I often wonder.. when a girl shows off her female charms in a "if you've got it flaunt it" manner..then blokes look at her with 'sex' in mind... she sometimes looks at them with 'you perve' in her expression.

Then.. she might also like the man doing the looking..and accomodate him in being more open to any advance he might make.

But what is he 'advancing' on ? Well.. initially it is just the 'charms'....but then.. once involved (some might say entrapped) in something of a relationship... he might see that they have little in common, think differently.. hate the same colors.. detest certain furniture styles...she might be a hoarder and him a 'throw it out' type...
and of course... heaven forbid they bring children into the world before tiring of the 'charms' aspect...but then.. it goes down hill.. and she says "You just treat me like a thing"! and he rolls his eyes.. because the only thing he still enjoys about her is.... her 'charms'....

So.. I raise the question.. should our attire be used more for 'protection' and a minimalist 'charms display' centre..where the focus is more on the whole person?

There is an example on youtube of 3 women who's religion requires them to cover up most of their bodies and they are looking at a large poster of a pair of very shapely legs..and they comment mockingly "Oh look at me.. I'm a pair of legs" and so on....

While I personally find nothing attractive in their faith..I do gravitate to the idea of modest attire and 'whole of person' approach to relationships.
Have we lost the plot in the permissive west?

I hope I'm not feeding the troll :)

Seriously, whilst there is some validity to the point David makes I have to wonder where he thinks that particular line is drawn. The impact of skimpy clothes is lessened the more we are used to it. If you are used to the only thing being visible is a pair of pretty eyes then after a while that becomes rather alluring.

Is a buffed male that much different? Is it doing the same thing to have trappings of prosperity visible - a nice car, nice house etc which can also entice prospective partners to see more in a person than they otherwise might. It's interesting how often religious fundies focus on womens clothes when Jesus seem to have more to say about wealth and the problems it causes.

I gather from David's previous posts that wealth is not a burden he carries but he does seem much more concerned about how women dress than the type of car men drive or the trappings of wealth which might entrap some unsuspecting woman into breeding with a male whom she had little in common with.

R0bert

So what you are trying to say is essentially men are only of thinking of one thing and definately short-term over the long-term implications, women are trying to entrap men, if a relationship goes sour then its the woman's fault for being too permissive in her younger days.

How about everyone take a little more responsibility for their own actions and interactions. If we are better at communicating and reading people, then your hypothetical becomes less likely. If both boys and girls are taught that they are important and that the opinions of others are a little concern, then both are are less likely to go out as young adults looking for acceptance and doing potentially dangerous things (both physically and emotionally) to try to find it.

Another Boazycrap troll - this time in Christian Taliban mode.

He's just recycling all the same old discredited crap that he did to death when he was BOAZ_David.

Do not feed.

CJ Morgan, I like your description "Christian Taliban". I first used this expression when talking to friends a long time ago about a certain NSW Member of Parliament. We've seen a few of them here, Boaz_David and Gibo. I'm not sure if I would put Runner in this category. I'm not sure why Boaz_David changed to Polycarp, and Gibo has gone quiet (I think he's been banned after a number of his posts abusing me were deleted), I've noticed he's moved to the Blogs on SMH now, and he is ranting on about his usual China to invade Australia, doom and gloom etc.

Now on the topic of this thread, I find it very ironic that clothing is used to flaunt the sexual nature of the human body. Tight fitting swimming costumes really turn a man on, but go to a nude beach there is not much to turn you on, as there is no mystery to the naked body. In Muslim cultures where women are almost completely covered, men are turned on by just a few hairs or the sight of an ankle.

A good thread Polycarp. I think R0bert addresses the issue very nicely. The correlation between scantily clad female charms and bad relationships or marriages has surely got to be very poor indeed.

I strongly believe in a very open society as far as clothing goes, considerably more open than what we’ve got in fact.

I think it is very much a matter of the impact of revealing clothing losing its sexual implication if it is a widespread and everyday thing. I couldn’t imagine living in a society where women are covered from head to toe all the time in public. Man, wouldn’t that be horrible!