I don't think that's much of a reputation of her post. It would be more beneficial to say, that was one isolated study, or show other studies, but simply saying she's wrong because you guys say so isn't very convincing.

Running five miles a day is a lot different than simply eating less.

"People with drug & alcohol abuse problems have resources they can turn to, but people who have to lose weight? What resources do they have? They have to pay high sums of cash to get to the gym, to fight an uphill battle, and instead of support, society just beats them down emotionally. "

The people around here agree it goes like this:

It's because these people are spoiled as hell. I'm from Egypt and I haven't meant a single person like that in my entire life (both in the US, and Egypt)

Only when I know I have to pee but can't do it standing up.

I wonder when Jez and Gawker are going to stop equation correlation to causation?

The "last bit" is certainly achievable for free. [Bodybuilding.com] forums have a huge community that is great with those kind of results, at least for men. I don't generally check the women's section, but I've seen the male transformations and some of the people I've met on them are amazing. It doesn't even take that…

I'm wondering, I just finished my AP Psych course and my teacher told us that "Gifted" kids are determined as gifted beyond simply an IQ. He told us that they had to not only have an above average IQ, but also show creativity and some other factor that I can't really remember.

I never said boner, merely sexual arousal, and I said this about everyone. And I actually have added quite a bit, look up. I posted a criticism of the article and, oh look, the only thing anyone can say to try and belittle my opinion is that you don't care or that I'm "mansplaining" (when I'm not).

You have added absolutely nothing to this discussion.

I never said shy and faint of heart, simply look at this now, though. This is groupthink of the worst kind, and group polarization. You're all so quick to tell someone that he is wrong for thinking something different than you, that he is not welcome. Nevermind the fact that the article is about men, it's all of a…

Here are all the things that are wrong with your post:

There are less male feminists than there should be, though, because of specifically people on this site that encourage the use of the word mansplaining and actually saying that whenever a male has a differing opinion on a social issue or a gender issue, and then they voice that opinion, that it is all of a sudden…

This is why you can't have a solid discussion, because you're using words like mansplaining. I'm not saying that women don't understand because they're women, simply that when it comes to being a man, you can't simply accept this article without the input of someone who isn't Hugo.

Because what they find attractive doesn't mean I do. Someone can be the most symmetrical, clean, and conventionally attractive person, but I won't be attracted to them.

I don't like this article. Because there's really nothing scientific about it. The author is trying to assert her opinion on why a man likes a kind of woman but the thing is, she has no scientific evidence of it. It's merely theorizing, and much the same that woman say that men should have no say on their reproductive…

Technically speaking, yes, blue eyed people are not normal, and I as a green eyed person am more abnormal than a blue eyed person.

Yes. 5-10% of people are gay according to modern statistics. That is considered a statistical deviation from the norm, so let's not try to create an argument about semantics because if anyone says that heterosexuality is not the norm then you're really just deluded.

I feel the exact same way. Diversity for diversity's sake isn't something that you should want. I mean, yes, I understand that having multiple perspective's is good, but we shouldn't be shoving in gay people in ads just so that we can say, "Oh look! Diversity!" Ads are created to target a population, to target buyers,…