|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Modest dress/behavior and the ab/normalcy of same gender attraction
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Much is made of how standards of modest dress and behavior in different religions and cultures make women cover up and act reserved in order to prevent men near them from becoming aroused and how hypocritical this is (1. because men are often not policed nearly as strictly in how they dress/act in order to avoid arousing women and 2. because men should be able to keep themselves from engaging in sexual or violent behavior no matter how women near them dress or act). But almost nothing is said about men or women in same-gender spaces dressing or acting in such a way that nearby people of the same gender are not likely to become aroused. In fact, conservative religions and cultures tend to encourage segregating the sexes to differing degrees in order not only to prevent sexual immorality but also to provide spaces where men and women can "let their hair down" and act more casually and unreservedly - and also cultivate intimate nonsexual friendships (complete with nonsexual physical displays of affection).
However, if a religious or cultural groups views same-sex sexual activity as sinful, shouldn't people who try to prevent lust from developing in opposite sex settings also try to prevent it from developing in same sex settings? Modern secular society classifies most people as heterosexual with a minority being homosexual or bi/pansexual, but many traditional cultures tended to not classify people in terms of what kinds of attraction they felt. If same-sex sexual activity was sinful, then it was a sin that anyone might commit, just like fornication or murder. Some premodern societies allowed for more than two genders, but I am not aware of any premodern society that had an idea of sexual orientation, ie., the idea that some men are inherently attracted to women and others are inherently attracted to men (or both men and women), rather than same-sex sexual activity, when it was viewed as sinful, as being something that anyone might find themselves tempted to do if they aren't careful. Furthermore, societies with different views on the morality of same-sex sexual activity but that all had separate social spheres for men and women often had an unspoken attitude that "boys will be boys" in the single-sex situations they found themselves in their youth but as long as they married a woman and bore children they would be fulfilling society's expectations (I am amazed at the relative silence throughout history, with a few exceptions, about sexual intimacy between women, but it's not surprising given how obtuse the patriarchy can be). (Meanwhile, Athenian aristocratic pederasty and Samurai shudo were both practiced between an older married male and a younger unmarried male, with strict limits on the social and sexual role of each in the relationship, and with the expectation that the relationship would end when the young man became old enough to marry). If same-gender attraction is acknowledged as something that could arise in single-gender social spheres, even if it is less common than opposite-sex attraction in mixed gender settings, why were just about all traditional cultures fine with nudity, horseplay, even platonic romance between members of the same sex?
And as for traditional religions and cultures in the present day, even if they do not accept that same gender attraction is "natural," they surely must be aware that it exists and is openly discussed in mainstream culture. This being the case, why do they not do more to guard against same sex "lust" when their members interact with other members of the same sex (pun not intended)?
The answer may seem obvious from the point of view of traditional religions and cultures: why spoil the essential function of same-gender spheres as zones of casual relaxation and nonsexual intimacy in traditional societies just because some people do "unnatural" things? But I would think there would at least be SOME discussion of doing things to avoid the development of homosexual "lust," especially in the modern day.
P.S., as I'm sure most of you are aware, I don't think same-sex sex is sinful at all, but if anyone is wondering where I am coming from in all this I figured I wshould say so.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You're making a lot of assumptions, particularly that when people say they are imposing modest dress on account of not wanting to arouse the opposite sex, that they are giving a correct account of their motives. IMHO that's rarely the only, or even main reason for imposing dress codes. A lot more has to do with social control--if you put people into a uniform of sorts, theoretically you get less individualized/troublesome behavior (not sure that I agree it works, but that's one theory). There's also the desire to avoid having to look at eye-bleeding fashion choices (leg warmers, anyone?), to project a certain public image (such as professionalism and seriousness), and so on. Lots of these reasons don't apply to relaxed private settings.
TL;DR version: the whole modest dress thingy might have very little to do with sexual attraction, no matter what people trumpet; and if that's so, then dress freedom in private settings might be a simple function of "we don't care what you look like there, because it causes us no problems in that setting."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If the sight of any other human being, male or female, torments you with lust, this is your problem. Solely, yours alone. It is between you, your dick, and your God. It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires. That is totally your responsibility and yours alone, from now until the heat death of the universe.
This may help. Yes, it's satire.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires.
OK.
But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?
I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It does not in any way involve that other human being. Do not request or require him or her to do anything to help or hinder your desires.
OK.
But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?
I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
Well, from what I can tell, the passage in question is on food. And, as is often the case with Paul, I'm guessing he was addressing some particular situation that had arisen within a specific community, probably one that contained varying views and practices on diet.
So, yes, I suppose if I voluntarily join a particular church, and there are people there who, because of their previous affiliations, take offense at tight-blue jeans, I might have an obligation not to show up on Sundays wearing tight blue-jeans, even if the taboo is not observed by everyone in the group.
But I don't think that obligation extends past whatever amount of time I spend with that faith group. If I work in an office, and one of my co-workers informs me that she can't abide the sight of men in tight blue-jeans, well, I think I'd just tell her to get used to it, because I'm not going to change the way I dress.
[ 16. July 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn. Manner of dress will indeed influence my thoughts, to some extent.
But it is incumbent upon me to manage that, not them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I guess if you find a person attractive, you find them attractive, whatever the clothes. What you do with that attraction is, as Brenda says, your responsibility alone. It is possible not to act on an attraction, or even to dismiss it.
I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.
All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?
I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.
How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.
Out culture sexualises women, yes. Part of this is the patriarchal nature, and therefore deeper in the culture but much of it is filthy lucre. Sexualising women is a multi-billion dollar industry. This is a massive problem; even the "body positive' publications and movements still sexualise. Sex is part of our nature, but emphasising its expression needn't be.
quote:
All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
Kinda is, though. Well, physiological response anyway. From the, probably mythical, Victorian ankle porn to the mini-skirt; it is all based on triggering a physiological response with physiological triggers. Shifting hemlines changes what is considered risqué. And that enhances the response, but it doesn't create it. The problem is the emphasis on sexual attractiveness being the primary asset of women and everything else being more or less irrelevant.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn. Manner of dress will indeed influence my thoughts, to some extent.
But it is incumbent upon me to manage that, not them.
I think Karl means that he's attracted to the person, not their hemline.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I guess if you find a person attractive, you find them attractive, whatever the clothes. What you do with that attraction is, as Brenda says, your responsibility alone. It is possible not to act on an attraction, or even to dismiss it.
I think clothes are the ultimate in culture-specific stuff. I can't think of a thing more dripping in culture, perhaps language? Perhaps attraction based on seeing someone dressed in a particular fashion is also an enculturated response. If so, then it is subjective, as subject to change quite easily.
All of which leads me to say that good old testosterone isn't responsible either.
Of course the thing that fundies miss with that is that women also have plenty of testosterone!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?
I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.
How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
Why, that's easy! The person who is temptuous should not be out and about. Purdah, I believe they call it. The very act of being out in public, no matter what she is wearing or doing, is a clear sign that a woman is a slut and hoping to have sex with you. Go right up and ask for it!
But, seriously: this is why it is not the lustee's problem. Ever. Because there is no way that a person can not ever ignite desire in all possible viewers. We women have done this. Believe me -- they told us it was our hair, our boobs, our legs, our ankles, our wrists, our mouths, our eyes, our upper arms, our shoulders, our ears. We hid or veiled or corseted it all, and still there was oh God, lust! that was our fault. There was nothing, including our silhouettes or our driving or our user name on Twitter, that did not excite uncontrollable animal instincts. Nothing we could do kept us from tempting our weak (foundationally, appallingly, catastrophically weak) brothers.
So we give up. It is not possible. You ask for what cannot be done. It is not our fault. It is your problem, solely. Go to Hell if you want, to burn in the fire of your unfulfilled desires while devils apply glowing-iron pincers to your scrotum, it's all on you. We have proven with millennia of experience that we can do nothing about it. And we will no longer play your stupid games.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Oh, indeed, I was once very much smitten with a young lady from a religious group which put much emphasis on modesty. A glimpse of her ankle had more effect on me than the glimpse of a lesser woman in much more revealing attire.
A proper asceticism - whatever that might be - is about teaching people to manage their desires. Not about blaming it on the desired one. If chaps can't cope in the presence of attractive females they might consider staying inside themselves - as Brenda suggests - rather than suggesting restrictions on the women.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I have yet to meet the woman who gave me "fleshly thoughts" in a miniskirt who couldn't do the same in a long frock, to tell the truth.
Ok, that seems weird to me, unless you mean you are in a constant state of horn.
Sublimation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But in Romans 14, does not the apostle tell me not to place obstacles in my brother's path? If my brother is troubled by fleshy thoughts, should I not refrain from flaunting my flesh at him?
I have the freedom to wear whatever clothing I prefer - God doesn't care what I wear - but out of love for my weaker brother, should I not avoid wearing clothes he finds particularly difficult in his presence?
So let's say you attend a largish gathering, comprised to great extent by "weaker brothers" who all have different triggers. One likes long pant, another short pants, a third medium-length pants. One adores tight T-shirts, another dress shirts in color, a third dress shirts in white. One is turned on by suspenders, another is attracted to jeans, and so on.
How do you dress to avoid tempting individuals in that situation?
Why, that's easy! The person who is temptuous should not be out and about. Purdah, I believe they call it.
<SNIP>
That was rather my point.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Should there be no public decency laws at all? Full nudity perfectly legal at all times and all places? Just asking to set parameters of the conversation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Should there be no public decency laws at all? Full nudity perfectly legal at all times and all places? Just asking to set parameters of the conversation.
Yes, there ought to be such laws. I don't want to see your involuntary sexual reactions and you don't want to see mine.
More important, children and very young people don't need to navigate the minefield that full nudity would create among fallen human beings. They have enough to deal with when everybody keeps their clothes on. However skimpy those clothes may be.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes, there ought to be such laws. I don't want to see your involuntary sexual reactions and you don't want to see mine.
Naughty bits aside, there are also sanitary reasons for insisting on people wearing clothes. On that front, I have a problem when I go grocery shopping, and I encounter large sweaty men wearing the kind of sleeveless shirt that I gather is known as a "wife-beater" in the produce aisle.
Or suppose you sit next to me on public transport. If we're wearing sleeves (short ones are fine) and shorts / skirts / pants that come somewhere close to the knee or below, then there's no need for our sweaty flesh to have to come in contact. In the close proximity of our shared seat, my clothing will contact your clothing. If what you're presenting to me is naked shoulder and naked thigh, I'm going to have a less comfortable journey.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
It does seem, that there are is a range of safe-spaces, which only (have the possibility to) work with the non-existence of same sex attraction (or with it being acceptable in cases when cross sex attraction isn't).
It's not just, let the clothes down, but e.g. a monastery/nunnery system as a whole just removes the hetrosexual-impulses competition.
However as the problem:
a) Arises with the potential existence of the concept, rather than the cultural view of it. Suppressing awareness, would only allow the problem to be worse.
b) Has other issues, like Guides and Scouts doing stereotype activities, and other horrible sexist outcomes.
c) Is mostly avoidable by those who are most predatory (i.e. most child abuse being in the family)
d) Any evilness, isn't related to the same-sex (or dress) aspects, except as far as it enables them.
Anything useful would require more divine powers (and a blank slate) to resolve to a level to negate 'a', that you might as well focus on 'd' and solve the real problem.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If the sight of any other human being, male or female, torments you with lust, this is your problem. Solely, yours alone. It is between you, your dick, and your God..[/URL]
I don't accept that women have absolutely no carnal thoughts whatsoever.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Or suppose you sit next to me on public transport. If we're wearing sleeves (short ones are fine) and shorts / skirts / pants that come somewhere close to the knee or below, then there's no need for our sweaty flesh to have to come in contact. In the close proximity of our shared seat, my clothing will contact your clothing. If what you're presenting to me is naked shoulder and naked thigh, I'm going to have a less comfortable journey.
But following the logic of the thread, isn't that just your problem that you need to come to grips with? If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be taking the train.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Surely there's some daylight between "decency" and the sort of "modesty" dressing that stresses concealing specific and contradictory bits of the (usually female) human anatomy.
In Leorning Cniht's example, I can avoid someone else's bared arms, should I so choose, by adopting sleeves myself; there's no need for her or him to wear them also. As for the grocery aisle issue, don't we generally wash our produce when we get it home?
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs and immediate environs, both for sanitary reasons and for concealing evidence of involuntary arousal, if only to keep the public peace. But that applies to both opposite-sex and same-sex public encounters, and also applies to both genders. "Decency" here is something that protects one's own dignity with; surely every pubescent boy learns that.
The "modesty" we've been talking about above is something one adopts in a wrongheaded & futile effort to control somebody else's responses, not one's own.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Meh. Clothing never got in the way of good old fashioned lust.
quote:
Whenas in silks my Julia goes
Then, then, methinks, how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.
Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free;
Oh how that glittering taketh me!
(Robert Herrick, 1591-1674)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
There are religions where modesty applies to all genders. Mormonism, Sikhism, Islam - I'm sure there are others. Traditional Islamic dress for men is very distinct in its visible modesty.
There are many religious traditions where modesty is more about ascetism than sexuality - although the control of sexuality can be part of this - for example in Orthodox Judaism where bright colours are discouraged, or in monastic dress.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Surely there's some daylight between "decency" and the sort of "modesty" dressing that stresses concealing specific and contradictory bits of the (usually female) human anatomy.
Is there? It seems to me there is a spectrum or line, at one end we have a free-for-all, and at the other end we have everyone wearing hijab. The question is not whether or not there's a line. It's where the line goes, and for what reason. Although the "reason" part gets really cloudy really fast when you start bifurcating between "decency" and "modesty."
quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs and immediate environs, both for sanitary reasons and for concealing evidence of involuntary arousal, if only to keep the public peace.
Does everybody consider those a matter of decency and not modesty? Does everybody define these two words the same way and with the same level of mutual exclusivity?
My point in all this is that it's a very difficult thing to pin down, and there's too much casting of blame and shame around, both by the "women should be more modest" camp and the "don't tell me what to wear" camp.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Note that nudists have managed this perfectly well for years. They always carry a towel to sit on, for instance.
Everyone has problems with desire, men and women. (Google on 'Mr. Darcy Swimming' if you want a good big dose of female lust.) But mysteriously it's only women who are obliged to do anything about it. I refer you to the link I posted, upthread. Men! Save us from our worser selves, eschew those tight suits!
The concept of modesty as we are using it here is fairly modern. The text in the Epistles clearly refers to monetary display (jewelry). Consider also that 'proper dress' varies so widely around the world; what is proper and decent in the West is very different in, say, Southeast Asia. Even the au naturel people prove it -- on a nudist beach you rapidly lose all sense of flesh as sexual. It's just bodies.
Here's an article discussing this in much more detail. This is a free click.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I mean, given the thread's title, assuming that Mr Darcy swimming and men in tight suits are the pinnacle of women's desires seems to be missing the point. Like yes, of course women find plenty to desire - but much desire for all genders falls outside of heterosexual desire, which is why single-gender boundaries for modest purposes are pretty pointless*. Men's desire for other men isn't policed in terms of how men dress either, because that's just as unacceptable to those who would police how women dress.
*obviously there are places where it is appropriate for other reasons
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
I wouldn't say that the main problem is that people (often men) don't take responsibility for their feelings, but rather that they aren't taught to do so by society. I've been part of a number of interactions where a man was totally bumfuddled that none of the other men agreed with his (rather sexist) view of men's responsibilities and women's bodies: he had never encountered a contrary opinion before. (I suspect most of his conversations about such matters were with adolescent males who had little or no other experience.)
That's where the change has to happen: in public discourse about what is appropriate behavior, and from there it can seep into the consciousness of future generations.
I've been in enough situations over the years where nudity was accepted or expected, that I don't find it sexually stimulating in such settings, regardless of the gender mix of the groups. You can simply accept it, and give people privacy by not looking at them. I still remember a woman talking about serving in the Peace Corps in Africa (probably in the 1960's or so) when she and another white woman traveled through rural areas where white people were uncommon. Everyone they met stared at them all the time - until they went down to the river to bathe, when everybody ignored them. Once they were dressed, everyone stared at them again.
Meanwhile, full nudity is legal in Portland (as long as a person doesn't show sexual arousal.) There is even a nude bicycle ride through the city every year, but nudity is actually uncommon, other than on the beaches along the river. Not that the weather is always suitable for it, of course.
And San Francisco changed their laws some years ago to ban total nudity, after a long stream of regulations tried to manage a small group of mostly men who insisted on wandering around nude. Various rules included being required to carry a towel to sit on that had different colors on each side so they didn't dirty things they sat on. Apparently it finally became too complicated to enforce, so total nudity was banned for health reasons, but not due to a breakdown in morality.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... if a religious or cultural groups views same-sex sexual activity as sinful, shouldn't people who try to prevent lust from developing in opposite sex settings also try to prevent it from developing in same sex settings?
Don't give them ideas.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I mean, given the thread's title, assuming that Mr Darcy swimming and men in tight suits are the pinnacle of women's desires seems to be missing the point. Like yes, of course women find plenty to desire - but much desire for all genders falls outside of heterosexual desire, which is why single-gender boundaries for modest purposes are pretty pointless*. Men's desire for other men isn't policed in terms of how men dress either, because that's just as unacceptable to those who would police how women dress.
*obviously there are places where it is appropriate for other reasons
This. Really, if it were so easy to suppress sexual desire simply by dress, we'd not be having this thread--the whole messy matter would have been done and dusted long ago.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
ohher: quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs...
My reproductive organs (womb and ovaries) are covered, thanks. Only men wear theirs on the outside of their bodies. Try again.
Or were you referring to secondary sexual characteristics? Only women are required to cover those.
Brenda: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 17. July 2017, 10:21: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
ohher: quote:
I do think decency calls for covering reproductive organs...
My reproductive organs (womb and ovaries) are covered, thanks. Only men wear theirs on the outside of their bodies. Try again.
Or were you referring to secondary sexual characteristics? Only women are required to cover those.
Is the vulva, are the labia minora and majora secondary sexual characteristics?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Primary, no?
But Jane R says only men wear theirs on the outside of the body. Therefore either you are wrong or she is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Disentangle it. She says only men wear their reproductive organs on the outside of their bodies (as opposed to sexual organs). She's speaking in a strict sense. One could reproduce without the organs you mention (as some sufferers of FGM can testify).
[ 17. July 2017, 15:27: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, ohher was the one who raised the question of covering reproductive organs.
Or in other words... what Lamb Chopped said.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Many cultures deal with full, or damn close, nudity with no issues. Standards of "modesty" and "propriety" are arbitrary.
As far as cleanliness in our crowded, modern world; don't ever do swabs for disease or faecal material in your office, grocery or home. Definitely not on the train or bus.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
LC, she made it out that there were only two alternatives, so your nitpicking really supposes she was making a distinction she gives no sign of having had in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Many cultures deal with full, or damn close, nudity with no issues. Standards of "modesty" and "propriety" are arbitrary.
Sure but they still exist within cultures. Just because something is particular to a culture doesn't mean it's bad or dumb or unnecessary.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
This thread reminds me of a comment in "Mutiny on the Bounty" by Nordhoff and Hall, that the young women of Tahiti routinely went around bare-breasted and nonetheless were quite modest.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just because something is particular to a culture doesn't mean it's bad or dumb or unnecessary.
And it doesn't mean it isn't.
I am interested, though. Why are clothes necessary in Washington on a warm day, but not in the Amazon?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year? Clothing is absolutely necessary in Washington DC these days. And women are careful to carry a large sturdy leather handbag, holding it front and center. If it is weighted and reinforced with metal it also makes a handy flail.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as cleanliness in our crowded, modern world; don't ever do swabs for disease or faecal material in your office, grocery or home. Definitely not on the train or bus.
...but when you do, it's usually the phone that wins. Or perhaps the computer keyboard. Toilet seats are very much cleaner.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
MT, I was simply answering your question. Answering it correctly involves explaining the thinking process of a third party. I did so. Now you call me a nitpicker.
Sheesh.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Most of the arguments for "modesty" in dress usually only apply that to females and the direction of the comment is usually to do with "inflaming" or "distracting" the males of the community.
In the UK there is one answer which, remarkably, is given to us by the royal family: Honi soit qui mal y pense Let him be shamed who thinks evil of it.
Brought up to date - those with dirty minds will always find a convenient gutter to inhabit.
[ 17. July 2017, 19:54: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Good god, have you been living in a Tibetan monastery this year?
I did say on a Warm day and mt is in the other Washington, IIRC.
My challenge is to describe why clothing is necessary, other than for weather or other specific conditions.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
but when you do, it's usually the phone that wins. Or perhaps the computer keyboard. Toilet seats are very much cleaner.
The point is whilst you may be worried about naked bums on seats, the bigger problem is unwashed hands on everything else. And clothing will not change that.
[ 17. July 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The point is whilst you may be worried about naked bums on seats, the bigger problem is unwashed hands on everything else. And clothing will not change that.
I'm not worried about naked bums on seats. I'm "worried" about having naked sweaty flesh pressed against me on public transport / in elevators / etc. Not because I think I'll catch something, but because it's not very pleasant.
(My objection is stronger to male naked sweaty flesh, because men tend to be sweatier and smellier than women.)
And certainly part of that is a cultural belief that touching someone's bare skin (other than hands / forearms) is an intimate and personal act, and it's an intimacy that I don't want to be forced into with a stranger.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I read somewhere recently, with reference to Islam, that Westerners used to regard nudity as the province of 'savages'. Now many Western women go around half undressed and regard women in burqini as savages.
Us v Them. Tanning is another example. In some places and times, a tanned (white) person was associated with peasants. This changed when, at least in cities, more labour was performed inside and leisure meant one could soak up the sun.
Much of what we determine as "correct" or somehow "better" is more subjective and changeable than we like to admit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not worried about naked bums on seats.
maybe we should be... the seat in my car is hot enough to cook eggs on right now!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
