This is an academic question, not a literal one. I'm just wondering how much of a psychological barrier we have when we recognize "copies" as being inferior to the real thing, even though they look completely identical.
2006-11-19 12:55:12 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes, because while your eyes are preceiving the same images, your mind is telling you, "One is there, and the other isn't"
2006-11-19 12:56:58 · answer #1 · answered by J 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The simplistic answer, in my opinion, is that the real woman is more exciting. We acknowledge the chance (slim though it may be) that a real woman might be attainable, whereas the 'copy/image' is just that, an unattainable image, exciting to view, but less enticing. The same can be said of most televised events as opposed to seeing it in person; which is more traumatic, a shooting on TV news, or the one you saw from a block away.
2006-11-19 13:30:58 · answer #2 · answered by Karfain 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate when that happens. It just means your trying to figure out who you are. You don't know who you are or your meaning and it just pisses you off. At this you point you need to step back and really think about the thing that make you hate that reflection in the mirror. It could be family, work, friends, or just parts of your personality or character that you need to change. It's not easy to overcome that feeling but you can only take it day by day.
2016-05-22 05:34:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think for looking at, the mirror is better, 'real women' don't usually undress for you to be stared at, they want action, action that will come so close that there is almost no more reason to look but all the more to feel.
Remember not to stare at a naked woman, it makes them uncomfortable because their minds work like that. They start to wonder what you see (wrong), are they too fat and all that. So action! Though it's fine to sneakily look in the mirror.
2006-11-19 13:22:13 · answer #4 · answered by groovusy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being that males are more visual, even the slight difference of not being exact does play a role. So there is NOTHING like the real thing, but a picture/mirror image is still good. So in short, there is nothing like the real thing...yet :)
2006-11-19 12:59:23 · answer #5 · answered by fade_this_rally 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that you might find that it is more exciting to look at because of the mystery involved. If you're looking at a reflection in a mirror is it something that you should be doing?
2006-11-19 13:03:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is no indication that the image you are looking at is a
mirror image, there can be no difference.
You can omly recognise a copy if there is knoe;edge of the mirror.
2006-11-19 13:30:44 · answer #7 · answered by hunterentertainment 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One "vision" is slightly older than the other (speed of light ) there fore given a Male's slightly different visual refractive propensity, I would suggest that, Yes, we would certainly notice the differences.Stereo-optics etc.
2006-11-19 13:06:48 · answer #8 · answered by Ashleigh 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that the fact that we recognize it as a copy as yousay just makes it not as good. however if you thought it was as good would it be.? concidering that and you can touch the real thing and not the copy changes things.
2006-11-19 12:58:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
we choose whatever we like. Its only the person to decide which one makes them exciting.
2006-11-20 02:31:32 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋