The psychology of convex vs. concave shapes

New York City Vista, 1927.:



It has that film noir vibe—all about the atmosphere, those sharp contrasts, a sense of being lost, and just a hint of allure (if you look at the distinct silhouettes of the female characters in the previous post, and the color palette):



There’s a certain perfection in the shapes from the 1960s (what we call "retro" today), and a real longing for that pop of red:



The way the shapes, colors, and details are presented isn't accidental—it feels like intentional, careful work:

🙂 Where on earth have you disappeared to?! 😲

copperfox22 said:Come on, admit it—this is way more profound than anything involving actual sense or logic. 😁

I suppose I agree. Some might argue it’s just deep for the sake of being deep... though, if I may be so bold, I find it both profound and genuinely wise.

p.s. This whole business regarding bans is such an absurd disciplinary measure. I believe Humphrey was banned decades ago... back when the internet wasn't even a thing yet 😁—it probably would have sparked a full-blown revolution by now. 👎

I find what Lisa Hernandez3 is saying about the possibility of shifting forms pretty interesting—though I wouldn't call them "shifts" so much as their simultaneous existence. She even threw "color aspect" into the mix. It’d be cool to hear some thoughts on the interplay between form and power. 👍

Anyway, back to this "shifting forms" thing. Take a woman wearing a tight, short, low-cut evening dress—you know, those classic little black dresses 😁 that show off plenty of skin. It makes me wonder: isn't that actually an attempt to "escape" the interpretation forced upon her? That idea that she's purely a concave form—undefined, vague, something to be conquered, passive, weak... things women are often identified with (and sometimes even accept themselves)? By highlighting her body, she’s essentially emphasizing "clarity" of shape, and clarity is a convex (masculine) trait. So, you could say she’s imitating convex qualities to claim them for herself. By presenting herself through the "clarity" of her physicality, she effectively buffers against being perceived through that concave lens. In doing so, she achieves a sort of coexistence of both forms—reaching an equilibrium.

If you buy that logic, men are basically doing the same thing. As representatives of the convex form (clear and defined), they hide their bodies (don't show much skin) to mimic the effects of concavity (the undefined, the unknown). Maybe the takeaway is that this "fluidity" of form—rather than them being mutually exclusive—is just how things naturally work. I mean, just look at the male physique: the torso is basically an upside-down triangle (broad shoulders, narrow waist), while the hair in the pelvic region forms a triangle pointing up; with women, it's the opposite (wide hips and narrow waist create an upward triangle, while the hair there creates a downward one).

I can't say for certain... though I suppose I have a preference for nudism.😁

To be honest, I find this whole preoccupation with clothing rather perplexing.🤷

Why bother rushing out into the material world just to observe superficial symptoms?

😁I personally☕ expect us to delve deeper—to peer into those "invisible" boundaries between the concave and the convex.

It seems almost unbelievable to me. Why is there such a struggle to simply speak openly? Why must we hide behind layers and cover ourselves up?😕

Look, this whole thread is about how we perceive shape—basically, the psychological impact a form has on the mind. We’re talking about the symbolism of form here, and that shouldn't just be limited to "physical" stuff; it includes the way someone acts or moves—the "form of action." We've been digging deep into the "invisible boundaries" of concave versus convex, while you're out here treating external form as some kind of "symptom"—when, in reality, it's just the outward manifestation of what's happening inside. Get it now? 😉

Rachel Stewart36 said:Look, this whole thread is about how we perceive shape—basically, the psychological impact a form has on the mind. We’re talking about the symbolism of form here, and that shouldn't just be limited to "physical" stuff; it includes the way someone acts or moves—the "form of action." We've been digging deep into the "invisible boundaries" of concave versus convex, while you're out here treating external form as some kind of "symptom"—when, in reality, it's just the outward manifestation of what's happening inside. Get it now? 😉

Topic: The Psychology of Convexity and Concavity

psychology = perception 😕

🤷

It’s honestly hilarious when people refuse to actually engage with the topic—instead, they just resort to nitpicking based on total logical fallacies—all because they can't wrap their heads around what was actually said. 🙄 Enjoy yourself, man; I'm done.

I suppose what you’re saying is true... though, if I’m being perfectly honest, I didn't quite grasp the underlying point you were making there. My apologies... ☕

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I find these parallel chat intrusions quite fascinating from the perspective of shifting forms—the way people enter and exit a conversation.

Take service industries, for instance. They were essentially designed to "retreat" in response to specific psychological needs and consumer demands; they exist to lure clients in, which means they inherently require a clear, visible, and polished structure.

Most economic and business models are actually built upon patterns derived from basic anthropological truths. Some of these truths have been consciously shaped throughout history to define certain concepts or to mold causality and variables. Over time, they evolved into constructs that we now mistake for being natural, though that’s really just another layer of the power dynamics at play.

Polarity was a particularly prominent theme in popular culture during those decades when there was such an intense, massive push to integrate natural principles into industrial engines—roughly from the introduction of the assembly line in the 1910s through the 1960s. I suppose it served as a way to either legitimize or perhaps process (whether through resistance or acceptance) the changing landscape. You see it in things like Laurel and Hardy—the thin man and the heavy man—or even the contrast of light and shadow, or the whole femme fatale concept in film noir.

Salvador Dalí might have put it this way: "The only difference between a surrealist and me is that I am a true surrealist."

Existence essentially operates through "data points." What we perceive as non-existence—or that which falls outside our measurable reality—is akin to the void between two positions during a quantum leap. It is entirely possible that something exists within that gap, yet because it remains beyond our ability to record or observe, it effectively doesn't exist for us. Consequently, these "polarities" manifest even at the most subtle levels; a transition from one shade to another isn't actually a continuous movement, given that the very travel of light occurs in discrete jumps.
What constitutes an absolute truth, and what is merely a mental construct we've manufactured for ourselves? It is worth exploring this distinction more broadly. I would argue that the realities of convexity and concavity are fundamental necessities for our very existence. However, the complex structures and various phantasms built upon those foundations exist only because we possess intelligence. It is this intellect that allows us to take those basic physical certainties—and build entirely new worlds and perceptions of reality both on top of them and far beyond them.

It is an undeniable biological reality that the male anatomy is naturally drawn to the feminine silhouette—specifically the curves of breasts and hips. This isn’t some modern social construct or a psychological trick; it is a fundamental truth that has existed since the dawn of time. Why is this the case? Why does a man experience such an primal, instantaneous surge of passion when faced with those specific feminine contours, and why does a woman feel that same pull toward the lean, muscular definition of a man? On a basic level, we can point to the survival of the species as the mechanism that "programmed" these preferences. But if we look deeper, how does this actually manifest in the animal kingdom? Do animals also possess an inherent, instinctual blueprint regarding shape and form? If they didn't, sexual attraction would be entirely indifferent; a creature wouldn't care which member of its species it mated with, regardless of whether their primary drivers were scent, taste, or sound. Furthermore, how does a living being distinguish between different types of drives? How does a creature know that a particular stimulus is signaling a need for food rather than a need for reproduction? There must be a specific "form"—whether that be a visual shape or even a distinct scent profile—that allows the brain to differentiate between hunger and lust. To me, this suggests that a form of consciousness, perhaps even a rudimentary "fantasy" or mental template of what is desirable, exists within the biological coding of animals, even if they lack our high level of self-reflective thought.

silentnomad23 said:Salvador Dalí might have put it this way: "The only difference between a surrealist and me is that I am a true surrealist."

Existence essentially operates through "data points." What we perceive as non-existence—or that which falls outside our measurable reality—is akin to the void between two positions during a quantum leap. It is entirely possible that something exists within that gap, yet because it remains beyond our ability to record or observe, it effectively doesn't exist for us. Consequently, these "polarities" manifest even at the most subtle levels; a transition from one shade to another isn't actually a continuous movement, given that the very travel of light occurs in discrete jumps.
What constitutes an absolute truth, and what is merely a mental construct we've manufactured for ourselves? It is worth exploring this distinction more broadly. I would argue that the realities of convexity and concavity are fundamental necessities for our very existence. However, the complex structures and various phantasms built upon those foundations exist only because we possess intelligence. It is this intellect that allows us to take those basic physical certainties—and build entirely new worlds and perceptions of reality both on top of them and far beyond them.

It is an undeniable biological reality that the male anatomy is naturally drawn to the feminine silhouette—specifically the curves of breasts and hips. This isn’t some modern social construct or a psychological trick; it is a fundamental truth that has existed since the dawn of time. Why is this the case? Why does a man experience such an primal, instantaneous surge of passion when faced with those specific feminine contours, and why does a woman feel that same pull toward the lean, muscular definition of a man? On a basic level, we can point to the survival of the species as the mechanism that "programmed" these preferences. But if we look deeper, how does this actually manifest in the animal kingdom? Do animals also possess an inherent, instinctual blueprint regarding shape and form? If they didn't, sexual attraction would be entirely indifferent; a creature wouldn't care which member of its species it mated with, regardless of whether their primary drivers were scent, taste, or sound. Furthermore, how does a living being distinguish between different types of drives? How does a creature know that a particular stimulus is signaling a need for food rather than a need for reproduction? There must be a specific "form"—whether that be a visual shape or even a distinct scent profile—that allows the brain to differentiate between hunger and lust. To me, this suggests that a form of consciousness, perhaps even a rudimentary "fantasy" or mental template of what is desirable, exists within the biological coding of animals, even if they lack our high level of self-reflective thought.

It’s a bit of a leap, I suppose—moving from the realm of pure mathematics all the way to the study of animals. One might wonder how such disparate fields could possibly intersect, though I suspect there is a logic to it that I haven't quite grasped yet. Perhaps it's about patterns, or maybe just the sheer unpredictability of life itself. It feels like a long road to travel, going from equations to living, breathing creatures, but then again, nothing in this world is ever truly linear, is it? 😁 Well, I suppose one could say, if one were inclined toward such expressions, that it was a job well done. Or perhaps just adequate. It’s hard to be certain without further context, I guess. Still, credit where credit is due. 👍

The reason I reacted to the discussion about "clothing" as if it were a diversion from the core subject—essentially an attempt to obscure the actual essence of the matter—is because I felt it was necessary. If I may be so bold as to offer a defense for my own primal, animalistic aggression, I suppose that is why I responded the way I did. 😁

Interesting topic. Sexuality tied to physical form—though, if we’re really talking about it, I’d probably frame it more as visible versus invisible, kind of like convex vs. concave.

Lawrence Bailey77 said:It’s a bit of a leap, I suppose—moving from the realm of pure mathematics all the way to the study of animals. One might wonder how such disparate fields could possibly intersect, though I suspect there is a logic to it that I haven't quite grasped yet. Perhaps it's about patterns, or maybe just the sheer unpredictability of life itself. It feels like a long road to travel, going from equations to living, breathing creatures, but then again, nothing in this world is ever truly linear, is it? 😁 Well, I suppose one could say, if one were inclined toward such expressions, that it was a job well done. Or perhaps just adequate. It’s hard to be certain without further context, I guess. Still, credit where credit is due. 👍

The reason I reacted to the discussion about "clothing" as if it were a diversion from the core subject—essentially an attempt to obscure the actual essence of the matter—is because I felt it was necessary. If I may be so bold as to offer a defense for my own primal, animalistic aggression, I suppose that is why I responded the way I did. 😁

To be honest, I don't view you as being aggressively animalistic at all. If anything, I see you as quite timid. In fact, I think your avatar—that image of an average guy who's supposed to be assertive but ends up being a bit soft—captures your vibe perfectly. 😁

shhh 🙂 don't go blowing my cover... once you catch the scent, it's all over for you 😁

God, if I could, I’d probably end up acting just like Mr. Bean... you know, kind of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFVPJBKYUc 🤣

😘

Lawrence Bailey77 said:shhh 🙂 don't go blowing my cover... once you catch the scent, it's all over for you 😁

God, if I could, I’d probably end up acting just like Mr. Bean... you know, kind of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFVPJBKYUc 🤣

😘

And honestly, listen—it is quite rare to find someone in a position of formal authority who doesn't immediately flex that power the moment they feel threatened by someone technically "below" them. They tend to react to their own internal fear by acting aggressively to compensate.
It is a completely different matter to deal with a certain kind of quiet, almost naive sort of rebellion, much like what you exhibit. 😘

silentnomad23 said:Salvador Dalí might have put it this way: "The only difference between a surrealist and me is that I am a true surrealist."

Existence essentially operates through "data points." What we perceive as non-existence—or that which falls outside our measurable reality—is akin to the void between two positions during a quantum leap. It is entirely possible that something exists within that gap, yet because it remains beyond our ability to record or observe, it effectively doesn't exist for us. Consequently, these "polarities" manifest even at the most subtle levels; a transition from one shade to another isn't actually a continuous movement, given that the very travel of light occurs in discrete jumps.
What constitutes an absolute truth, and what is merely a mental construct we've manufactured for ourselves? It is worth exploring this distinction more broadly. I would argue that the realities of convexity and concavity are fundamental necessities for our very existence. However, the complex structures and various phantasms built upon those foundations exist only because we possess intelligence. It is this intellect that allows us to take those basic physical certainties—and build entirely new worlds and perceptions of reality both on top of them and far beyond them.

It is an undeniable biological reality that the male anatomy is naturally drawn to the feminine silhouette—specifically the curves of breasts and hips. This isn’t some modern social construct or a psychological trick; it is a fundamental truth that has existed since the dawn of time. Why is this the case? Why does a man experience such an primal, instantaneous surge of passion when faced with those specific feminine contours, and why does a woman feel that same pull toward the lean, muscular definition of a man? On a basic level, we can point to the survival of the species as the mechanism that "programmed" these preferences. But if we look deeper, how does this actually manifest in the animal kingdom? Do animals also possess an inherent, instinctual blueprint regarding shape and form? If they didn't, sexual attraction would be entirely indifferent; a creature wouldn't care which member of its species it mated with, regardless of whether their primary drivers were scent, taste, or sound. Furthermore, how does a living being distinguish between different types of drives? How does a creature know that a particular stimulus is signaling a need for food rather than a need for reproduction? There must be a specific "form"—whether that be a visual shape or even a distinct scent profile—that allows the brain to differentiate between hunger and lust. To me, this suggests that a form of consciousness, perhaps even a rudimentary "fantasy" or mental template of what is desirable, exists within the biological coding of animals, even if they lack our high level of self-reflective thought.

Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the explanation is actually pretty simple—it’s all about curves. People just lose their minds over anything with curves, regardless of gender. That whole "losing it" thing? It basically short-circuits common sense and lets pure greed take the wheel. Some people are strong enough to keep their heads straight, sure, but most people? Not so much. If someone knows how to weaponize their curves, they can strip anyone of their logic in a heartbeat—and women have absolutely mastered that art. Let’s be real: nobody ever felt an attraction toward something flat and angular. And it’s not like women are attracted to a stack of flat, rectangular hundred-dollar bills—they’re attracted to the things you buy *with* those bills that happen to have curves. Since women generally have more curves than men, they usually end up being the ones stripping men of their sanity—mostly because they know exactly how to satisfy that craving for something soft and rounded once they've got them hooked. At the end of the day, curves are like a drug that both men and women are addicted to, but since women carry more of the supply, they’re the ones walking away with the bigger hit.
So, look—there isn't actually this big distinction between concave and convex relative to the floor. It’s really just about how much padding you're dealing with, whether it's leaning inward or outward. But honestly? In most cases, we're looking at convex. There's just way more volume in those outward curves than there is in the concave ones. Makes sense, right?
We’re talking about nothing more than drugs delivered via patches here. Honestly, since men don't exactly have the same curves as women, their greed isn't nearly as dialed in—they actually have options. It’s the same reason you see more lesbians than gay guys out there. Women are just inherently greedy and dependent on men, who don't even have to go out of their way to mess with a woman's head just to get them hooked on patches—they’ll do that to themselves, driven by nothing but envy and pure greed.
Look, I’m sorry if you’re feeling a little let down because "your" theory just doesn't hold any water. Really.

rowdywolf1 said:Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the explanation is actually pretty simple—it’s all about curves. People just lose their minds over anything with curves, regardless of gender. That whole "losing it" thing? It basically short-circuits common sense and lets pure greed take the wheel. Some people are strong enough to keep their heads straight, sure, but most people? Not so much. If someone knows how to weaponize their curves, they can strip anyone of their logic in a heartbeat—and women have absolutely mastered that art. Let’s be real: nobody ever felt an attraction toward something flat and angular. And it’s not like women are attracted to a stack of flat, rectangular hundred-dollar bills—they’re attracted to the things you buy *with* those bills that happen to have curves. Since women generally have more curves than men, they usually end up being the ones stripping men of their sanity—mostly because they know exactly how to satisfy that craving for something soft and rounded once they've got them hooked. At the end of the day, curves are like a drug that both men and women are addicted to, but since women carry more of the supply, they’re the ones walking away with the bigger hit.
So, look—there isn't actually this big distinction between concave and convex relative to the floor. It’s really just about how much padding you're dealing with, whether it's leaning inward or outward. But honestly? In most cases, we're looking at convex. There's just way more volume in those outward curves than there is in the concave ones. Makes sense, right?
We’re talking about nothing more than drugs delivered via patches here. Honestly, since men don't exactly have the same curves as women, their greed isn't nearly as dialed in—they actually have options. It’s the same reason you see more lesbians than gay guys out there. Women are just inherently greedy and dependent on men, who don't even have to go out of their way to mess with a woman's head just to get them hooked on patches—they’ll do that to themselves, driven by nothing but envy and pure greed.
Look, I’m sorry if you’re feeling a little let down because "your" theory just doesn't hold any water. Really.

See, this is exactly what I mean. Registered users jump into these threads just to assert their own convexity. They care more about proving that "my theory is wrong" than actually contributing anything new, yet they end up saying exactly what I am saying, just by framing it as an opposition.😂
So, who is being concave here, and who is being convex?
rowdywolf1, please read my point once more and try again to "debunk" my thesis using something that actually contradicts what I have said.🙏
Good grief, what am I even fighting against here?🤣

silentnomad23 said:See, this is exactly what I mean. Registered users jump into these threads just to assert their own convexity. They care more about proving that "my theory is wrong" than actually contributing anything new, yet they end up saying exactly what I am saying, just by framing it as an opposition.😂
So, who is being concave here, and who is being convex?
rowdywolf1, please read my point once more and try again to "debunk" my thesis using something that actually contradicts what I have said.🙏
Good grief, what am I even fighting against here?🤣

You’re mistaken. It’s not like I showed up here just to flex my ego—and honestly, you already admitted you’re doing the exact same thing—but I figured I’d throw some actual science your way. Just something for you to chew on so you aren't walking around totally misinformed. Since you’re the one who dragged this topic out of thin air, I just assumed you actually cared about the facts. Look, I don't have a personal vendetta against your theory, I just don't agree with it. Period. Besides, let's be real—this whole thing is just you messing around, even though you insisted we treat it like some serious debate. Maybe you've got a few too many curves in your logic and that's why you're losing the plot. 😉Look, it’s just like men. But honestly? You should probably take that as a compliment. If you’re playing it that way, you aren't being quite as greedy—you actually have to put in the work to make a guy lose his mind—and besides, there's less room for jealousy when you finally get a handle on what it's actually like to be in a man's shoes. 😍
Look, if you're going to be acting like silentnomad23, I honestly have my doubts about whether you even have any curves to speak of.

Honestly, you’re the living embodiment of a mathematical paradox; you started out all convex, but as soon as I gave you a little push, you went completely concave.

Hey there, brother 🤣

silentnomad23 said:Honestly, you’re the living embodiment of a mathematical paradox; you started out all convex, but as soon as I gave you a little push, you went completely concave.

Hey there, brother 🤣

You're just using jokes to hide how much you don't know. Classic move. 😂

To simplify things and get back to the core issue—if I may be so bold—I would say that your line of reasoning and the questions you’re posing are essentially the foundation here. If I'm mistaken, then blame me. 😁

silentnomad23 said:So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?

(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂

I suppose I have already asked you... but why do you assume it is easier? I understand the practical aspects and the psychological mindset, but perhaps, driven by some irrational desire for certain ideals, I feel a need... or maybe I just reduce all of this to something natural, which ultimately means it can only be measured through experience. Hmmm... honestly, I am not even sure where I stand right now.🙄

...........................

I cannot truly see myself as the opposite sex, but I can certainly imagine it. 😁 In fact, that act of imagining is probably the most interesting part of this whole business.👍

And I might also ask the chauvinists and feminists to keep going, provided it isn't asking too much of them.😁