297
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
297 points (99.7% liked)
World News
56393 readers
2978 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
As I said, body hair on women might have a purpose in societies which are not technologically advanced but as the Brandeis study indicated, most men do not find body hair on women attractive. Consequently, the Creator must have designed men to find body hair on women unattractive.
I came up with the blemish hypothesis before I read the survey. Note that the survey found that men find tattoos on women attractive if they're small and in hidden locations. Something doesn't make sense. If men find tattoos on women attractive, why do they have to be hidden? To me it suggests that men find tattoos on women attractive if they are hidden, but they don't really care about tattoos on women unlike earrings, which enhances a women's beauty.
Due to the technological advancement we have conditioned ourselves to think this, but as "the architect" designed we have it and we're supposed to like it (by your "architect" logic). It'd be like if your house was designed with window screens but you didn't like them so you took them off, they were put there by the architect for a reason and you are altering the house by taking them away. We're supposed to believe that altering the same house by adding a coat of paint is bad, yet altering it by removing window screens is A-Ok.
The crux of your issue seems to be that you're so theistic you believe some immortal being directly beams thoughts to your head individually, and thus those thoughts must be "what god intended." Since it's no longer 0BC the rest of us know you're not really talking to the bush.
You came up with a bad hypothesis and then backed it up with a shoddy study that doesn't draw the conclusions you think it does. Correlation != causation, and I doubt the studies mention "cause god said so" anywhere anyway. It doesn't make sense because you're reading too deep into these studies in an attempt to justify your biases through your religious framework.
Know what? If god didn't want us to get tattoos he wouldn't have invented tattoo guns, same as razors, howboutdat?
A better analogy would be a house designed with security bars on the windows. In a low crime area, the bars could be removed because they make the house less attractitve.
I believe in what's called intelligent design. This is the belief that the universe including life was the result of an intelligent agency. The nature of the designer such as whether it is immortal is unknown. If the Brandeis study is correct, the designer created men to innately find body hair on women unattractive.
After further thought, I think my blemish hypothesis is correct. The survey said that men find tattoos on women attractive as long as they're small and hidden. This means that men prefer seeing plain skin on women. The reason could be that men's brains interpret a tattoo as a blemish. A blemish on the skin such as a mole could indicate a health problem.
The designer created humans with artistic ability.
If you remove the bars you still lessen your security, no matter how safe you think the neighborhood may be, and you're still going against the architect's design despite your subjective opinion on the beauty (or lack thereof) of the bars. In fact Mosquitos are one of the world's most dangerous animals to this day and those would be the bugs that hair blocks, we still "need" our bars, by your own logic.
So yes, god (at least with a small "g" unless you specify Allah, Yaweah, Jehovah, Xenu, JHVH-1, El, Prometheus, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Khnum, etc). Your theory only holds up as "true" (and tenuously at that, if ) if your god is real. Pascals wager is fun and all but until such time as you can prove the existence of such a creator, your conclusions are unprovable.
You don't even believe your own rationalizations and refuse to let your conscious mind see it. You would have said "is."
But not the ability to distinguish art from sickness?
Fun fact, my god told me tattoos are hot and body hair is natural, and my god is bigger than your god, so therefore you're wrong.
An architect could design a house to be more attractive without security bars but in some areas bars are necessary. Mosquitos are not a big problem in many areas. An area could be sprayed with insecticide if they become a problem. Women also now have the time and equipment to shave their legs and armpits.
Evidence for a creator is off topic.
It is simpler to design men to innately find plain skin on women attractive.
Yeah, now they can shave, but for most of human history that wasn't the case (unless you think we're 2000 yr old and Adam and Eve is literal not apocryphal, the human race is much older than recorded history, which is much older than 2000yr, unless you're one of those "The Devil put dinosaur bones there to fool us" types). If what you say is true we never would have gotten to even develop fire before we died because nobody was shaving so nobody wanted to fuck.
Evidence for a creator is not off topic, it's the entire crux of your argument. Your argument is literally "god told me to." If god is then not real and instead all of science is correct with the theory of evolution, then your entire argument is also not real. That's kinda the problem with hanging your insane theories on an unprovable creator, technically you can never be "disproven" as you can keep saying "god told me" while ignoring anything inconvenient as you do, but anyone who isn't dumb enough to already fall for that won't ever be convinced.
But this is already settled, I told you I talked to my god and he said yours is a liar. I will accept no further debate on this topic because my god is infallible and you can't prove otherwise.
Intelligent design simply believes that the universe and life was created by an intelligent agency. There are no religious texts. When women didn't have the equipment or time to shave, they didn't. Removing body hair enhances a women's sexuality but is not required for eroticism no more than makeup or perfume.
The topic is whether men find tattoos on women attractive not evidence for intelligent design.
If your argument hinges on "intelligent design is real and The Creator™ made men hate tattoos" you need to prove the first part before the second can be "true." If intelligent design is not real then no creator made men hate tattoos, simple as.
Incorrect. I presented a survey which said that most men find tattoos on women attractive if they are small and in hidden locations. There is no requirement to give a reason. The article didn't give a reason.
No, you are the one ascribing the reason without any evidence to support it, of course the article doesn't back up your delusions, but that is the point, the article does not back up your delusions.
I'm going to say this plainly, so that you can understand:
You're not anywhere near as clever as you think you are