HOME | DD
polarityplus β Samus cheesecake - Metroid Zero Mission version
#metroid #samusaran #smashbrothers #ssb4
Published: 2014-10-17 05:29:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 136113; Favourites: 4501; Downloads: 2400
Redirect to original
Description
Cleaning up a sketch from a few months ago. Did I mention I'm loving Smash
Fusion Version
Origional
enjoy
Dan
Related content
Comments: 194
I prefer the blue one actually, brings out those beautiful eyes
π: 0 β©: 0
I just left eschergirls, only for it to follow me to dA.
π: 0 β©: 0
Not particularly a fan of the rocket heels, but I am quite fond of Samus.
π: 0 β©: 0
Samus does a stint at the Boobies breastaurant from Space Dandy! Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Why is "beauty" so idolisticized?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
thats, not even a real word.
π: 0 β©: 2
I think he meant "idolized".
π: 0 β©: 0
Because beauty is beautiful. It sets something off in our minds that makes us simply enjoy looking at it. An odd thing it is, to feel towards something so vague. But perhaps that's precisely why evolution is a myth; an "evolved" mind wouldn't see beauty as necessary, and thus we wouldn't even recognize it.
π: 0 β©: 2
Evolution is not a myth. And when I reference Beauty it is because the media paints a picture of what it "Should be"
You want to know what Beauty is? Beauty is beings and nature as they are.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution is a myth; that fact cannot be truly debated. Things adapt, and sometimes become something different in the process, but I have yet to see an improvement made form claims of evolution. The only things I see are trading one characteristic for another, which is adaption to me.
In any case, beauty can indeed be found in things as they are, but beauty also falls on the eyes of the beholder. Because the world doesn't technically have a reality (unless we delve into metaphysics), there's no way to prove that your idea of beauty or mine is the right form of beauty.
You are, indeed, correct in your assumption that media defines beauty, but media only follows trends. Trends tend to be things that a great majority of people enjoy or promote, and therefore I think it safe to assume that the idea of beauty that is pushed is more or less what we define it as.
However, there are still perspectives. Either way, beauty is whatever it is to a person. To answer your original question - perhaps not as well as it deserves - beauty is idolized because it's attractive. That's all. Even a gay or other perverted male can - more often than not - agree that a certain female is "beautiful," and likewise for most other things.
But then, reading what I typed there, it also appears that there is a base understanding of what beautiful is. Simply put, there is an innate standard for the titles we impose on things; much like beautiful things. Samus here, whether you agree or not that she is - to you - a beautiful woman, it still remains that she is attractive to you and to others, and I believe once we get to this base understanding we start to get rid of the boundaries that arguing over semantics gives us.
To make a rather long post short, what I'm attempting to convey is the simple idea that the form of beauty that media portrays is what the majority have agreed upon. Whether or not you do is up to you. I just enjoy questioning people's motives for saying or thinking certain ways.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution is not a myth friend, it takes time.
It does not happen to a population, it happens to a species.Β
And, allowing the media to define what is beauty is horrid!
Especially with the female mind being subject to go through hell on what it believes it should be.
It is all an exploitation of someone's personal idealistic views.
π: 0 β©: 1
Evolution has not been actively observed, nor is it repeatable. Like I mentioned before, however, I do believe in adaption to the point it becomes different; but when they do adapt from an original form, they give up some characteristic they had before; thus I see it as a deviation rather than an evolution.
I never said anything about letting the media define it. If you're talking about news, then you're absolutely correct. If you're talking about games, pictures and movies, those are the representations of a person's or a group of people's idea of whatever they're trying to convey. Whether that idea is big hooters or a large, round caboose the fact remains that it is, indeed, a perspective of beauty that they have. We live in a free society; you can either disagree but accept it, or you can whine and chase your tail over it. It's not actually an issue of morals, since this form of beauty has been present since, I believe, the beginning of the arts.
As for the "female mind being subject to go through hell on what it believes it should be," I think that lies on the shoulders of shallow, pathetic girls who aren't content to work with their own gifts. Just because I see an unreasonably badass man on a television show, I'm not going to blame the director or the producer or the writer for making me feel inferior to this figure; it's my fault for feeling such a thing.
In the end, the nonsense you're speaking is nothing but an excuse to attempt and alleviate even more responsibility for one's feelings and actions. I can only assume you support gun control as well, and in which case this discussion was more or less fruitless.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am not speaking nonsense lad. I am speaking from reality.
The media does not paint the picture in just 1 person's head.
It paints it in many, males and females.
This affects how society treats them. Lucky I have never really been involved in it, but I see it everyday.
It affects not only how you see yourself, but how people treat you.
Gun control? Funny you should bring that up.
I am neutral to gun control. The 2nd amendment was made to help preserve self-government, but it has went from a individual's right to protect themselves to just having guns, sporting them, and saying "it is my right to do so!"
Which is funny, people think they have the right to everything they want.
You only have the right to what you need.
-I like discussing with ya lad, I also looked into your art, good stuff
hopefully i will get to have many more talks with you in the future once we finish this one
π: 0 β©: 1
Fair enough. I just dislike people waiving responsibility for things like that, with the lame excuse that they fell for the media. I just want the population to accept more responsibility for the stupidity it commits.
Were on person to start a trend, it'd go to hundreds, which would continue to thousands, and through social media the changes would go up to millions. One person, with the right effort and message, could indeed change things. Not that I really care about how much boobage is shown (I actually quite love boobs), but if someone's upset about it I'd rather they do so respectably. Then, I don't want them whining after it doesn't happen.
On the subject of gun control again, I'm pro-Second Amendment. Admittedly, showboating has become somewhat prevalent, but the fact remains it's necessary. Historically speaking, were more of the revolts and what-not better armed, they would've been able to kick out the dictators. My opinion on the matter is simply that it's not the gun's fault a person died; it's the person who shot it. It's like blaming a car for running people over, and not the driver.
Reasonably, the American dream is to have everything you want, minus another person's property. Capitalism in it's purest form is a great mechanic, the issue comes in - as always - when corruption and cronyism come into play.
And likewise to you! Haha, and my art isn't that great. I'm no artist, I'm just a web developer.
π: 0 β©: 1
i agree, sorry for not replying in awhile
π: 0 β©: 0
an evolved mind would seek mates that have physical traits which advertise things like health, fertility and youth
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet beauty does not betray health, fertility or youth. Some can be... less than aesthetically pleasing and retain the necessary characteristics for reproduction.
π: 0 β©: 1
evolution operates on the population level, so exceptions to rules like smooth skin = young and symmetrical features = healthy are negligible so long as those rules remain true for a large majority of the population. It's also worth mentioning that "attractive" features don't necessarily need to correspond with things like fertility or health. Theoretically, a feature which may have once indicated health for example may remain in the population even after its relationship with health has ceased. At that point, the feature would become vestigial, but members of the population may retain their preference for the feature if no significant benefit exists to evolve a preference against it.
In fact, "attractiveness" of features could be self-reinforcing. If a feature has established itself as "attractive" to most of the population, then that universal attractiveness by itself becomes an incentive; choosing a mate who has the feature ensures your offspring will also have it, increasing their chances of reproducing. Furthermore, your offspring will inherit your preference for the feature, thus perpetuating its perceived "attractiveness" within the population.
π: 0 β©: 1
As for attractiveness - and I'm not entirely sure - I'm thinking that's a special feature of humanity as far as recognition goes. I know that male birds have brighter colors and the like, which does help in the mating process, but I'm not sure it operates on the level of "beauty".
In this case, I can see how the brighter colors and the fuller wings and the like can indeed display health and youth, which does help in reproduction, but I'm not sure it's a matter of preference for... 'less privileged' animals.
π: 0 β©: 1
"preference" is a word biologists use to describe an individual's likelihood of selecting a mate with certain traits, it's not necessarily "preference" as you or I mightΒ use it (as in, IΒ "prefer" the colorΒ blue and youΒ "prefer" the color green).
I'd guess it's much more complicated thanΒ as I explained, yeah, especially for humans.Β I'm just saying basic evolution theory offers explanations for what animals and by extension humans generally consider attractive. Why dismiss such an elegant solution as a myth when it explains so much?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not elegant, at least from my perspective. It's a spaghetti mess of alleviating responsibility by stating that we're grown up monkeys. I think it's a pathetic albeit intricate attempt at removing the idea of a divine creator.
π: 0 β©: 1
at it's heart it isn't intricate at all, it's actually quite intuitive; individuals are born with an assortment of traits randomly inherited from their parents (variation), with tiny imperfections (mutation), and those individuals most capable of successfully reproducing in their environment pass on their traits (adaptation). It's a simple concept that explains why we can domesticate crops and animals by selectively breeding them, or how bacteria can develop resistances to antibiotics. Understanding how populations evolve doesn't prevent you from believing in god or acting responsibly
π: 0 β©: 1
You're right there. Honestly, I have no issue with the concept that things "adapt to the point of becoming different", but I have considerable beef with the idea of dolphins to land creatures and apes/monkeys to humans or the "original life form" to the millions of species we have today. Either way, I can see adaption; but I also know some who use it as an excuse for the mentioned responsibility.
π: 0 β©: 1
well, if it took 30,000 years to turn wolves into pugs, I personally don't seeΒ why a mammalian crocodile-thing couldn't become a dolphin, given 50,000,000 years. But what do I know I'm just a dumb grey alien
π: 0 β©: 0
Great piece of work!
Thanks for sharing....
Featured in Daily Inspirations at hangaroundtheweb.com/2014/10/dβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
Metroid...Cheesecake? That's...an unusual title.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>