AzureWolf

[COLOR=green]It's very easy to resize something, but you need to know what size YOU want it to be. ^^; If you told us what dimensions you wanted it to be (i.e., 500 x 100), then I bet people will be willing to do it, no sweat.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]*falls in love with Retribution and Forgotten Raider, thereby taking their energy and being able to reach Super Saiyan lvl 4* j/k I would just like to point out that, as Retribution mentioned, this all sounds like Freudian theory (with a fair mix of Jung) gone wrong. Whoever wrote that book is probably familiar with both psychologists and then twisted their ideas. In Freudian theory, the energy you are referring to is cathexis, emotional or mental energy dedicated to another thing, person, or even idea. It's your own energy, and what you invest hopefully gives a positive feedback loop that makes you want to devote more energy because the first instance was "a good investment," so to speak. There is no transfer of energy - at least according to Freud. The Jung aspect can be seen in your daughter and father example. While Freud didn't focus on women in his theory, he did have some proposals. In your example, Freud would say that the daughter feels like she lacks something, and knows that the father has it. This phenomenon is called penis envy. I don't remember how it is resolved, but I think (THINK) it is solved in a similar fashion as the Oedipus complex. The problem here is where you say she needs to complement her female energy with male energy. That's total Jung right there, but a huge problem persists: individuation is a process that comes around middle age. There's support (not evidence, only support) in the fact that everyone goes through a mid-life crisis - that was Jung's argument. However, there's no documented "crisis" little girls or boys go through that is similar to a mid-life crisis. In short, what I'm trying to say is, while whatever that book says is interesting and different from its sources (i.e., Freud and Jung), it's poor in that there's no support for any of this. Unless there's been a lot of groundbreaking research in the field of psychology and parapsychology that has missed the eyes of everyone, there's no weight to the book.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Wait, if it happened to you, shouldn't you know what happens?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]School is a great thing that brings you not only an education, but a ton of of unique memories, opportunities, and experiences you can't get anywhere else (student discounts anyone?). However, I also think school is a little in excess, at least here in the US. I mean, it takes you until you are - what? - 21 or 22 to finish up through college and start your life. Yeah, I'm aware of the whole skip grades thing, but let's stick with us average schmoo's. I find that a lot of school is unnecessarily redundant. Yes, I know it's important to repeat things for the sake of emphasis, but school does it in excess. For instance, I remember not doing a single bit of studying in 4th and 8th grades, because the material was the same as 3rd and 7th grades respectively. Maybe we did more artsy-fartsy stuff in one grade than the other, but that's not worth a year of your life. And don't get me started on high school...[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]For me, it's a toss between Rakka of [i]Haibane Renmei[/i] fame and Melfina from [i]Outlaw Star[/i]. Melfina has the whole "helpless girl in distress" thing down, but I think the lack of independence sometimes makes her seem less cute and more pathetic (only sometimes, maybe even just once). Rakka has a bit of guts, though, something which Melfina lacks. She [SPOILER]went into the woods alone to search for her friend[/SPOILER] and that managed to be dramatic and cute at the same time. Then she became helpless, which was sad, but still cute (I think I'm sounding disturbed now...). And her behavior to all the new things she experiences... and her halo issues... her wings with the Toga... there's just a lot to name! People who have seen [i]Haibane Renmei[/i] know about how "animated" a character she is.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Panzer Dragoon is one of those cult classics that I believe should have gotten much greater attention. As impressive (both storywise and gameplay-wise) Orta for the Xbox was, Panzer Dragoon Saga was the series' greatest achievement. Don't get me wrong: I missed the shoot-em' up action, but Saga had such a comepelling story and such a strong sense of adventure and scale that few games have equalled. I played Saga before seeing the Sixth Sense (and the former was released before the latter), so [SPOILER]when the ending came along, I was like, "OMG! He totally ripped off of Saga!"[/SPOILER] I mean, I know he didn't, but the resemblance was uncanny.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]You can download quite a few from [url=http://www.otakuboards.com/rules.php?#spam]here[/url].[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]As the moderator James has said, I won't continue the conversation since it is slightly off-topic. However, I do feel the need to clarify two things before I stop: [quote name='Solo Tremaine']I really feel like you're splitting hairs hairs here, but fair enough. But if you can't tell how an animal's reacting to the situation it's being put in either, how exactly can you be comparing it to a homosexual human relationship where the feelings on both sides are obvious? The whole argument grinds to a stalemate on both sides if you look at it that way.[/quote] 1.) There's no stalemate. You are putting words in my mouth. YOU said one can't tell how an animal's reacting. I actually believe otherwise, but NEVER in this thread have I presented my opinion on the matter. In other words, YOU made the statement, and so the burden of proof lies with you, not with me. I wasn't pointing out my logical inconsistency: it was yours to begin with. Asking me to prove it for you doesn't make much sense, lol. 2.) As for my nonexistent request for scientific evidence, that's another series of words you put in my mouth. The questions were more rhetorical than anything else: where's your support (aka the burden of proof)? It doesn't have to be scientific, but there has to be something backing your opinion. You can't say "No, it's not like that" and expect people not to ask why. You say there's a difference in having sex with an animal, and also say animals have sex primarily for other reasons than pleasure (which is ABSOLUTELY false, btw - pleasure is the driving force in all animals). That's great, but now prove what makes humans not animals. And why is it that a human rapes an animal? So in the animal kingdom, there's no sex, just one member of the species raping another member? There's no way for animals to show consent? Don't answer: I'm merely putting the questions out to show that sex is sex, and consent doesn't need to be as adamantly obvious as you seem to demand.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86']What I mean is that you can't form a meaningful, successful or even beneficial relationship with an animal. The most you can get is physical comfort and you might be able to delude yourself into thinking that the animal can communicate and understand what you're saying, but the actual state of the relationship is far below the levels of a homosexual relationship, where partners can converse on equal terms and gain emotional security and support each other in a beneficial relationship.[/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=teal]This is the problem I'm getting at. You are saying you cannot know anything about an animal: it's feelings, ideas, and thoughts. Yet at the same time, you are saying it is not capable of experiencing the same things as humans do merely because it cannot communicate them in the same manner - but how do you know if we don't know? If you do believe animals can feel love and/or affection, you are saying it's not on the same level, which is contradictory. You can't "not know anything" and "know it's not the same" at the same time. You are becoming very teleological, which is fine. However, you can't stop halfway. Ok, so you are saying beastiality is below homosexual love, but since you are saying that, what gives you the right to arbitarily assign value when you were (basically) saying only those in love can determine what the weight of their relationship is? Worse, let's make an exaggerated hierarchery: why can't homosexual love be lower than heterosexual love? How do you know otherwise? Again, I'm being extreme to show the problems with the reasoning. I mean no disrespect. [QUOTE]Bestiality... They're fetishes and mental disorders, and include exhibitionism, pedophilia, masochism and sadism, among other things. The fact that most bestialists often have long-term relationships with humans as well should prove this well enough.[/QUOTE]The same merits apply to homosexuality. It's not separated because it's a disorder and homosexuality is not: it's because sex is directed towards a different object. The pronouns "he" and "she" both refer to persons, but indicate gender. "Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" both refer to sexuality, but indicate preference. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't mean to be rude, but you are making arguments and substance out of nothing. Many scientists see homosexuality as a disorder/abnormality, and some of those that believe so also believe its a disorder that's not life-threatening so it's ok to have. But even then, labelling something as a disorder or natural (or whatever you want to classify it as) is merely being politically correct and doesn't get to the core of why it's right. It's all relative, afterall. You can say something is to the right, or something is left, depending on your reference point. Likewise, something can be abnormal or normal depending on what your reference for "normal" is. But again, which category you want to toss it in for the sake of being politically correct is weightless. [QUOTE]What you're ignoring is the fact that even if an animal did object to the treatment it's being given, a human could easily overpower it anyway (depending on the animal). What you're effectively comparing homosexual sex to, which is usually consencsal and has a deeper emotional understanding behind it on a two-way level, is bestiality whereby the animal doesn't fully comprehend the situation it's in. The vast majority of animals don't even have sex for pleasure, and males will often hump each other as a sign of dominance.[/QUOTE]We have the contradiction from the beginning again. You have to admit wrong on one side: we don't know or we do know - not both. Pleroma is an abstract concept that has NOT been proven, so unless you have proven it, you have to admit wrong somewhere.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Sandy]Hello? Thinking that self-satisfaction is wrong is [I]so[/I] last millennium. :P What problems does masturbation bring anyway, if I may ask? ,:) Besides, almost [I]all[/I] men (besides asexuals) do that, wether they're straight, gay or bi.[/QUOTE][COLOR=teal]You misread my post, and thankfully, Solo has clarified it: [QUOTE']And autosexuality's just someone being classically conditioned to finding their own masturbation arousing. They masturbate and find it arousing (obviously), and because they get positive reinforcement from masturbating, they associate sensations they get at orgasm with themselves masturbating, and hence they develop sexual feelings for themselves. It's cyclicar, and constantly being reinforced.[/quote] Autosexuality is when you find yourself sexually attracted to yourself. It is a big psychological problem that thankfully is rare. As for the "everybody mastubates" rumor, that's a facade originating in the US for the sake of making everyone feel better about doing it. Well, I can't argue more than that, since I really can't/haven't asked every man. However, there have been scientific experiments/surveys where they see the benefits (or negatives) of masturbation, by following a sample of men who masturbated since puberty against a sample of men who never masturbated until old age. The results were interesting, but I guess they were made up since everyone masturbates! XD It's funny how many people's opinions and facts arise only from questionable propaganda, lol. Always question facts and sources that you only hear of (and yes, that can go for what I'm saying here too).[QUOTE]And I have [I]no[/I] idea what bestiality means in this context. Isn't it human/animal sex? :/ There's rarely a concensus on sex in [I]those[/I] "relationships"...[/QUOTE] This makes no sense. So just because - say - a dog can't speak, he has no ability to show approval or disapproval? I'd say initiating the act with a human is consent, but that's just me. [QUOTE]I really see no double-standardism in gay sex itself. In reality, it doesn't differ very much from heterosexual intercourse - there's just no risk of getting knocked up. ;D[/QUOTE] There is a double standard. A big one. If you are going to say "what is wrong with letting any two people regardless of gender love," why does that not extend out to other species? Why are you restricting love when some people believe it is an abstraction that transcends even species? It's the same reasoning, really. Solo, I don't understand what you mean about forming stable relationships with other species. I'd argue otherwise, but I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine][color=#503f86]Of course, looking at it on a wider scale, there's little to no point getting aggrovated about it in the first place. What [i]actual[/i'] harm is it going to do if someone else is gay and justifying their feelings for it? Why does it matter so much that someone has fallen in love with someone else of the same sex?[/color][/quote][COLOR=teal]Because the reasoning also supports beastiality as well as autosexuality (getting turned on by yourself or preferring masturbation). And that's a double standard - well, unless you actually find those as ok (which brings a whole array of other problems). Double standards indicate a flaw in fundamental reasoning (i.e., something is wrong with your conclusion and/or rationale). Just to play devil's advocate. ^^ *throws wood into fire and runs like hell*[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Gaara will show up immediately after Team 7 returns from Mist Village (aka the Mist Saga). You'll get to hear him talk a little bit, and then it'll be a while before you see him again.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Heero yuy]Psychology is the study and the theories of the human mind, pyschiatry is the act in which, the apply the studies of psychology into the form, where it applies help to other that seek it. More like humanistic psychology relates to psychaitry. Some special trained psychologist can prescribe, but they have to go through, nurse training of doses and medicine.[/QUOTE][COLOR=teal]As far as I know, only M.D.'s can prescribe medicines, and so if there's a special type of training, it's the acquisition of an M.D., which would make the psychologist a psychiatrist. In addition, you are confusing psychologist and psychology. A psychologist (specifically, a clinical psychologist) helps others with mental illnesses, in exactly the same manner a psychiatrist does. Yes, psychologists (ones that are not clinical psychologists) can do research and other studies, but when someone (like Tical) says she wants to help other people, that usually refers to the application of psychology. Also, psychology is not only the study of the human mind. It is the study of both mind and behavior (and the study is not limited to humans).[/COLOR]

[quote name='Hug Monster][COLOR=Purple']Alright then! I like everything, I don't care about labels and I am officially bisexual. I'm pretty sure the only difference is that psychologists can't perscribe medicine and psychiatrists can.[/COLOR][/quote] [COLOR=teal]Bingo on the medicine prescription thing: that is indeed the only difference. What psychologists and psychiatrists do are exactly the same. But Tical, I think the main thing everyone was saying was that you shouldn't pronounce yourself "bisexual" or "other" just yet. Many teens, many more than you think, actually experiment, and even straight guys have gay sex in order to figure out which way they swing. So, don't jump out of the closet just yet. Wait, wait until you are sure, and don't force it.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Lore][color=#333333][font=trebuchet ms]..ahem. It's just that I don't want half the contents of my inbox to be automated "Your friend has a birthday!" messages.[/color'][/font][/quote] [COLOR=teal]That's one of the quirks I hate dealing with via facebook. Imagine having birthday e-mails from all online services one is on? That could drive a person crazy. And poor, if he/she buys stuff for said friends. Oh, and I like the idea too.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Sandy]Ahem... I think you have [I]totally[/I] misunderstood the concept of bisexuality, Azure. It's not bi[I]gamy[/I]! Bisexuals only date one person at a time, just like "normal" people, they just don't make a difference if it is a guy or a girl.[/QUOTE][COLOR=teal] lol, you're taking my paragraph out of context. Doukeshi was talking about liking both sexes equally, which is, in my honest opinion, impossible. There's always a greater pull to one gender - however small it may be. And I was just referring to her [i]"why limit yourself to one gender"[/i] comment, hence the [i]"your life partner is only going to be one gender, not both"[/i] response. [QUOTE]I tell you all still, sexuality is [I]far[/I] more complex than the "straight-bi-gay" -line. There are asexuals, androgynes, transsexuals, transvestites, sadomasochists, fetishists, pedophiles, zoophiles, tops, bottoms, butches, femmes etc. I wonder what the state of each of your country's sexual education is if you aren't aware of the variety... :/[/QUOTE]It's not complicated at all. And yeah, as has been said, sexual orientations and sexual... preferences(?) are two different things. Fetishes, for instance, is a preference for - say - feet. But that doesn't mean you have sex with just feet or something. It's a guy, girl, or another species you are having sex with. It can't be anything else. Same goes with pedophiles: it's not like the kids are genderless. I understand what you are saying, but I'm more than sure everyone here is familiar with all the boring specifics of pedos and butches since they are a thousand times older than our generation, which seems to have the problem of thinking it invented all these types of sexual preferences. They are, in actuality, as old as mankind itself. [quote name='Tical']I don't really care about all the psychialogical crap, I know this stuff, I'm a psychologist (in training) myself,[/quote] I'm sorry, heh. But since you were worried about defining yourself, I thought it could help. But I wouldn't be quick to call it crap either. Afterall, this is the kind of stuff you should be interested in if you are doing psychology (at age 14? O_o).[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]You can post the article anywhere. It's going to be your own piece of work, so it's totally legitimate. However, if you want the article to garner any attention, you have to post it in a place that has some popularity. On top of getting it online, you have to spread it to the right audience. Particularly, those people that have read the article you are responding to. That's your key audience. Also, you'll want to reference the article in your paper, since people need to know what you are against. So, yeah, at the beginning, just have a "this is in response to http://whatever.net" and you are all set.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Doukeshi][SIZE=1]I'm not too sure I agree with that theory Azure. I mean there is a whole lot of friction from both sides (straight and gay) when it comes to dealing with bisexuality. Bisexuality is always shown as just sluttish people who want it from everyone. Its like the ultimate defenition of promiscuity. What happens if you are genuinely attracted to boy men and women, equally? Why should you limit yourself to just one gender if you are attracted to both? Just 'cause you like both genders doesn't mean you are up for it from [I]anyone[/I'].[/SIZE][/quote][COLOR=teal]Fair enough. You don't have to agree with the theory, but that is the theory nonetheless (I didn't make it up). But I really don't see how you can have both a male and female in your life equally without appearing promiscuous. I mean, having two people isn't exactly smiled upon in the Western world. Afterall, your life partner - gay, straight, or bi - is only going to be one gender, not both (I'll stab you if you mention hermaphrodites). And let's not get confused here: a strong libido does not mean you are slutty or are always lusting for sex. It's more of a subconscious thing, where you are driven so strongly that both genders will satisfy your desire. Again, that's just a theory - not my theory - but a theory that has been presented as a possible explanation for sexuality. I'm probably explaning it poorly, but having a strong sexual drive does not equate to being hungry for sex per say. If that was the case, you'd do it with anyone, or even anything. But bisexuals, like all normal people, have standards, and so the libido this theory refers to is slightly, fundamentally different than the libido one is normally used to hearing about. Still, it's not TOTALLY different, as bisexuals tend to have more... active sexual practices than others. I hope that cleared it up - if not, I bet there's something on google, heh.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]The whole "is gay right/wrong" comment came from left field. What does that have to do with the topic? lol Anyways, there are a variety of theories as to how sexuality works. First is the idea that sexuality is a gradient or spectrum, with the extremes being "attracted to men" and "attracted to women." All people are seen as being somewhere in between, but being closer to one end or the other. Based on which side you are closer to, you are gay or straight. If you are closer to the middle than either of the sides, you are considered bisexual, even if you have a preference for one gender over the other (i.e., you can sleep with both but like sleeping with one more). Then there's the notion that sexuality is discrete. This outline is more complex (and ingenious, IMO), but it works equally as well. A person likes either guys or girls, but not both. There is no attraction to the other sex. Bisexuals come about when there is an excess of libido, or sexual drive. So a bisexual - according to this theory - isn't really attracted to both sexes, just that he has so much want for sex that he is willing to take what he can get, so to speak. How does one like his own gender more than the other? That's explained by starting out gay (through irregularity in the brain) and having a strong sexual drive. Know that no one fully understands sexuality (hence the existence of two theories), and that finding your own sexuality shouldn't be something you should struggle with. If you find something attractive, don't run away from it. Look at it, analyze it, and ask yourself if you are attracted or not. Also, there's a difference between fear of taboo and your true feelings. I hope that helps you in some way.[/COLOR] [quote name='Hug Monster][COLOR=Purple']Wait... Solo, you're a guy? O_o[/COLOR][/quote] Sweetness. You don't know how happy that makes me. :-P

[COLOR=teal]Freudian psychologists say that the ultimate goal of life is death. We are unconsciously seeking our own destruction. That being said, when you see myths and stories about immortal people, they start to realize that they want to die. So don't be surprised if EVERYONE says they want to die. (Surprisingly, even Soul Caliber III has this consistent death notion with Zasalamel.)[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Solo is right on all accounts. Shirow is indeed the artist, and the CGI version is far better than the original, but don't confuse "being improved" with "being actually good." AppleSeed has a powerful premise but a very poor execution. You'll find yourself wishing it was deeper and more developed. But, just for the sake of a really good "man and the machine" angle, watch the CGI version.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]It can already be done: Japan has already made such exteriors, and we have the technology for such things. Hell, there are dancing robots that can teach people how to do whatever style of dance they want to learn. They play the role of the partner, heh. The thing is, things like persocoms would be impractical. Yes, we make useless things, but they are fairly inexpensive useless things. What you are asking for would be ridiculously expensive, followed by maintenance costs, and there's really no use for a computer to be human in form - at least not yet. Simply put, it's possible, but when it becomes practical (and more importantly, desirable) will probably be a good long while.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]I think the question is more about crying and less about anime, but that's just me. Long story short, if two guys are in the room together, no it is not ok to cry - over a show at least. The presence of the other guy should be enough incentive to not cry. "Dude, are you crying." "Nope, are you? OMG, you totally are!" And from there, the moment the show created should be lost by then, and crying doesn't become a possibility. Of course, if you are alone, cry away. ^^[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Well, in all honestly, any discussions or debates you do online are pointless, and absolutley of no value to any person. When someone steps out of a discussion panel online, they are still the same person. If you go to a real discussion panel, really get into it and challenge yourself, then you'll walk out changed. So there's no fun if there's no flaming going on. You already know what the opposing side is going to say, because IRL, you've heard those arguments before, and not only have you heard them before, but they've also been presented better. The real fun of online forums lies in playing Devil's Advocate and making arguments in a blunt, direct manner with no fluff to soften blows, then watch reactions. When I show my friends online discussions, the only ones they light up on are the ones where flaming occurs and the most hilarious of responses are made. Long story short, people start fighting on the forums for entertainment purposes.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=teal]Awww! They are absolutely adorable! You have the ever-indelible O_o smiley! A graphical version of it! Finally! Now it can stay in our hearts forever! *recomposes his strong, very very masculine self* Ahem. So, yeah, they are very cute - cuter than most smilies. They do seem a bit faded, however. Aside from that, all of them are usable. I've actually started working on smilies myself (no surprise to you, heh). I tried making a O_o smiley, but it didn't come out quite as will as yours. See? [IMG]http://home.earthlink.net/~azurwolf/images/O_o.gif[/IMG] But that doesn't mean I'm quitting! I will keep trying! lol[/COLOR]