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!

I suspect that the basic reason that Muslim
women are covered up is because their men
can't control their erections.
(Just kidding).

As for skimpy clothing on western women?
It's a matter of appropriateness - common
sense, and personal taste.

What you'd wear to the beach, you hopefully
wouldn't wear to church ( unless it's a nudist
wedding), or a funeral.

And choosing a partner on outward appearance
alone would be a major blunder in anyone's
books.

We usually are attracted to someone who satisfies
our emotional appetite. People either connect
or they don't. If they do, that means they're going
to be starting to mould to one another. But the
moulding process takes time. You need time - active
time in a relationship. You need to have taken
the time to discover each other.

Skimpy Clothes and Shallow marriages?
Sounds like a B-grade movie to me.

What is really sad is when parents (mostly mothers) encourage their young girls to dress as sluts (sometimes at a very young age). Their role models seem to be the likes of Madonna and Kylie. When the girls end up on depression pills at 21 they are dumb enough to ask what went wrong.

Dear runner,

What I find even sader is your
referring to little girls as "sluts."

And you're implication that they're
"loose" by the clothes they wear.

That's shifting the blame from what
you're seeing, and blaming them for it.

The "evil" is in your eyes, and mind, - not on
their backs.

Christians and muslims share the same goals: theocracy in Australia. Here is some evidence of the goal on the Christian side. It's ironic that most of our censorship laws are based on the efforts of Christians who cite the same reasons as Islamists, albeit a little more openly as they have been forced to adapt to secular society somewhat. Christians do want to restrict current standards of fashion though (...as does feminism).

Currently Western societies as a whole are hypocritical on this, as they force women to wear clothing on their chests...and the reason? Ask a muslim and you will receive the same answer.

Foxy, spot on.

Steel, you are forgetting that many feminists don't try and impose their dress standards on others. Some do but many have been quite upfront in their opposition to imposed values.

R0bert

R0bert, those feminists are not the point. They are lone powerless voices and often extremely gullible or deceived. The ones that count are those that are organised and campaign under various pretences and NGOs, such as Hetty Johnson. The religious often front as feminists because feminists have been given a free pass by reasonably minded people for too long.

Mr carp! Being a member of the Ned Flanders club must be a lonely place to say the least, but this is the world today. You cant change it my friend, all you can do is go with the flow.
The destiny of man can only be left to the imagination, but try not to worry too much, they can make their own decisions now, the gun barrel of god is no longer effective and targets have gotten smarter.

I don't know what the church is going to do about the sudden drop in credibility, I guess the old order will just past away.

May religion rest in peace.

Amen!

EVO

Polycarp,
I agree with Robert and Ludwig on this and do not see any connection between scanty clothing and shallow marriages.

The more common skin exposure is the less sexually exciting it is.

In those societies where women normally go top naked, people cannot understand why we find breasts sexual. They simply view breasts for what they were meant for, same as a hand or foot. Just another body part.

But where women are fully covered as in a burka, an accidental flash of an ankle is considered sexy and a women in western dress is termed a slut.

In relation to shallow marriages. The first attraction between a man and a woman is usually physical and women dress to attract males. Contrary to practicality for warmth or protection, High heels are worn because it enhances womens legs and behind. Breast cleavage is displayed because we find breasts attractive. Lipstick and makeup is used to enhance looks. Tight fitting clothes also shows the female figure.

I think that a couple living together in a casual relationship is a good idea before commiting to a permanent marriage. There is no better way of getting to know each other than living together. Mind you I think that fidelity is very important in a relationship.

Rather than concentrate on sexual morality of unattached people, we should give more attention to responsibility, honesty and integrity and instill these as moral values.

Well said Banjo.

Foxy

I don't know whether you deliberately misquoted me but I never said little girls were sluts. I wrote some mothers dress them as such. From an early age they are being taught that their value is in their sex appeal rather than being allowed to be kids. Surely you can see that.

I am also fully aware that the evil is resident in each person. Men can't blame women for their actions. Women however should have half a brain in knowing what turns men on. I noticed some more UN workers in India getting into paedophille. Not much news though as they aren't clergy. Somehow the left don't get to angry about artist and UN workers ruining lives because they find it hard to see how impure man is (unless of course they are religous).

It's revealing to note that not even one person has mentioned that women have sexual desires. It's "assumed" that it's the men who sexually desire the women. Therefore, whatever side of the debate you're on, you're debating from a false premise.

You all sound terribly, terribly old fashioned and Victorian.

Samsung, I didn't use that phrasing but in my initial post on this thread I asked the question "Is a buffed male that much different?"

That might not be quite what you are looking for but it should count for something. The intent was there even if I did not elaborate.

I hold the view that there are all sorts of things apart from the deep values and interests of a person which might attract us initially, the physical is one of them but not the only one.

R0bert

Dear runner,

I stand corrected. You did say, "dress as sluts."

However, the implication remains - that by dressing
as "sluts," (in other words "provocatively,") according
to you they are somehow "asking for it." Encouraging
an assault, and are therefore at least partially at fault.

Again, you're shifting the control of male advances to the
female.

A well dressed man stepping from an expensive limousine
would never be accused of thereby tempting someone to
mug him.

I rest my case.

"...she sometimes looks at them with 'you perve' in her expression."
Or perhaps with a look that indicates "I can see you find me attractive but it's not reciprocated. Please do not approach." Age-old tactic used by both men and women. Saves a great deal of time.

"But what is he 'advancing' on ?"
A woman he finds attractive, presumably.

"Well.. initially it is just the 'charms'....but then.. once involved (some might say entrapped)..."
Why might some say "entrapped"? Do you not think men can take responsibility for their own actions?

As for the rest of that dreary little tale, it's all too depressing. I would suggest that the couple in question are so fundamentally unable to understand that their spouse is just another member of the human race that they should break up as soon and as maturely as possible.

In reality, men are more intelligent and women less conniving — and they are both more like each other — than your cardboard cut-out scenario from 1956 would suggest. As R0bert points out, physical attraction is one part of the complex but delicious muddle of desire.

"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?
No. Women can wear whatever the hell they want. If a man or woman wants to focus on the whole person rather than their appearance, then they should do that regardless of what the other person is, or isn't, wearing. If a couple decides to go with a superficial physical attraction then they are free to do so. Personally, I went for, and, to my eternal gratitude, found someone who is the complete package.

Some women may choose to look modest and appropriate. Others may dress to make Pammy Anderson look nunnish. It's our choice, and men, imbued with the same freedom, are perfectly able to deal with it.

Foxy

A woman walking around the back streets of any city at night in a mini skirt might not be asking for anything but she would be very very stupid. A mother priming her young daughter to dress in a provocative way is just as stupid. It is a simple fact that most men are turned on by women dressing seductively. This is no way condones the man who does not control his passions but it sends a simple message of common sense to parents. Your little analogy makes little sense. Maybe even at your age you choose live in denial.

That sounds a remarkably familiar sentiment, runner.

>>A woman walking around the back streets of any city at night in a mini skirt might not be asking for anything but she would be very very stupid. A mother priming her young daughter to dress in a provocative way is just as stupid. It is a simple fact that most men are turned on by women dressing seductively.<<

Now where have I heard it before recently?

Ah yes, now I remember.

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it. If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen."

Not much wriggle room between that pair of sentiments, is there

Runner! There called prostitutes! lol. What the hell is wrong with you? Why do all you religious people have to turn everything into a filthy dirty lie!

You should all go to the hospital and get that corn cob out of your butts and get a life!

EVO

Dear runner,

You wrote that even at my age I choose to "live in
denial." What a peculiar thing to say.

Denial of what exactly?

Actually at my age, I tend to indulge, not deny.

But that's a different topic.

To get back to this one.

Anybody walking around the back streets of any city
alone at night or being in deserted places would
be taking a risk. Regardless or how they're dressed.
If you've read my earlier post, I did make it quite
clear that "skimpy clothing" was a matter of
appropriateness, common sense, and taste.
Most parents I know, have all three.

I actually don't know of any mothers who encourage their
daughters to dress "provocatively." But then they also
don't encourage aggressiveness in their sons either.

As for my "little analogy making little sense," to you.

I'm not at all surprised.

runner: << It is a simple fact that most men are turned on by women dressing seductively >>

None more so than the Christian Taliban, as exemplified by you and Boazycrap. Fortunately, most normal men don't have clothing fetishes like you poor sods, and are able to contain our lusts and desires without resort to lunacy.

Pericles: << That sounds a remarkably familiar sentiment, runner. >>

Precisely.

I just love the honesty with the people on this site. Keep setting your traps. lol.

EVO

Defamation! The sharks maybe setting a trap for you. Always watch what you say!

( Have eyes in the back of your head.)

Now where were we? That's right!mmmmmmmmmmm?

EVO

Quite a few valuable insights.. things which are usually drawn out by pooling our wisdom :) wonderful.

Roberts point about 'where to draw the line' is a good one..and I have to comment.. "I really don't know".. in the words of some other poster I think the issue of personal taste does apply...

This is not a matter where we can come down hard and fast on.. we have no 'dress code' spefically in Christianity.. apart from the injuction to dress modestly.. and not to seek beauty through shallow external symbols like jewellery etc..

All of this would most likely be culturally relative to the times.

While Islam does have specific dress codes reflected for all time in the Hijabs and Nikabs Burkah's.. and the males with their loose fitting robes.. Christianity does not have such.

One aspect not yet identified by anyone that I read.. is the issue of marketing and economic forces.

One person said that the more skin exposed the less sexually stimulating it is.. quite true...but then we are faced with companies which seek to 'expand the barriers' along with artists.. primarily to sell dolls, music, clothes or art.

Of course this process reaches a point of diminishing returns.. and when everyone is walking around almost naked.. and there is nothing left to put clothes on... it needs to take a different tack..and usually does.

Shallow marriages are based on a focus on the external, the superficial...and sadly.... many people end up in such marriages.
Appealing to the sexual is a factor which can influence a persons choice by netting them (male or female) in a web of unbalanced 'physical satisfaction/intellectual/social frustration'.

We are free..yes, but lets not use our freedom as an excuse to induldge the flesh .. (Gal5:13)

Dear Polycarp,

I suggest you stop wearing Skimpy Clothes
and your marriage will improve.

All The Best,

“not to seek beauty through shallow external symbols like jewellery etc..”
Does that include a wedding ring?
Am I shallow ‘coz I love my Pandora bracelet? I had no idea that it was a ‘symbol’. But perhaps I had no idea because I’m shallow.
Does everything one owns have to be classed as a symbol?
A pretty vase on the table, pretty lace curtains, a well looked-after garden, a nice pair of sunnies, these are just things that can make a person appreciate art and beauty, skills and creativity.

I think every couple naturally draws their own line and I can’t be bothered judging other people’s lines, or how shallow or ‘deep’ they look. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

What do we need to do to appear less shallow? Not admire or own beautiful things?
Is looking at the beautiful wings of a butterfly or going bird watching superficial?
Is looking at beautiful clothes and fashion superficial?
Is appreciating and admiring the architecture and lead light windows of an old church shallow?
Why would some things be superficial and shallow and not other?
Isn’t superficiality personal anyway- something that is shallow and superficial to one person might be meaningful to another.

People are physical beings, I like doing or/and enjoying physical things on a physical earth. And I prefer to like the things I wear and have around me, and the people too, no matter what they wear.

Mostly I wear clothes for comfort (like my old fleece pyamas that are 2 sizes too big but utterly comfy), and style and colour, but comfort always comes first. You would never see me wobble on high heels, I don’t find that comfortable, even though they look nice.
Luckily I’m quite tall so I get away with low heels- oops, what a shallow thing to say.

Hi Celivia
I think you took my basic premise to an unwarrented extreme.. but in a way, that illustrates the core of the problem in determining what is 'extravagant' and 'modest'...

The external frills spoken of by Peter

3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

Is more about extravagance than normality. I find it obscene that rich rappers adorn themselves with million dollar diamond encrusted objects and other high profile identities paying $10,000 to fly in her manicurist or hair stylist.

Of course.. as Robert originally said.. the 'line' between extravagance and neccessity can be difficult to draw..but I think when peoeple are wayyy over the top, it's quite noticable. Wedding rings.. I don't think they can be included in the 'extravagance' issue, but then..if someone deliberately had one made to glorify their wealth, rather than their union.. it would be a bit suspect..don't you think?

Polycarp, thanks for your reply.

To be honest, I really don't care what Peter said or what other people do with their money as long as they earned that money honestly and paid their taxes.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of greed in the world- and like you, I'd rather see the very wealthy donate more money to charity rather than buy extravagances but I'm not in charge of their spending habit.

My grandmother never wanted anything for herself for birthdays, she asked people to donate to her choice of charities instead.
But does that mean that I, because I'd love a new charm for a bracelet, am greedy and should follow in her footsteps?
I think when you compare people to others, you can always find people who are more generous than average.

Everything is relative, even the clothes we wear. What is acceptable in one culture seems offensive in another.

Sometimes you just have to let go of frustrations with others' choices and habits and actions and live your life the way you think is best, and let others decide what they prefer to do, no matter how selfish, greedy, 'slutty' or superficial their choices may seem to you.

Just live and let live.

Well Foxy, now you've gone and done it.

That last post made me laugh so hard I've gone and accidentally snorted my coffee up my sinuses. I don't think it was designed for consumption in this manner.

There's a new sensation which certainly warms one's face up... Shame about the watering eyes and sneezing.

If clothing hides the real person, what about plastic surgery? It must be a bit of a surprise to marry a very good looking person with small ears,a cute nose and shapely breasts, and then your children are born with stick out ears, a big nose, and a flat chest.

Do Muslims and people who wear modest clothing really have happier marriages? I doubt it.

In Australia some of the muslim women may be hidden from the view of the other sex but their handsome husbands are free to be ogled by other women.

Do men really not think about sex when all the women are covered over? They say when interviewed that they think of sex all the time whether women are present or not. Nuns have been raped by soldiers and they've been covered over.

One thing about a society that has stricter rules on marriage and female sexuality is that it prohibits lots of availabe sex everywhere like we have in Western society. Which means there is too much fun to be had and so there is no commitment to settling down and having children and so we are becoming a dying race which will be very noticeable in another 2o or 3oyears.

I was reading an article on women who had reached 40 and hadnt had children recently. They said they had been willing to have children but blamed it on their male partners and serial relationships that break up after 5or6 years. These women ended up passed their fertility date because they either stayed in that relationship or had to spend a couple of years establishing another relationship. The men just move on to another 29year old that isnt interested in having children yet.
Doctors say it is only 3% of women who can have children at 40 and over.

This is the real problem for a society where all this sex is on tap. It becomes a dying race. Societies that strictly restrict the sexual availability of women and don't allow contraception which of course goes hand in hand with freedom of sex for women will inherit the earth in terms of numbers. Now if they were more like western society maybe it would be the answer to the earths overpopulation. Then again it may just mean a lot more sexual disease like HIV.

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.

Angelina

http://www.drugtreatments.com/connecticut

Thinking about shallow marriages I have to wonder how many shallow marriages result from religious bans on pre-marital sex. Forget the skimpy clothes angle, not getting unless you are married has got to be a leading cause of getting married for the wrong reasons.

R0bert

Robert,
I agree. I'll try a new thread to see if we can explore some ideas to reduce shallow marriages.

My ex used to say: You can look and be aroused, don't touch, but bring (arousal) it home! Maybe that's why she is my ex :-) Just kidding!
My ex had a daughter (16) using skimpy clothing as was the fashion in the 70's, got raped by her teachers friend and got off scot free.
My real daughter (@21) dressed appropriately going to her car a few years back, got raped by a Muslim. How did this theory go again, leave the meat out uncovered? Maybe if she was covered with a bag over her head it would have been safe. I think we need to teach those religious people some manners if they want to stay in this country.

What is the definition of a shallow marriage? Quite simple! The people who feed upon the gathering of others. This is a weak paranoid result of the insurcurity that plagues humanity and not to leave out the small-mindless of others, but again! Christianity does have a good point.
The ground breaking laws that steps over religious concepts, are all still very debatable.

David! Your pushing carp up a hill.

Changing is the code!

Can you do it?

EVO