Schmuck

I had a one night stand with a really good sort 11 years ago next month. We celebrate our 10th anniversary September 2006. Yo!!

Cheers
Kay

DFXK... l deliberately use a somewhat confrontational style at times in order to tease out folks REAL opinions on highly emotive subjects. There's a real tendency to disguise and obfuscate... political correctness being the scourge on honest public discourse that it is. The 'attack' was not on any particular piece of coloured fabric. It was on the specious and unfounded notions that people attach to the thing and how they use it as an excuse to do what they do. Fancy putting someone in jail for destroying a symbol that they themselves bought, a piece of fabric no less... l see that as bizarre, or at the very least very harsh punishment. Again, it is my contention that symbols do not unite. They divide and divsion has infected our social consciousness to a perilous point. Lets agree to disagree.

Schmuck... In terms of respect regarding sex. l dont really go for the ideological constructs of the self serving politically motivated, pretty much dismissing their ideological nonsense, on principle as l have strong aversion to ideologies... products of a closed mind and fosters same. My position is a biological evolutionary one, rather than a socio-political one.

Biology is REALITY and no amount of intellectualisation can validate the denial of physical, palpable TRUTH. Sure one can call an apple a nugget of gold, but just try and get the coin dealer to pay spot price. Good luck. l can collect an orchard of apples and consider myself richer than Fort Knox. Thats delusion.

In biological terms, sex and particularly promiscuity (liberation?) have very serious implications. A woman KNOWS she is the MOTHER. A man must make a LEAP of FAITH. He must trust the woman, he has nothing else. He cannot compel a paternity test without $10k in legal fees and 'reasonable' grounds. A man is PRESUMED to be the BIOLOGICAL father of any child born in wedlock. Crazy Huh?

(cont.)

(cont.)

After 40yrs of feminism these archaic realities still exist. Dont ever hear women protesting about it nor agitating for change, rather making a concerted effort to maintain the status quo. Even to expand the crazy notion by some nutters campaigning for so-called social fathers.

A decent human being who develops a bond with the child of a single mother partner can be on the child support hook. Yes, l know, bizarre, yet there it is. Alleged child's best interest is often a smoke screen that mothers hide behind, using their kids to promote self interest. Yep, men do it to, in the odd event they get the chance to manipulate childs interests for themselves. It is what it is.

Physical reality renders completely different outcomes and potential consequences. All a man has is his faith, his trust, his confidence. Fragile things in life, hard to acquire, very easily lost. This can evolve into an apparent double standard and yet so what. Duble standards permeate our actions and they are all a function of self preservation.

We strive to convince ourselves we are consistent. Its an illusion that makes for a peaceful sleep, sans the valium. Practical, physical reality of self preservation. Head spins and word games be damned... do or die. If my belly is roaring with hunger there's no use in conjuring up a standard that keeps me hungry. Eat or die.

l see it in terms of duality... the pysichal reality versus consciousness. The mind as a filter is great at denial and delusion, hence ideology (and theology). Those who want to send their genes down the evolutionary pathway maintain whatever means required (intellectualised double standards) to ensure SELF PRESERVATION.

PK,

sorry, I am not sure I get it, so you think that it is the personal free choices of young girls which drives the advertising of big fashon designer firms?

Maybe I am wrong, and obviously there is a bit of both going on, but I would have thought that it worked the other way round. That is, that the "choice" of what was fashonable was very much shaped by advertising.

It seems pretty likely to me that if a young girl sees a really famous, adored top-model wearing certain particular models for a trendy designer they are very likely to be influenced by that and to want to look just like her. So it seems the decision about what's going to be considered fashionable is made by big fashion designer firms who hire the model for their clothes. It's a bit like young girls "choosing" to starve themselves so they can be as thin as the top models.

If it was just a matter of personal choice then why advertise? all you'd need is to do periodical surveys to see what girls like these days and produce that. You'd save millions!

Of course it's true that girls then choose to buy those models, but what do you expect of them? they are young, impressionable and want to be accepted and liked by their friends. Aren't you giving them a bit too much responsibility for something which seems to be more the choice of big fashion firms?

I guess that's precisely one of the ways in which women are "sexualised" by society, by promoting a certain way of dressing which concentrates a lot on sexual appeal. In that sense it's interesting that you should note that there is no male equivalent...

Kay, good on ya! congratulations!

Trade,

I am not sure I understand you. What is “ideology” to you?

I am sure you are right that one of the main reasons why societies through the centuries have tried to control women’s sexuality is that it was the best way for men to be sure they fathered their wives’ children. So what?

It’s an explanation, but what does it tell us about how we should behave? Should this practice continue? Or are you saying we have no choice but to behave that way?

Another was of making sure you genes get through to the next generation is that practised by male lions: kill off the cubs of the previous dominant male once you take its place in the pride, so that the females can mother new cubs and concentrate on them, well?

It makes sense, in evolutionary terms, to concentrate your parental attention on making sure the strongest of your young ones survive, by letting the weak die, or maybe even killing them off. So?

In fact, in general it would make sense, evolutionary speaking, to let all weak and sickly individuals die, to make sure they do not reproduce, any takers?

We are animals, and part of our behaviour is explained by our biology. But we are a special kind of animal, we have reason and a moral sense with which to reflect on, and evaluate our own behaviour. If you call these reflections “ideology” and despise them all, I am not sure there’s much left we can talk about. What do you suggest we do?

Schmuck, I think my point is that advertisers push the use of female sexual imagery to the limits sometimes but they take their cue to at least some extent from what seems to be accepted by those wearing street clothes. Of course street fashions are influenced heavily by the fashion and clothing retail industries. I suppose there is a circle. The 'liberation' of social mores involves leaders and followers influencing each other. It is a chicken and egg situation. Not all the people who make choices to wear very revealing clothes in public are impressionable young girls. There are plenty who are old enough to be the mothers of such girls, and probably are. One thing they have in common is their gender. Good luck to them if they feel good doing it, it doesn't hurt. Just let's not hear too much of the 'society is to blame' line. I acknowledge your point but I don't think it detracts from or is really at odds with the opinions I was expressing.