Autochthon 2.0?

Not that I know of, but with the money we waste on other crap (man got $64,000 federal grant for art to throw his own shit at a canvas once) you'd think it would be a good use of money.


I would guess that rapists go for targets wth less in the way, logically, but the again, those kind of people are not exactly full of the thinking.
 
Jukashi said:
Seeing nude breasts only engenders sexual thoughts and feelings in males because of upbringing. In cultures where toplessness is common amongst women, men don't give boobs a second glance.
Click to expand...
Quite true. But fact is we *are* from one of those cultures. All is relative.

Stillborn said:
Tell that to a starving person.
Click to expand...
Again. All is relative. Not many starving people around here.
 
So you teach your daughter to have a little more respect for herself to dress like a hootchie.  You respect your child enough to respect their decisions, but also enough respect to raise your objections, honestly.


Do that, and she may not be so insecure about herself, that she has to sell the farm to get some attention.


Raising little girls is hard, but then again, you're always going to be Daddy...
 
operations said:
Not that I know of, but with the money we waste on other crap (man got $64,000 federal grant for art to throw his own shit at a canvas once) you'd think it would be a good use of money.
I would guess that rapists go for targets wth less in the way, logically, but the again, those kind of people are not exactly full of the thinking.
Click to expand...
 There have been some studies done, mostly about the psychological motivations of sexual predators...and their M.O.'s.


 For offenders concentrating primarily on targets of opportunity, clothing isn't as much of an issue--if you have the bad luck to be in an isolated area, it wouldn't matter much what you were wearing.


 For offenders who stalk their targets before the attack, how the target first catches the offender's eye may be--but not automatically--be related to what they wear.


 Unless someone really wants them, I'll dispense with the PubMed references.
 
The probllem I have with current teen fashion trends (as limited an understanding as I have of them) is less the revealing nature, but the attitude that goes with it. Its like Barbie but 10 times worse. South Park summed it up pretty well with the "Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset" ad in the Paris Hilton episode. Its not so much that the girls look like sluts, but that they act like sluts, willingly degrading themselves for a few ounces of "popularity" or "acceptance"


College girls I don't mind, because by our cultural standards they should be old enough to make those decisions for themselves, but it starts with teens and pre-teens who are being taught by society to be meek and submissive to men, and angsty and competative with other women.
 
Solfi said:
Quite true. But fact is we *are* from one of those cultures. All is relative.
Click to expand...
1) Cultures in which flesh is shown do not regard bare breasts as sexual any more than eyes, legs, hair etc.


2) The natural state of humans is nudity, including bare breasts.


Therefore


3) Regarding bare breasts as especially sexual, in comparison to other more "culturally accepted" yet sexual traits, is not natural.
 
Jukashi said:
Solfi said:
Regarding bare breasts as especially sexual, in comparison to other more "culturally accepted" yet sexual traits, is not natural.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And who decide what is natural? You? Yes, the sexual markers are culturally determined. That's what's 'natural'.


Even the those few peoples around the world still living tribal lives with more "primitive" traditions show great variation when it comes to sexuality, and what parts of the body are considered sexual markers.


And if even those few children of nature that still exist among us aren't primal enough; how far back do we have to go to satisfy what is "natural" to you? Our primate ancestors? Even further back?


No, you *have to* look at it in a social context. And in *our* social context, breasts are a huge sexual marker....


... what the hell was this post about from the start anyways... I've lost my train of thought.
 
Culture is unnatural...


societal context is irrelevant...


for the good of humanity...


take off all your clothes.
 
lowguppy said:
The probllem I have with current teen fashion trends (as limited an understanding as I have of them) is less the revealing nature, but the attitude that goes with it. Its like Barbie but 10 times worse. South Park summed it up pretty well with the "Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset" ad in the Paris Hilton episode. Its not so much that the girls look like sluts, but that they act like sluts, willingly degrading themselves for a few ounces of "popularity" or "acceptance"
College girls I don't mind, because by our cultural standards they should be old enough to make those decisions for themselves, but it starts with teens and pre-teens who are being taught by society to be meek and submissive to men, and angsty and competative with other women.
Click to expand...
Damn, comrade, well spoken.  It's really a fucking tragedy (if not a national mental-health issue) the way pop culture works on the minds of girls/ young women.  When the revolution comes, the editors of Cosmo ought to be some of the first against the wall.


For myself, the eye-catching attire has gotten so blatant & tasteless that it now has the opposite effect: I look away from girls who're deliberately showing skin.  My brain just interprets that as "lacking class, desperate," not "stylish, hot."  A majority of porn is like that, too: it's just so CRASS.  I'm either a romantic or just sentimental; ergo porn, like fast food, has transitory appeal but is ultimately unsatisfying.
 
Solfi said:
And who decide what is natural? You? Yes, the sexual markers are culturally determined. That's what's 'natural'.
Even the those few peoples around the world still living tribal lives with more "primitive" traditions show great variation when it comes to sexuality, and what parts of the body are considered sexual markers.


And if even those few children of nature that still exist among us aren't primal enough; how far back do we have to go to satisfy what is "natural" to you? Our primate ancestors? Even further back?


No, you *have to* look at it in a social context. And in *our* social context, breasts are a huge sexual marker....


... what the hell was this post about from the start anyways... I've lost my train of thought.
Click to expand...
Of course. I never said that natural was better. I merely state that the sexuality of nude breasts is largely a figment of the human imagination, as are many other cultural rules.


But besides naturality, regarding breasts in a particularly sexual light is illogical in a way that many cultural guidelines are not. They are merely pockets of flesh, containing large fat cells and modified sweat glands. For women to be required to cover them without need, for example due to environmental hazards or the need to engage in vigorous activities which would otherwise result in uncomfortable bouncing, serves no purpose.


Should women not also be allowed to feel the pleasant coolness of a summer breeze? Must new mothers be forced to seek private areas before breastfeeding their infant children?
 
Depends on the time and place. Whipping them out in a restaurant is not really acceptable. Still, I find most of your points moot, since our cultural context states it is so. You want to change it? Fine. It's quite possible to do so, though it will take time. Lots and lots of time (just look at how long it has taken for women's lib to get where it is today. And it's still not where ti should be). But don't pretend that's the way it works now.
 
Solfi said:
Depends on the time and place. Whipping them out in a restaurant is not really acceptable.
Click to expand...
Why is it not acceptable? What logical reason dictates that breastfeeding is disruptive to a bystander's meal? The only reason behind this is pure social programming. I would (dimly) have an objection myself, but such feelings have no basis in rationality.


It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, a creation loop. Men like breasts because they don't often see them, yet they don't often see them because they like breasts.


And you know what that means? That means the way to destroy the sex industry is to give everyone as much sex as possible.


It's a paradox of fun!
 
No, of course it isn't. Who said it was 'rational'?!... It's a function of cultural acceptance.


Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to just whip out your breast and start breastfeeding in the middle of a restaurant. Same as with wearing a hat to the table. However, bringing your child discreetly aside (while in a restaurant) and then breastfeeding is quite alright.

Jukashi said:
And you know what that means? That means the way to destroy the sex industry is to give everyone as much sex as possible.
Click to expand...
Sure. Legalise prostitution. Make porn part of mainstream programming (heck, maybe you'll be able to finally say 'fuck' on american TV if that comes into effect).


Then again, if that's the best solution, let's do that elsewhere as well; legalise drugs and make weapons free for all (yeah, see how well that brilliant idea is going for the US).


... that being said, I agree that we should have a more healthy, natural and demystified relationship with sex. It would do us good.
 
Eep. Edited my post while you were answering, so you might want to take a peek up there as well.


To answer your last post: You're quite welcome not to do anything you want to do. You are also quite welcome to take the consequences of anything you do or don't do, when the society you (implicitly) agreed to function in imposes it's rules upon you.
 
Solfi said:
To answer your last post: You're quite welcome not to do anything you want to do. You are also quite welcome to take the consequences of anything you do or don't do, when the society you (implicitly) agreed to function in imposes it's rules upon you.
Click to expand...
I know this. That is indeed what I do. Can you tell me where I might get a green leather ovecoat, by the way? I wants one, precious.


As to the previous post, the implication that legalising drugs and guns would have the same effect is incorrect. These things are not so much increased in demand by their lack of availability.


Anyway, to continue; why do you do something when you know there's no real reason to?
 
I don't.


But as I tried to convey above; there is a reason to follow the tenets of the society in which we live in - Avoiding undesirable consequences. That's a good a reason as any.


You can always go against consensus and try to change the status quo. But all change brings growing pains. The greater the change, the greater the discomfort. Cultural ®evolution takes time.


(we debate, we ponder, we rail against other in protest and sometimes we get violent...)
 
Solfi said:
Sure. Legalise prostitution. Make porn part of mainstream programming (heck, maybe you'll be able to finally say 'fuck' on american TV if that comes into effect).
Then again, if that's the best solution, let's do that elsewhere as well; legalise drugs and make weapons free for all (yeah, see how well that brilliant idea is going for the US).
Click to expand...
Run for office on this platform, and I'll vote for you.


-S
 
Of course, it is those that peddle sex and nudity that are most invested in keeping it "taboo" socially. The paradox works both ways.
 
I don't really have to contribute anything right now, but I really love the way this forum goes off topic and intellectual on a regular basis
 
lowguppy said:
Of course, it is those that peddle sex and nudity that are most invested in keeping it "taboo" socially. The paradox works both ways.
Click to expand...
Yeah, speaking of, a year or so back, a chruch group in Lansing MI was trying to keep yet another strip club from opening. They got money for their add campaign from the other strip clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top