what being a strict vegetarian n'all, that sailing away a distant shore and making like an apeman sounds attractive.

This song came out in 2009? Why isn't she bigger than Miley Cyrus here in the US, right now?

Boa Kwon has conquered the Asian market. The reason she is not bigger than Miley Cyrus is because she sings in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and English. Most of her songs are in Japanese and Korean. She recently debuted her American album as you said, in 2009.

One person put it plainly to me once, "If the song is not in English, it must Suck!" I hate that English/American is superior remarks. It means a person is closed minded, and will not listen to any other music, other than in English. The fact that Boa Kwon is Asian probably has a lot to do with it too.

Why is it in the world the top singers all sing in English? BoA Kwon could knock half of their crowns off their heads if people could appreciate her for pure talent.

Like this song...

Don't see why they aren't chart toppers here.

I think its basically cause she is Asian, and though she just bought a flat in Los Angeles, (she also has a flat in Tokyo as well as her home in South Korea.) She is considered Foreign talent from a NON ENGLISH speaking country.

...but those are some crazy assertions. Why would anyone believe that evolution plays no role in sexuality or that humans are not properly classified with the other great apes? I'm betting I'm missing something here....

i am that special kind of girl. lol

have to scratch your head and ask

Really?

You know, Koko is more coherent than one of those deniers.

around here in a short period of time.

...and other OPs that have spun off from exchanges in those.

As for me, what goes in "trash this thread" stays in "trash this thread".

I love DU - never a dull moment

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

Thankfully, they are a vocal and insignificant minority.

And pics of women not wearing a burka made us all lustful and we can only ever see women as objects. But god is here to help, if you think of a woman the wrong way you will go blind.

Leave science to the egg heads, us normal folks don't need us that science crap cause we read the bible.

The actor was not happy...

"there is no primal component" - as in, we are social animals who live within specific cultures. We have developed a consciousness of ourselves, which had led to a belief that we are somehow less "mammalian" than other mammals. But our basic physical chemistry is much like other animals and this reality has some impact upon our behaviors, no matter how much we construct explanations to taboos or other consciousness-related activities to describe ourselves.

yet... the reality is also that we are a highly self-conscious and self-reflecting species, so we do also operate in ways that are far removed from our earlier cultural norms - which were often taken as biological imperatives, even if further research indicates these are not about our "primate" existence, but our cultural one.

When they are scared.

When they are horny.

When they are hungry.

Etc.

that doesn't mean they are without all of the cultural inheritance of tens of thousands of years, either. It's just too facile to go with all or nothing statements about human interactions, imo. It's going to be wrong, no matter which way someone goes with it.

If we know that, genetically, we are influenced by experiences of our recent genetic relatives (epigenetics) - then you would have to try to tease out how much of your response was because of your grandmother rather than your mitochondrial first "y" ancestor.

Obviously humans have the capacity to act like scavenging beasts - we see this during times of war - and those who are victims of war find themselves reduced to living in ways they would never do otherwise. But, because we have a propensity toward aggression in certain situations - this doesn't mean we will always respond with the same sort of reaction - i.e. hit back, for example.

I'm not disputing your claim that humans like to look at other humans - and humans look at humans they would like to have sex with more often than they look at others. No doubt in my mind. Both males and females do this. The way they do this, however - I don't know how much of that is nature and how much is nurture.

iow, basic needs don't describe how those needs are met.

It may be more obvious during times of war but some humans are scavenging beasts 24/7/365.

Do we really need to get into questionable arguments about evolving from apes? Connecting human sexuality to evolution is silly and really doesn't make your point. It just demeans women (and men too) by equating them to monkeys.

And, by the way, monkeys are far from our closet primate relatives. In order of closeness, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are closer. Also, drawing connections and looking for similarities is not "equating".

While the strong influence of human culture makes it more difficult to understand exactly what our innate human sexual desires and behaviors might be, whatever is innate is going to have to be rooted in our evolutionary past. It makes no sense to assume there would be no human sexuality at all without human culture imposing it, nor any sense to assume that what isn't culture just magically springs up from nowhere with no connection to our biological heritage.

Just so you know, I stated what you did this weekend and found out I am a sexist who supports the rape of women.

Who knew?

It's only your privilege talking to pretend otherwise. You know the drill.

female choice generally is the operative mechanism.
if they need a cosmetic advantage, its less significant I would say.

about it.

domination.

I drive a car like one, read books like one, etc. Human beings are apes. And I treat women and men like they are human, so yeah, like apes.

Nothing wrong with being an ape, if you ask me. In fact, I am rather fond of being an ape. It's much better than being a rock, or a tree, or an octopus, or ...



-Laelth

Half of them have no idea they are involved or what they really want but year to year the dance never changes.

Sure, okay. There comes a point at which I personally decide I have way better shit to waste my time on, like Season 2 of House of Cards.

Good luck.

You've got excellent taste.

At first I didn't know if it was too... too. But I let myself go with it - and, omg, it is so good. Amazing. Even if it is, yet again, two white guys, detectives, yadda yadda. But it's more than that - the acting is so good, and, why, yes, those guys are easy on the eyes too.

I got this one from that one.

I really like the opening song and sequence, too.

I saw this article the other day, thought it was the onion but it was real:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama_binge_watching_true_detective

LOL.

I had to dig out my Handsome Family cd after they showed up for the title song. I only have one, tho, and it's older. Imma find myself in tv chat obsessing about the direction the story is going. I called last night's turn of events with Hart, even, last week, but I thought that was the end game, not the start of the second act. LOL. so now where does it go...

All that stuff about Carcosa, etc. is Lovecraft, too.

but this is interesting - http://io9.com/the-one-literary-reference-you-must-know-to-appreciate-1523076497

(sorry for going so OT, but at least it's not a recipe...)

Honestly most of what I know about Lovecraft either comes from playing dungeons and dragons as a nerdy 12 year old back in the day, or from reading Robert Anton Wilson.

Poe, of course, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. I read this little story after the show started - Ambrose Bierce, An Inhabitant of Carcosa...can't find it now, but I e-read it.

anyway, off to make wild speculations... about something else! LOL.

I don't have cable, even, but I have a friend who it all tellied up and we had a marathon True Detective session recently. At first I wasn't interested in watching it b/c of the formula behind it - but I recognized they were trying to do something different, somewhat.

...and I just posted in tv chat that the writer is telling the audience this show, if you want it to, comments on the genre and experience of being a character watching a tv show about a character who talks about the audience watching the show.

cause, outside of the time of the show, they're just flat characters on a screen, while they think they're real. or something. lol.

so play that off of the idea of a play within a play and anyone who reads the play goes mad for the trying...

(I looked for an emoti with a straitjacket, but had to settle for.. the yellow emoti king!!!!! OMG.

It's stupid to claim that it doesn't.

When it becomes harmful is when it's used to justify exploiting our primordial programming to treat others like lesser people. We've been fighting evolution as a species since we learned how to use tools, because it's survival at all costs, and we know there's more to human life than that.

Like treating women with dignity, and not just exploiting our ape desire to see asses and titties to sell magazines. Similar arguments could be made to justify publishing and selling racist publications as well, given our evolutionary programming to distrust others.

we've been surviving at all costs.

When I can't win my argument, I always love to beat up a straw man to make me feel better.

I imagine there are as many who deny the evolutionary aspect of biology of it as there are those who deny that self-discipline is anything other than an authoritarian state of being, and justify our primal instincts as a rationalization to act like a petulant ass with women.

Apes though are a separate families (pan, gorilla, pongo) than homo even though we have a common ancestor way back. However don't we share 98% of our genes with bonobos? Makes you wonder just how similar we really are. My teacher said we weren't apes, but others say we are.

Really not posting for argument. Just speculating.

the game and just define "being female" in whatever way is most beneficial to them, neverminding ethics, fairness, right and wrong, etc. and then claim it's genetic and anybody who had a problem with it just hates women and doesn't believe in evolution.

at the subconscious level exactly like all other lifeforms doesn't mean that we can't override them. But some here seem to think that saying this happens allows someone to excuse their behavior, or to blame it.

That's precisely the rationalization being made...

"I'm a slave to biology, I lack discipline, and thus anything I do to women is natural"

and that will always affect what they do. Why would beauty standards have ever changed then? Why wouldn't unattractive people have died out by now? Why do they keep marrying each other and reproducing?

Evolution takes millions of years and is a way larger thing than the sexual decisions of some humans in one particular year.

To add to that, different humans have different attractions. That's because they are affected by what happened to them in life. The media could be part of it, but hopefully people have more to their lives than that.

As to pin up girls, most men aren't going to actually get with them, so what's the point of "sexual attraction" to them? If you aren't sexually attracted to women you actually meet who are also attracted you, you will get none, which does not augur well of your genes continuation. Yet we keep hearing that men are attracted to everything that moves, which is completely inconsistent.

Not that I'm saying anything evolutionary is unethical. What I am saying is that the measure of an acts ethical uprightness has little or nothing to do with its origins of conception.

There are traits inherited that, upon reflection, can absolutely be ethical. There are traits that are learned that are absolutely ethical. And there are traits for both that are absolutely unethical.

Humans definitely are part of the great apes. I'm not sure who tried to argue otherwise but they're fools.

Start by blaming the Greeks.

but the ancients had a self centered view of the world.

patience for, anymore.

Right, original sin bullshit warmed over and repackaged, along with conspiratorial, apocalyptic worldviews that posit a "fall from grace", heaps of self-flagellating guilt, and one core central source of all oppression and evil in the universe.. right, but throw a fit when anyone dares to suggest that some people are running on rebranded religious fundamentalism in their gas tanks.

Evil is NOT a "uniquely human trait". Anyone who thinks so should read up on the absolutely horrific things some (other, yes, we are primates as well) primates do to each other, as documented extensively by Jane Goodall, etc.


Also, I'm not addressing this to you, just responding to what you said about human exceptionalism.

Read that here too.

is in deep fucking denial.

their pride wouldn't let them walk it back so they doubled down on some embarrassing shit.

I'm an avid reader and fan of Goodall's. What precisely did she write that leads you to believe she projected ethical behavior onto the lower orders?

The examples are numerous.

humans came along"

It's a dumb-ass, self-flagellating, goofy fucking meme. Goodall witnessed infanticide among apes, did she not? Do you mean "ethical behavior" as in, apes thinking "this is good, this is evil"? No, but then you're not understanding a word I've written, again.

I'm saying Goodall witnessed behavior that any rational person would look at and say "That's evil" or at the very least "Geezus that's horrible and fucked up"-- which flies in direct contravenance to goofy-ass statements like "Evil is a uniquely human trait".

Perhaps calling these things evil is, but doing them? Fuck no.

Although we really don't know what sort of symbolic logic, if any, say, Elephants use or other creatures like cetaceans, who clearly are using some complex communication possibly analogous to language.

Nevertheless, the idea that behaviors that we would regard as "evil"-- are somehow unique to the human species, a "genetic mutation", and that nature pre-modern man was some idyllic "natural" state.. it's simply not borne out by the facts.

And like I said, witness for instance the brutal infanticide that some primates engage in... I think anyone witnessing it would have a hard time NOT describing it as "evil".

n/t

-Laelth

The body types being sold as the most attractive are entirely counter to evolution. The models, 5,10" and up at body weights of between 100-115, have the build of teenage boys and the body fat that is so low they do not menstruate. They must have plastic surgery to get the high, round breasts you like so much if you are talking about the very slim ones (Kate Upton is heavier than a normal model and therefore most likely her breasts are real). What is being sold as the height of attractiveness is not one bit natural, so is it evolution or marketing that's making you horny?

It deserves it's own thread IMO.

Many men have very different features that they like. Some men like big breasts, some small, some big hips, some narrow hips, etc, etc.

If it were the marketing as you say, I would expect more uniformity of tastes than what actually exists.

I knew plenty of women with bodies like that in college, and suffice it to say they were capable of getting pregnant.

"The women you knew in college" did not have the same low bodyweight as a model must keep in order to work. The camera adds weight so these women must stay very thin. Working in the film industry, I was amazed at how very thin actresses were in real life that looked "normal". They're called lollipops due to their thin frames and huge heads. Hugging them was like hugging a concentration camp victim or a very frail bird. Almost creepy feeling, as if they would break.

Models who wish to get pregnant often resort to fertility treatments, such as Angelina Jolie. Body fat under 16% causes amenorrhea, where the ovaries stop producing estrogen. That is usually a starting point for most supermodels, and the most successful are somewhere between 10-13%.

What I am saying is sexual preference is highly manipulated by media. Just looking at the history of the SI covers shows that. Retouching also leads to unreal expectations for both men and women. I suspect that is why women get so angry, because there is so much pressure to look like that. On the flipside is the roided up he-man image men are supposed to attain in order to be sexy. Ultra-frail women and gigantic men shows how extreme we have become in our caricature of gender roles.

Here is a swimsuit shot before and after retouching. Notice Alessandra Ambrosio on the left. The other two are considered "plus" sized models yet probably looked like "the women you knew in college" as one is a size 6 and the other an 8 on two very tall women.



So the evolutionary argument doesn't work because we're being taught to respond to body types we wouldn't in real life.

I don't.

So I don't understand this nonsense about how hetero desire can be so easily hacked by media. The same gibberish spouted at our LGBT friends would be called out as bigotry, and rightly so.

I was referencing the argument that the SI cover shows unreality, creating cartoon figures of women, not celebrating them. Check out the evolution.

but not the person making the observation.

It is entirely possible that people like what they like, no nefarious media mojo necessary.

In my father's generation, he would have drooled over the woman on the left. Evolution-wise, it makes more sense. But today's males have been conditioned to revere the woman on the right.



But I highly doubt she would even get a gig now.

And while people are up in arms that their "tastes" are being called into question, women are scared because their FOUR year-olds are calling themselves fat and wanting to diet. Women and girls have terrible self-images and eating disorders because they are told they don't have any VALUE, any worth beyond their attractiveness to men, an attractiveness that is wholly artificial. It is hurting women and girls, but if the attitude is, "I don't give a shit because it turns me on" that's well like someone who doesn't care about WalMart starving their workers because they like low prices. Or we have to let people die due to austerity so the rich can keep their nice toys. Or that pedophiles who engage in traffic of both children "because it turns them on." And usually I find, someone is trying to sell me something.

The best I can try to do for myself is do no harm. If someone points out to me that something is harmful, I try to examine it and see what I can do to change myself. I don't need to be turned on 24/7 by every billboard, magazine and ad. I like living in the real world most days. I am not advocating it for everyone, just pointing out some facts.

It is a fact that Marilyn Monroe would not have had the same level of success today that she saw in the 50s and 60s with the way she looked then. According to who? What do you mean, according to who? She would have had to starve herself and likely get plastic surgery to succeed by today's standards. Fact.

You are conflating people talking about the problem of these narrowing standards with people telling you shouldn't enjoy something. It's not the same thing. It seems you are aware that there might be a problem, but then you rationalize that there can't be much harm because it's just people blowing things out of proportion on facebook, and anyway, people are fat! And anyway, people want to look at pretty people so do no harm! What ever you have to do to convince yourself you don't have to hear what people are saying and feeling and experiencing.

But look at the pictures of models and actresses over time. There is a difference. It's not about telling people they can't look at people and find them attractive or what their tastes should and shouldn't be. It's about discussigng what's being marketed as the ideal and what everyone else should aspire to and how narrowing it to such a degree that it's difficult for so many to obtain is harmful. Why would it be so wrong for there to be more diversity in posters and magazines and on TV? In the movies? If other points of view weren't constantly dismissed, that would happen.

This is the sort of "Argument" that is being presented, and I'm simply not willing to give it the level of unquestioned factual authority it demands:



I don't buy the heavily continually peddled "culture in crisis" narrative. If anything, i think things are getting better, as unpopular an assertion as that may be around here.

Twiggy came well after Marilyn. But funny you should mention her. She' was the first supermodel and the reason the thin look became fashionable. What sort of argument? One based on facts?

You know, the kind where you show a picture of a tire swing and then a picture of a dog being abused, asking "how can you blithely continue to defend tire swinging in the face of this horrific dog abuse?"

Uh, well, because you saying there is a link between those two things doesn't make it so, for starts.

This feels just like arguing with climate deniers and creationists. Because claiming that non-thin women are just as represented in the modeling and acting world because Marylin Monroe! And Twiggy! is a flat out denial of facts.

I mean, you just claimed that it is a "fact" that Marilyn Monroe - who died some 50 years ago- wouldn't make it as a model or actress today. I mean, for one, she's been dead for 50 years, so no, not in her present state. But beyond that, your statement is the epitome of a piece of speculation, not a "fact".

Beyond that, to me, "this feels just like" arguing with religious fundamentalists who are mad about nudity in magazines and on tv.

Feelings are funny things, aren't they?

And that would mean no lucrative SI covers. And her roles as an actress would have been very limited, if she had a chance at all. Thin is the order of the day. And that is a fact. Not speculation. Google "Kate Upton", and "fat". Yes. She gets called fat in the industry. Insane.

An interesting read:

http://jezebel.com/5299793/for-the-last-time-what-size-was-marilyn-monroe

Size 12 still wouldn't cut it. 5 5 and a half and 120-140 pounds with her extreme hourglass shape? No way. Not for model/actress by today's standards. Seriously, try my Kate Upton experiment. Google "Kate Upton", and "fat" Truly an eye opener if you haven't.