Great post, mate. I'm with you on this one.Trifixion said:Warning: Semi-humorous, probably easily-considered-sexist statements contained below...read at your own risk and take with a large grain of salt.
This sort of ties into my fundamental theory of the difference between men and women. Goes something like this:
Men are digital. Women are analog.
A digital audio signal is a string of "0's" and "1's." There is no in between. It's either "on" or it's "off." The receiver of the signal does not need to interpret the signal.
An analog audio signal's data can at any given point be "on"...or it can be "off"...or it can be anywhere in between...it is the job of the receiver to interpret how that information is to be processed.
This is why men and women have so much trouble communicating. Men say things to women, and the women - instead of taking the statements or questions at face value - try to figure out "what is he REALLY saying," thinking there's some deeper meaning behind it, when in fact there isn't. Women give men too much credit in this regard. When a woman has to ask the question "What is he THINKING, saying that?" they should immediately answer themselves "He isn't."
Example: A man says to a woman "Hey, is it okay if I go out drinking with my buddies?"
The woman should have heard: "Hey, is it okay if I go out drinking with my buddies?"
The woman actually hears: "Hey, I don't think you're interesting enough to occupy my attention, so I'm going to go out, get drunk, and flirt with other women who are better looking and thinner than you."
Likewise, women say things to men and the men interpret what they say at face value without trying to interpret what she's really saying.
Example: A man says to a women "Hey, is it okay if I go out drinking with my buddies?" (as above) and the woman will reply, "Sure, you can go out drinking with your friends."
The man actually hears: "It's okay to go out drinking with my friends."
The man should have heard: "Well, I could go out drinking with my friends, but it would be far better if I stayed here and lavished attention on this wonderful woman."
And don't get me started on how to answer the question "Does this dress make me look fat?"
There is no correct answer.
Then there's my alternate theory of the difference between men and women, which goes as follows:
In literature, weaponry...swords, rifles, and the like...are traditionally regarded as phallic images.
Likewise, flowers - most specifically members of genus Rosa within the family Rosaceae - are considered to be vaginal images.
So according to literature, the difference between men and women is the difference between...Guns 'N' Roses.
Therefore, it's all Axl's fault, so let's blame him.
OT: I've also heard about research results that say it's easier to listen to a male voice than the one of a female, because a lower voice is more pleasant and easier to listen. Without considering the content of the voice at all.
That is something that radio stations, for example, have in mind; a man with a charming low-pitch voice can talk longer, without irritating the listener, than a girl with a high-pitch voice. Those are facts.
And I'm sure some of you have heard/read about the statistics that the average female voice (in western societies) has gone a lot lower. I can't remember the figures or per cents, but it's gone remarkably lower. Obviously pretty much everything has got something to do with it.
It's not as much a question about men/women. It's a matter of a low/high -pitch voices. And the difference of the pitch of voices between men and women has diminished from what it has been.
At least in my ears, a girl like Tara Reid sounds hot, but that might have not been the case, if I were to live in the, say 1950's.
If you were to listen an audio book, would you rather have it read by Jason Statham or Lisa Simpson?