Actual Face shots with Actual Names

[Ryan Rudolph]

I noticed that Trevor, Greg S, and Dhodges have used their actual face shots with their names. And I think it adds realism to the forum, it makes for realistic interactions if you can visualize the individual your speaking to. Too often we hide behind avatars to get away with all sorts of mischief. I know I have!

Anyway, what do the posters and moderators think of encouraging actual names with actual face shots as avatars? Do you think it works? Do you think it better promotes seriousness and the cause of wisdom?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Leah was given a hard time for it, and when I linked to a photo of myself, I was given a hard time for it. Conversly, it does not seem to be a problem when the guys post their pictures as avatars.

I think it is a good idea to add more realism to a philosophy forum by being able to see who we are talking to (although, of course, people could just use a photo of someone else. I didn't know that was not acid's real photo until someone pointed out it was Paris Hilton... Okay, so I'm not up on pop culture). I just don't think that enough of the guys here are mature enough to look at a female face and not treat it differently. For several months, I regretted using my real (a female) name. It seems that by now, for the most part, the guys have gotten over that - but I don't know if they would be okay with my face being here. Maybe a shot of me as a kid would be non-distracting enough for them...

Ideally, the guys ought to just get over it, and the practice would do them good. Unfortunatly, this is not an ideal world, even on a philosophy forum, and I have significantly lowered my expectations of guys' abilities to regard a female's outer appearance as just the corporeal form that the person inside happens to be inhabiting.

My opinion - great idea for guys to post their pictures because a guy's face does not distract anyone here from philosophy, but not a good idea for females to post pictures because too many of the guys are too immature to handle that.

BTW- esoterix posted his picture in his avatar too, he just did not use his real name.
.

[Shahrazad]

My opinion - great idea for guys to post their pictures because a guy's face does not distract anyone here from philosophy, but not a good idea for females to post pictures because too many of the guys are too immature to handle that.

OK, I was about to post my real face as my avatar, but if you think it would be a distraction, then I won't.

I agree with the idea that a picture of the person writing the post helps add more reality to the internet experience. I like to see who I'm talking to.
.

[Ryan Rudolph]

If the females want to use their actual faces as avatars, then they should be able to, just dim down the sex appeal and it wont cause such a stereotypical response. If I remember correctly, Leah’s photo was a little on the sensual side, it was as if she was trying really hard to be alluring.

Go for a bland simplicity in the photo and the females should be okay, what do the other guys think? Wasn’t Leah’s photo a little over the top? Could she have dimmed it down a bit to avoid such a knee-jerk response from the guys?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I grabbed my sister's camera, snapped a few shots of my face, and picked one that drew attention away from my chin. If a female can't do the exact same thing without being charged with trying to arouse onlookers (because, say, she's happened to have already put on her make-up), I think the problem is on your end, Ryan.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How was that sexy? Geeze, she looked like a regular teenager without make-up (okay, since I have never been attracted to females, perhaps I'm a poor judge of sexiness in a female - but I have a point here). How would you have had her "pose" for you to suit your taste - and how would that not be "acting like a woman" to remake herself to please the men of this forum? From the way she responded to the accusations of her trying to look sexy, it sounded like that was just her natural look without trying to look sexy. Appearantly, Trevor's natural look is angry-looking, and it got a couple of comments, but I still regard him as the same decent guy I knew before he posted his picture.

From all the "woman" talk on this site, I get the impression that a female pretty much has to be an old hag before she is not accused of bewitching men.
.

[Unidian]

This is an amazingly superficial discussion, isn't it?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

How is discussing how much reality to present on a philosophy forum a superficial discussion, Nat?

[Shahrazad]

Can someone please remind me the name of the site that sizes down pics?

Eliz, is a sad look considered less sexy than a smile?
.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

picresize.com

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sher, some guys like the sad look, others like the happy look, and I understand the angry look is "in" now. "Sexy" is about the widest description imaginable as far a "a look" goes.
.

[Shahrazad]

Trevor, thank you.

Testing

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay, it's a little outdated (I was about 4 or 5 years old) - but is that non-sexy enough for you Ryan?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nevermind. After reading this in another thread:

So much of woman's sexuality is designed to awaken paedophile urges in men.

I'm not willing to put that one up, either.

I give up. Is there any way that females can present without making guys think of sex?
.

[David Quinn]

There is a story in Zen about a beautiful woman with spiritual potential who wanted to join a monastry, but despite her pleadings she wasn't allowed to join because the Zen Master in charge thought that her presence would be too disturbing to the other monks. So finally, she put a put a burning hot iron to her face, disfiguring it completely. After that, she was allowed in.

I'm not suggesting that females should go to those lengths in order to destroy their beauty. I'm sure there are plenty of other less drastic ways to remove themselves from the child sex object market.

-

[Philosophaster]

So much of woman's sexuality is designed to awaken paedophile urges in men.

Could you elaborate on this remark?

[Philosophaster]

Looks like you already did in the other thread:

So much of woman's sexuality is designed to awaken paedophile urges in men. Her physiology, with its smaller frame, soft skin, relatively hairlessness, high-pitched voice, etc, has evolved to resemble the physiology of children, and her make-up and cutesy mannerisms are designed to heighten that perception.

While female bodies do have some superficial similarities to those of children, I find that women who retain "child-like" mental qualities -- tantrum-throwing and pouting, inability or unwillingness to think ahead, "cutesy" behavior and speech, lack of consideration for others -- are very unattractive to me.

[Nick]

So you are attracted to females that appear to think like men but still maintain their womanly(child-like) physical features?

[David Quinn]

We could say that he prefers those women who resemble more thoughtful children.

-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Wow, there's a lot of misandry going on here.

[Unidian]

Guys, please do not project your repressed aberrant desires onto Philosophaster or anyone else. It's revolting enough that you are so transparently revealing them, don't you think?

[Dan Rowden]

This is an amazingly superficial discussion, isn't it?

Well, frankly, you'd know :) As to the actual subject matter, I've always encouraged people to use their real names on philosophical forums because it's part of taking responsibility for the ideas one promulgates in the world. But there are circumstances where it is inadvisable for a person to do this - i.e. where their personal welfare might be compromised by it.

As for self-portrait avatars I'm not sure. I don't really need to know what people look like. What they think is more important to me. And I think often times avatars can make a statement that a self-portrait doesn't really make. Indeed, they don't really say anything at all, do they?

But in the end it's an individual choice. But, really, who wants to look at Philo's self-portrait all day for example.....

[Philosophaster]

So you are attracted to females that appear to think like men but still maintain their womanly(child-like) physical features?

I am attracted to women who appear to think rationally, whatever other label you want to give it -- who can separate their emotional reaction to an idea from evaluation of its merit and who take more things into account than immediate pleasure or wellbeing. Women who possess intellectual curiosity not hampered by fear of conclusions they might reach. And women who do not spend hours every day fussing over their appearance, gossiping about the looks or sexuality or romantic behavior of others, or trying to manipulate people into doing things by pouting or playing dumb.

[David Quinn]

Unidian wrote:

Guys, please do not project your repressed aberrant desires onto Philosophaster or anyone else. It's revolting enough that you are so transparently revealing them, don't you think?

Hey Philosophaster, would you say this is an example of a woman whose intellectual curiosity is hampered by a fear of conclusions they might reach?

-

[David Quinn]

It is interesting that there is very little difference between a dreamy, thoughtful ten-year-old girl and a dreamy, thoughtful twenty-five year old woman. Apart from wear and tear and a dose of cynicism, her views and values in each case are almost guaranteed to be the same.

-