It is impossible to draw EVERYTHING in any given class,
You're slow. I could knock out the entire outline of someone's body, including the major characteristics of the hair on their head, and the major fold lines in their body, in exactly 2 minutes, ever since grade 9, when I was 14. With good accuracy, too. It was getting good tonal work in later that I was weak at. But compositionally, the areas of greatest details, or of greatest contrast between light and dark, would be the focal points of a drawing/painting. Which usually meant face and crotch, and often nipples and underarms. You'd have to work to balance tones out if you didn't want those to overwhelm the rest of the picture.
Why am I answering you? You've GOT to be trolling at this point, if you're not deranged.
Edit II: Actually that article sounds more like it pre-dates the linked one and it's unclear what decisions are actually in the new policy. Also...
Maine Principal's Association is the organization that provides all the rules and guidance for sanctioned high school sports. So this policy specifically addresses a transgenders eligibility to join a single-sex HS sports team.
You can't draw everything, so you should never draw anything.
That's the nonsense that you all are saying. "If I don't draw the *****, then I'm less of an artist". I countered to say that there are numerous things that you will probably never draw and that doesn't make you any less of an artist.
I'm merely pointing out that there is no gain of artistic value from drawing a fully nude person vs a barely dressed person. No one has yet countered that belief.
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Society has labeled those parts as "indecent" and/or private, so much so that you can be arrested/fined/etc. for displaying those parts. A movie with a 5 minute sex scene will receive a higher rating movie than a 2 hour gore fest of violence. The same does not hold true for leaves, kneecaps, elbows or anything else.
Sounds like a challenge if I ever heard one. I bet we can still make a dirty movie using nothing but those three things.
'Tis not a challenge. I'm sure a movie consisting of actual filmed violence of people being decapitated and mutilated would be just as equal or worse in rating. The point being is that a movie containing violence, vulgarity, gore, drugs and partial nudity would not receive the same rating as a movie with hardcore sex scenes. I'm not saying that I particularly agree with it, just pointing out how society is.
Nude models in art class are for learning how to draw human anatomy, by the way.
Not sure why I bother, but there you go.
By "anatomy", do you mean lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, etc.? Or are you referring to specific parts, mainly the outer parts of the body? I mean, how can you possibly draw a human without drawing EVERY part of the body?
Aripyanfar wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It is impossible to draw EVERYTHING in any given class,
You're slow. I could knock out the entire outline of someone's body, including the major characteristics of the hair on their head, and the major fold lines in their body, in exactly 2 minutes, ever since grade 9, when I was 14. With good accuracy, too. It was getting good tonal work in later that I was weak at. But compositionally, the areas of greatest details, or of greatest contrast between light and dark, would be the focal points of a drawing/painting. Which usually meant face and crotch, and often nipples and underarms. You'd have to work to balance tones out if you didn't want those to overwhelm the rest of the picture.
Why am I answering you? You've GOT to be trolling at this point, if you're not deranged.
Edited, Mar 30th 2013 11:03am by Aripyanfar
Read above. Unless you're stating that you are unable to draw that contrast of dark/light areas on anything else in the world except a nipple and crotch, then you have no point. There is no "perfect" thing to draw that utilizes every artistic aspect.
I haven't been paying attention: What exactly is Alma arguing at this point? Something about showing naughty bits having no "artistic" value or something?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?
Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.
You're claiming that the labels "men" and "women" on bathrooms are for genders and not sex, so what about all of the scenarios that include those labels? Are they gender, sex and/or both? Why would a person assume that those labels would change for the bathrooms?
Rachel wrote:
See above.
I asked you why a person would think that the men/boys labels for a urinating/defecating room are based on personality traits as opposed to urinating/defecating.
You replied with "That's usually what those labels refer to"
Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?
Rachel wrote:
But it's not incorrect. It has the potential to be incorrect. In this case (and most cases), it's not.
When are they incorrect and how can you tell?
Rachel wrote:
Um, no.
No to what? Are you saying that many homosexual men aren't feminine? Are you saying that those homosexual feminine men don't use male bathrooms, gyms, etc? Are you saying that they don't urinate standing? Are you saying that many lesbians don't aren't labeled "butch"? You're wrong. Gay men urinate just like every other man, standing. If bathrooms were based on gender, then there should be urinals in the women bathrooms.
Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.
So, I ask again, how do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?
Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.
So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".
You're wrong. Gay men urinate just like every other man, standing.
If I've had a long day, I sit. Also, that way if I get crampy I dont have to pinch off the stream, turn around, & sit. I'M ALREADY THERE.
Alma wrote:
Most homosexual men have women genders
Actually, only some of the bottoms do. I'd say more than half, don't.
Edited, Mar 30th 2013 10:40pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
No to what? Are you saying that many homosexual men aren't feminine?
Feminine? Sure, i guess you could say many are. But very few are trans women. Of course in that case they wouldn't even be homosexual men, but rather heterosexual women.
Quote:
You're wrong. Gay men urinate just like every other man, standing.
Yes, because they are men, and that's what most all men do.
Quote:
If bathrooms were based on gender, then there should be urinals in the women bathrooms.
Urinals are put in the men's bathrooms because it is expected that many people who go into that bathroom will make use of them. They are convenient for customers, and even save money by using less water, and being much faster to use, thus allowing more people to use a smaller bathroom. Therefore it makes sense to install them, from a financial stand point. Making customers happy, and saving money at the same time is something most businesses like doing.
They are not put in the women's bathroom because it is expected that virtually no one would use them there. That people with penises might use the women's bathroom isn't going to effect a different decision here; either they wouldn't use a urinal even if there was one in the women's bathroom, or they are such a small minority that it doesn't make sense to install urinals. There's simply not enough demand for urinals in women's bathrooms. Why would anyone ever waste money and space installing them if no one wants them? It just wouldn't make sense, except maybe for a bathroom that is likely to only be used by pre-op trans women, but even then, as i've explained, most still wouldn't use them anyway.
Actually, lady urinals ARE a thing. They're just rare, as many women don't wear dresses so it makes no sense to put them into newly constructed buildings.
I hear some older Chicago hotels still have them, though.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Feminine? Sure, i guess you could say many are. But very few are trans women.
I wasn't talking about trans. According to your logic, feminine men should be using the women's bathroom and tom boys and butch lesbians should use the men's bathroom, but they don't.
Rachel wrote:
Of course in that case they wouldn't even be homosexual men, but rather heterosexual women.
Not according to the definition of sex that you provided.
Rachel wrote:
Uh, what? Why does it need to be quantifiable?
How else are you going to differentiate if you have nothing to measure it by? Why even differentiate in the first place?
Rachel wrote:
No, that is not what i said.
How do people know if they are "female" enough to use the bathroom? How does anyone know if anyone else is in violation? If you can't tell, then why even make the rule?
Rachel wrote:
I haven't said a word about half of those things.
Are the things that I mentioned not also labels? Those labels don't refer to personality traits.I know what labels are used for. The question is asking why a room for urinating and defecating be labeled for anything outside of urinating and defecating?
Rachel wrote:
But it's not incorrect. It has the potential to be incorrect. In this case (and most cases), it's not.
When are they incorrect and how can you tell?
Rachel wrote:
Yes, because they are men, and that's what most all men do.
Which is not bound to a specific gender. So, if all men urinate standing up and gender isn't bound to a sex, then why are there no urinals in women bathrooms if the bathrooms are separated by gender?
This is you again attempting to interchange words when you already defined them separately.
Rachel wrote:
Urinals are put in the men's bathrooms because it is expected that many people who go into that bathroom will make use of them. They are convenient for customers, and even save money by using less water, and being much faster to use, thus allowing more people to use a smaller bathroom. Therefore it makes sense to install them, from a financial stand point. Making customers happy, and saving money at the same time is something most businesses like doing.
They are not put in the women's bathroom because it is expected that virtually no one would use them there. That people with penises might use the women's bathroom isn't going to effect a different decision here; either they wouldn't use a urinal even if there was one in the women's bathroom, or they are such a small minority that it doesn't make sense to install urinals. There's simply not enough demand for urinals in women's bathrooms. Why would anyone ever waste money and space installing them if no one wants them? It just wouldn't make sense, except maybe for a bathroom that is likely to only be used by pre-op trans women, but even then, as i've explained, most still wouldn't use them anyway.
Finance: It's cheaper to have ONE co-ed room than to have two separate rooms. Hence the question you keep ignoring, why separate in the first place? Genders are together every other time of the day, why separate in bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, etc., if it isn't about sex? Customer satisfaction: Have you not noticed the long lines in the women bathrooms and how much quicker men finish by using urinals? Those men aren't using the stalls most of the time. So, now you have unused stalls that women could use and a line of women waiting to use the restroom. That's not customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, how are you making that assumption on men using the men's bathroom? If your argument is that the bathrooms are separated based on GENDER and NOT sex, then that means that the designers cognitively acknowledged that there would be men using the women's bathroom and vice versa. So, it would make absolutely NO sense to create two separate bathrooms based on gender, but not accommodate each gender in both bathrooms. That's counterproductive and a financial failure from a project stand point.
Rachel wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Yes, but never to compare it to sexuality.
So your argument is comparing oranges to apples? "Since people eat the skin off apples, you should eat the skin of oranges?".
I wasn't talking about trans. According to your logic, feminine men should be using the women's bathroom and tom boys and butch lesbians should use the men's bathroom, but they don't.
Either they are trans, or their genders match their sex. Why did you spend so much time insisting you knew what gender is if you don't?
Quote:
When are they incorrect and how can you tell?
They are incorrect when they are not correct. I can tell because they give a definition which does not match what the word really means. For example, if i went and edited the wiktionary entry for the word "segment" to "a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.", it would be incorrect.
Quote:
Finance: It's cheaper to have ONE co-ed room than to have two separate rooms. Hence the question you keep ignoring, why separate in the first place? Genders are together every other time of the day, why separate in bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, etc., if it isn't about sex?
Because that's what people want. This isn't an all or nothing thing. There are alternatives between the most efficient setup and the least efficient setup.
Quote:
Customer satisfaction: Have you not noticed the long lines in the women bathrooms and how much quicker men finish by using urinals? Those men aren't using the stalls most of the time. So, now you have unused stalls that women could use and a line of women waiting to use the restroom. That's not customer satisfaction.
Is your argument here that if we had unisex bathrooms they should include urinals? Because if so, i agree.
Quote:
Furthermore, how are you making that assumption on men using the men's bathroom? If your argument is that the bathrooms are separated based on GENDER and NOT sex, then that means that the designers cognitively acknowledged that there would be men using the women's bathroom and vice versa. So, it would make absolutely NO sense to create two separate bathrooms based on gender, but not accommodate each gender in both bathrooms. That's counterproductive and a financial failure from a project stand point.
Why would they make accommodations for a gender which isn't supposed to be in the bathroom? If you're still confused about the differences between gender and sex, and actually meant they should accommodate both sexes, then they already do. Stalls in men's rooms go mostly unused, thanks to urinals, so biological females will have no trouble in there. There are no urinals in the women's bathroom because no one of that gender uses them (that includes those with penises). Seriously. Trans women do not use urinals. And they would be far less likely to use one if there was one in a women's bathroom for whatever reason. I'm really not making that up.