This is not a troll :) but mean't to explore the serious issue of the differences in male and female attire.

Last night at Bible study we looked at this issue in the afterglow of a camp where the subject was 'Purity' with God, the opposite sex and humanity generally.

But the more I pondered this, the issue of the differences between male and female attire came more into focus.

Let's take some examples.

MALE. (to a degree this is job dependant.)
Generally covered up neck to ankle except during hot weather. I don't know why...it just 'is'.

FEMALE. (Again.. job dependant to a degree)
Generally showing a lot more skin, cleavage (even in business suits) and leg.

Ok.. lets transpose this into a 'Church' situation :)

Many girls roll up with very skimpy clothes. Shoulders, cleavage, legs all clearly visible.

Now..lets change the gender. "men roll up with half their bums hanging out" (I observe that females find a mans butt something of an attraction...perhaps like men feel about womens breasts)
Along with.. sleeveless T-shirts..or T-shirts which show a good chunk of chest and arm.. at least as much as the girls do.

We could also make this the local Rotary or Lions meeting, or even Parents and Teachers meeting.

I hazard a guess that 'butt cleavage' would create a bit of an outrage/outcry.. a disturbance at least.

SOOOO... the question. WHY? has womens fashion sense gone in a 'show more' direction and mens not?

Who has driven this? Was it 'orchestrated'... managed.. is it a result of some kind of economic exploitation..convincing women that they must show a bit more next season? (so they feel shabby in last seasons clothes and go and BUY more for next?)

God, another cover-up post from Poly. Seriously, you're such a muslim.

Women show legs and cleavage cause our legs and cleavage are part of our bodies. Rather nice parts. We can wear burkhas or we can wear bikinis, we can wear bikinis under our burkhas, we can wear whatever the hell we want.

And so may you. If you honestly believe women would like to look at your butt crack, show it off Poly.

Dear Veronika,

Polycarp does not have a butt crack. He practices immaculate evacuation.

"He practices immaculate evacuation."

Now *that* was funny.

Dear Polycarp,

If you look at any newstand rack of
magazines, you can't help but notice
that on the whole, what's presented on
the covers of the popular magazines
differs greatly between the way men
and women are presented.

Women are usually presented in far more
revealing poses, and as sex objects,
while men are presented as more
powerful images, and not as unclothed.

This is part of what sells, I guess.
And that's the business that the industry
is in.

Exploitation? Undoubtedly. But the bottom line
is - getting the big bucks - marketing what
sells.

Take most women's magazines - the unrealistic images
of super thin air-brushed models that are presented.
Magazines like 'Vogue' that encourage women to
spend outrageous amounts of money on clothes, shoes,
handbags, et cetera.

Magazines like 'Cosmopolitan' that tell women that
getting married is a woman's most important goal. That
if you lose weight - you'll gain confidence.

'Marie Claire,' tells women that they should freak out
about aging at the age of 30.

The list goes on and on.
So, it's no wonder that SOME women feel compelled to follow
the fashion trends.

Most women, however, take all this media hype with a grain
of salt, and chose what they feel is appropriate to them.

Fashion, is what it has always been, a matter of personal
choice. (And budget). Sure, we've all made some awful
mistakes (outrageously high heels - and an 'Afro' hair
style - were two of mine). But on the whole, most women
I know - tend to wear what suits them, and what they feel
comfortable wearing.

Porky once again demonstrates his very odd attitude to the human body.

<< "men roll up with half their bums hanging out" (I observe that females find a mans butt something of an attraction...perhaps like men feel about womens breasts) >>

I don't know about fundy Christian women, but absolutely no woman I know finds "plumber's cleavage" in the slightest bit attractive. Tight buns, yes - arse crack, no.

Veronika: << Seriously, you're such a muslim >>

Indeed, which is why Porky has attracted the descriptor of 'Christian Taliban' on various occasions in this forum. The idea that exposure of the human body is necessarily sexual is something that Christian fundies certainly share with Muslim fundies.

david f: << Polycarp does not have a butt crack. He practices immaculate evacuation >>

Very funny indeed.

Porky: << MALE...
Generally covered up neck to ankle except during hot weather >>

Er, are you talking about Australia or Malaysia? In the Australia where I live, many men are known to expose their legs by wearing "shorts".

Weird.

Polycarp

What disturbs me is parents who encourage their teenage girls to dress indecently. They are involuntary victims to exploitation. Essentailly they are being taught that their value is in the size of their breasts or how well they display them. The strings that some women like display that go up their bums must be terribly unhygienic .

Most woman who are in the workforce who dress immodestly are either deliberately naive or are trying to use what they have to further their careers. Bosses dumb enough to fall for this only have themselves to blame. Often they fall prey to the same spirit that blinded King Ahab to Jezebel's charms and Samson to Delilah.

I wondered if porn, the great pestilence to moral civilisation, might also be part of the 'show more' thing with the girls.

Its polluted every level of society even the innocence of 'girl childhood' and more girls are touched by it than ever.

TV is a shocker these days. Mild porn is all through it and its advertising.

Maybe some girls, subconsciously because of the porn influence, have come to think the more they show, the more the male is attracted.

Praise The Lord!... when governments finally admit that a civilisation can fall because of pornography and begin to do something about it.
Theres already enough evidence over the past few decades connecting porn to the huge tsunami of sex crime.

Gibo wrote:

"Theres already enough evidence over the past few decades connecting porn to the huge tsunami of sex crime."

Please cite your evidence. The available evidence is inconclusive.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_effects_of_pornography

"Since Denmark was the first country to legalize pornography (in 1969), it was also the first place where researchers employed epidemiological methods in an attempt to assess any consequences of free access to pornography.

Danish criminologist Berl Kutchinsky's Studies on Pornography and sex crimes in Denmark (1970), a scientific report ordered by the Presidential Commisson on Obscenity and Pornography, found that the legalizing of pornography in Denmark had not (as expected) resulted in an increase of sex crimes.

Since then, many other experiments have been conducted, either supporting or opposing the findings of Berl Kutchinsky, who would continue his study into the social effects of pornography until his death in 1995. His life's work was summed up in the publication Law, Pornography, and Crime: The Danish Experience (1999).

In stark contrast to the previously described research, a review of epidemiological studies found that some studies find that the quantity of pornographic material viewed by men was positively correlated with degree to which they endorsed sexual assault. Yet it sees a failure to find statistically significant correlations in other studies."

There is evidence that pornography both decreases and increases the incidence of sex crimes. There is no huge tsunami of sex crimes. One can reasonably expert that one reason for the difference in conclusions is that the researchers found what those who commissioned the research expected them to find. I suspect that the initial Danish study finding a decrease in sex crimes is accurate, and the studies showing trends in the opposite direction were commissioned largely by agencies that wanted such findings.

In modern times, there's no doubt women, and their clothing, are sexualized MUCH more than men and men's attire. Now to the conundrum: Does this mean that women are "free" to live and express as they choose, or does it mean that they still exist in Victorian times where their worth is viewed from a sexual perspective?

I believe the second view is accurate.

I believe women have gone "backwards" over the past decades, in the area of sexuality. When a woman uses her body to gain acceptance, instead of her brain, she's reverted to old fashioned Victorian era ethics where the woman is a second class citizen reliant on her sexuality in order to progress. That's a backward step, because men aren't subjected to the same sexualization. It's not a level playing field. It's a playing field where men set the rules, men primarily profit the most and men have the major control.

As a man I like to see women use their brains to advance their lot in life. That's the way to dignity and self respect. For me, all this has got nothing to do with religion; the Christian and Muslim puritans are just as damaging for women as the secular sector who encourage the sexualization of women, usually for profit.

rw523252 wrote:

"As a man I like to see women use their brains to advance their lot in life. That's the way to dignity and self respect. For me, all this has got nothing to do with religion; the Christian and Muslim puritans are just as damaging for women as the secular sector who encourage the sexualization of women, usually for profit."

Secular societies have seen women as full citizens rather than as baby-makers, objects of lust, temptresses or humans subject to the male part of the race. Equal rights as to voting and access to employment, equal pay for equal work and the right to decide whether to bear children or not are all tendencies in secular societies.

Secular societies have liberated women. Some of the milestones are:

Publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" (1792). Pioneering women's rights treatise introduced key feminist concepts, inspired many 19th-century suffragists.

Women's Rights Convention at Seneca Falls (1848). Initiated first wave of women's rights movement that ultimately won women suffrage.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton published "Woman's Bible," vol. I (1895). First influential work to recognize the damage done by traditional Christianity to women's rights, autonomy, self-image.

Worldwide woman's suffrage movement (early 1900s). Agitated for political equality, reform of other social and religious structures that unfairly disadvantage women.

Publication of Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex" (1949). Launched second-wave feminism, inspiring Millett, Friedan, Steinem, and others.

Margaret Sanger opens first birth control clinic (1916). Pioneered idea that family size should be a woman's choice; opposed religious control over reproduction, promoted decoupling of reproduction from the sex act.

1960s Women's Rights Movement. Where previous women's rights movement had won women the vote, the 1960s movement sought parity between men and women in all areas of life.

Roe v. Wade (1973). Legalized abortion in first and second trimesters, ending reign of illegal abortion as the #1 killer of women of childbearing age.

The above are all products of the secular sector and have been opposed for the most part by the religious sector.

david f there has been similar work carried out in the USA tied to differing internet uptake rates in different states and rates of sex crimes. They have looked at the rates of other crimes to ensure that changes are not the consequence of a overall change in policing.

My understanding is that there were very clear inverse correlations between the rates of sex crime committed by teenage boys and internet takeup. The effects were much less marked in other age groups. I suspect that many of the other studies are lab experiments, getting people to watch porn in controlled situations and then make subjective assessments of their response to an attractive female interviewer seems to be common.

Someone using porn at home in privacy may well be at a very different place in terms of sexual interest following that usage to someone who's just watched porn in a controlled situation and then spends time with an attractive women.

R0bert

David f.

Cite evidence?

Of what I saw happening to society with my own eyes?

Having been a trained observer (a NSW policeman) I saw what was going on with the escalating crime.
In proportion to the increase of sex offenders I saw the spread during the 70's of porn shops and brothels.
I saw the mens magazines go from girls covered in underwear, in the 60's, to wearing nothing at all by the early 70's...and that was just newsagent mens mags.

I dont need stats David... no stats or reports...for eye witness observation and police years experience.

Pornography is killing people...LITERALLY killing people.

We just had two young people jump out of a multi-story apartment building at Waterloo,Sydney the other night to get away from a sex offender who broke in and threatened the occupants.
One was a girl who had been raped by the offender and who subesquently died in the fall.

What do you think the offender fed off?
Sunday comics?

Theres a plague of porn fired lust sweeping the world and women and children are the victims.
Molestation and rape are everywhere!

The only difference between the 50's of my childhood and today is the huge increase in porn.

Who needs stats or reports!

Naomi Wolf wrote in 1990, in her book,
"The Beauty Myth."

"A woman wins by giving herself and other
women permission - to eat; to be sexual;
to age; to wear overalls, a paste tiara,
a Balenciaga gown, a second-hand opera cloak,
or combat boots, to cover up or to go
practically naked; to do whatever we choose in
following - or ignoring - our own aesthetic.

A woman wins when she feels that what each woman
does with her own body - unforced, uncoerced, is
her own business..."

Words still very appropriate for today's woman,
more than a decade later.

What men choose to see, is their problem.

Good post David, I agree with every word.

Unfortunately the one area where women, or should I say many women, have gone backwards over the last few decades is in the area of sexuality. "Some" women use their sexuality to get ahead instead of their brains. The ones who use their brains are the ones who truly reap the rewards and are not controlled by men who usually set the sexual agenda and provide the financial rewards. If a young girl starting out in life uses her brains to advance, she'll end up with self respect and dignity, and she'll control her own destiny. Our secular society has enabled that.

But it's not ONLY religion that's anti advancement for women; many modern young women don't realize the struggles that took place to achieve basic equal rights for women, and "some" of these young women live a Victorian type of old fashioned sexuality where their "sexuality" is seen as the tool for advancement. And there's PLENTY of controlling, old fashioned men who are happy to see this. Some women are going backwards, not forward. Backwards to a sexuality of a bygone era.

'Secular societies have seen women as full citizens rather than as baby-makers, objects of lust, temptresses or humans subject to the male part of the race.;

Oh really. The right for a mother to murder her baby is a step forward. David selective view of secularism is amazing. He ignores the fact that most children use to have a home with a mum and a dad. Secularism has gone a long way to destroy this. Secularism has been successful in promoting promiscuity throughout society resulting in unwanted pregnancies in huge numbers, epidemic child abuse (largely through promotion of the pervert industry), and a widespread belief that homosexuality is 'normal'. The high priests of Secularism usually parade around preaching an outward environmental gospel while inwardly know absolutely nothing about godliness. They love to demonize anyone who exposes their hypocrisy. They preach about the end of the planet denying those who want to be free from bondage an opportunity to escape from hell (everlasting damnation.

Just happens that most educational and medical centres were started by compassionate Christians. But don't let facts get in the way of your dogmas.

Ooookay... have your little laugh frenzy those who wish to do so.. but no..this is nothing about me or my mob having dim views of the human body..not at all.

Veronika shows she has just gone with the flow rather than questioning how they got on the bus :) c'mon..you can do better.

CJ.. I don't mean plumbers cracks are attractive.. but you said it..tight buns.. ok.. we could modify my scenario to 'bun revealing' without the crack.. lets say like some 'leather wearing' folks do with their open panels kind of thing?

Seriously.. take a deep breath and try to emulate something of dear Foxy's approach... My contention here is that a lot of what women wear is dictated by the fashion industry..for purely commercial reasons, and they simply capitalize on the natural attraction and rather mindless ogling that we blokes are said to do.

Blokes are very covered.
Chics are very uncovered.

go figure.

Polycarp wrote:

Blokes are very covered.
Chics are very uncovered.

There's also:

Higgamus, hoggamus;
Women monogamous.
Hoggamus, higgamus;
Men polygamous.

Dear David F,

There's also...

A Christian should only have one wife.

This is called monotony.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Uninformed fundamentalism denigrated intelligent Christians. Men who dont like cleavage shouldnt look...then perhapsa market would not be created!

Too funny, Foxy!!

Obvious as it now seems, I can't recall that joke. Hilarious - and so true!

(Just kidding... really... in case the missus is reading.. )

Male covered? gee Polly not me Half of me hangs out over my shorts and I have to watch non does any place else.
Love the butt crack, took my mind away from the first thought at reading your post.
That was it is a bit like that meat comment from another who values religion more than common since.
Summer and the women look great on every street , the way they want to look good on them.
Men? we tend to be a bit less concerned unless its weekend.
Quotes about God, any God flash a warning that we are going to confirm in this thread we see too much interference in our lives in the name of a fable.

If we try to lay down some kind of rule... it would be resented, (just like I'd resent being TOLD about what I can and cannot wear).

If, for example we wanted to reverse the impact of exploitation driven fashion, we would need to address it as small groups most likely where we discuss it historically and biblically. One without the other wouldn't work.

"Those who don't like cleavage shouldn't look" haaaaahahahahaha de ha ha... how silly is that. The problem is not 'DISliking'..it's the opposite :) we DO like cleavage..but to my mind we get the wrong message from it. How much of a womans breast does a man need to see for him to know she is either generously or mildly endowed?

We are a society.

We should always encourage enduring and wholesome values.

The sex/reproductive drive will not dissappear in the slightest if womens fashion choices reflected the degree of modesty that mens generally do.

But perhaps... we might all be more focused on those things which emphasise romantic love and committment, rather than transitory flings and irresponsible freedom?

"Immaculate evacuation" eh hmmmm not bad for an old bloke David:) *grin*

ACCEPTABLE FASHION GUIDELINES :) (this is for normal everyday work)

(this should bring either another feeding frenzy or a lot of 'taliban' type jibes :)

Dresses/Skirts. Knee length or just below. Preferably not to offer the lower thigh to observers. (I might be wrong here but it strikes me as being an errogenous zone-thigh)

Tops. Preferably no cleavage at all. No shoulders on abundant display. Not showing upper arms.

NOWWWW we have a problem :) and..it's.....the BEACH. it all goes out the window in one way, but then... this is where "context" applies.
I think socially/culturally, we can (if we choose) associate the beach not with 'sexual allurement' but personal refreshment. We know we should not be suddenly allowing our desires to run riot.. so we don't.. (maybe?)

And in Victorian times...
women who showed their ankle were being bold...cheeky....
and when the two piece swimming costume came in
women were being bold...cheeky....
sexuality is part of humanness...
and wanting to look good is part of how we were created...
personally I wish some men would embrace this and make some sort of effort themselves!

Gibo,

Overall it has been considered that legalising porn leads to an overall reduction in sex crime. Some people however, may find that availability of porn may create an addiction that can lead to sex offences. It's like blaming all alcohol drinkers for all the alcohol fueled violence in society. Most people enjoy alcohol and drink responsibly, but a handful of idiots drink purely for the purpose of getting drunk.

I do not like porn, and would like to see it eradicated just like you, however I would oppose any means to do this through legislation. We need to convince the girls that this is not a very good career choice, (What are they going to do when they get older, and are no longer in demand?). We need to convince men not to want to view this material (It can be highly addictive. How would you like to see your sister/ daughter/ niece is such a publication?). I find porn unfulfilling so I leave it alone. I do not however consider non sexual nudity to be porn. It is the flood of porn in society that is causing hysteria against healthy nudity or partial nudity - ie the Bill Henson debate, nudist clubs & beaches and even breast feeding.

Ah, the sweet taste of freedom.

Does it taste good to you too Polyboaz?

Yes Buggy... it does indeed.. and let me give you chapter and verse for that :)

Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Paul was arguing against those who tried to use RELIGIOUS LAW as a means of controlling people. But he also sounds a warning.....

5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.

WHICH... leads me to comment on SOFISU's post.

Sofi.. those Victorian women WERE 'bold' and naughty.. relative to their culture. But the more important issue is...WHY would they want to flagrantly go against the known dress standard of the day?
aaaaah.. me thinks I smell 'wanton-ness'? :)

THEN...your other bit about you "wish men would embrace this and make some sort of effort themselves"....huh?

No.. we are not easily exploited by shallow fashion industry Zars who just want more of our money by convincing us that we are less than human or unnattractive unless we buy their new range.

But of course.. BE CAREFUL what you wish for.. or BELLY (with his self confessed HUGE pot) will be wandering around Swanston st in SPEEDO'S.. oh.. aargh.. yikes... the thought alone is enough to make me seek therapy :)

The other aspect of your 'follow the trend mindlessly' post was that it is underpinned by the idea that "more flesh is better" ..and I disagree on that.

"looking good" might be code for "looking alluring" which is tantamount to a sign "There is not much more to me than my boobs and butt" or.."Chest, Bisceps and Buns" for blokes.

You have a very low opinion of women as well, it would appear, Boaz.

>>"looking good" might be code for "looking alluring" which is tantamount to a sign "There is not much more to me than my boobs and butt"<<

It is a good job I don't pretend a knowledge of amateur psychology, as some do.

Otherwise, I'd have a field day with that little lot.

A passing thought - was it perhaps one of the faults that caused you to beat your daughter?

Oh, sorry, I promised no amateur psychology, didn't I.

Dear Pericles... that was a cheap and low shot, and I think everyone will recognize it to be utterly contemptable.

Once again.. a-gain.. you seek to turn a serious thread into beligerance and mockery against a person.

Cheap...low.. shabby.. etc etc etc.

Let me expand on your (barely) contribution to the topic (rather than sink to the bottom feeder/creeping thing level of constantly reminding people about things they themselves freely disclosed oh.. about 2 or 3 yrs ago?)

"Looking good" in the way that phrase is generally used (and in the context of this thread content) seems to mean to show off more of their sexually linked charms. Breasts.. legs... facial makup etc for females.

It all depends on what one considers to be "looking good".. if it means looking "sexually alluring" and actually emphasizing that, then I suggest it is a pretty shallow self presentation and expression of values which are not enduring.

But more to the point.. I think it reflects just how much women have been manipulated and brain washed by the fashion industry.
You know you have arrived when the very thing you deliberately sought to manipulate is actually embraced by your target audience as "we do it because we like it" rather than digging beyond that to "Perhaps I like it because I've been persuaded that I need to be this way in order to succeed in the relationships market"

The evidence is there for all of us to see.. just walk down the street.

I'd hope girls at least ask the question.

"The problem is not 'DISliking'..it's the opposite :) "

And I've quoted the appropriate bible verse's previously regarding what chrstains are supposed to do if their eye's are causing them to sin.

Strangely none of the fundies seem to want to take those verse's literally.

R0bert

It's amazing, for someone who claims to love freedom and yet demonstrably argues against it because of what it can do to you.

"Recommended guidelines" (not "laws") indeed, I bet you would love to see these guidelines become almost universal custom, wouldn't you Boazy? Problem is, universal customs have a habit of becoming laws, to make them enforced.

I guess a lot of rabble rousers use the same insidious techniques.

Dear Polycarp,

You're right up to a point, when you say
that women are influenced by the fashion
industry. And, as I pointed out in my first
post - certain magazines do present certain
images that women are expected to adhere
to. However, that doesn't mean that all
women do.

You've got to give women more credit.
The key word is - SOME women will be influenced
by these trends. But not all women will be.

We're all individuals, and we don't think alike,
act alike, or dress alike, just as neither do
all men. Age, education, upbringing, income,
fashion sense, are only some of the factors
that affect our choices.

Generalisations such as the ones you present are
just that - generalisations. They don't present
the true picture. And as they say, "Beauty is
in the eyes of the beholder," well so is the
"sin" or "evil of the flesh," that you're seeing.
As I said in a
previous post - the sin is not on what someone
has on their backs, in what's in your mind,
that influences your perception.

Don't underestimate women either, as far as the
fashion industry is concerned. Designers over the
years have learned at their expense that they've
done the wrong marketing - when women have often
rejected the trends that were being hoisted on them.

Some things work, others don't. But ultimately it's
women who decide what they will or won't accept.
Very few women I know are slaves to the fashion
industry. We make our own choices as to what we
wear.

Threads like this one however, only goes to prove
that women still have a long way to go with some
men, towards achieving gender equality.

It's a bit late to come with the injured innocence schtick, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles... that was a cheap and low shot, and I think everyone will recognize it to be utterly contemptable.
Once again.. a-gain.. you seek to turn a serious thread into beligerance and mockery against a person.
Cheap...low.. shabby.. etc etc etc.<<

Serious thread, Boaz? Surely, it is just another vehicle for your religious evangelism.

You were given a number of opportunities to find a more acceptable level for the discussion, but didn't take the hints. Until finally you decided that insults were the way to go.

>>WHY would they want to flagrantly go against the known dress standard of the day? aaaaah.. me thinks I smell 'wanton-ness'?<<

Given this little gem, I consider my observations to be totally in keeping with the standard that you yourself set.

>>Let me expand on your (barely) contribution to the topic (rather than sink to the bottom feeder/creeping thing level of constantly reminding people about things they themselves freely disclosed oh.. about 2 or 3 yrs ago?)<<

Whenever it was, it was memorable indeed.

As I recall, you tried to make a virtue out of corporal punishment administered to a teenage girl.

Do I understand now that

i) you regret trying to make a virtue of beating your daughter
ii) you regret telling us about it or
iii) that you regret that you ever indulged in it?

I'd really like to think iii), but I suspect ii) is closer to the truth.

Sigh!! There really is no hope for you is there Poly. :)

Women having to cover up in Church or anywhere else because men cannot control their urges is a bit rich is how I am understanding your comments. Shouldn't we give men a bit more credit.

Surely your devotion to prayer in Church should provide you with sufficient distraction from ogling unsuspecting female parishioners.

History shows us that coverage makes no difference to a woman's safety and a woman is just as likely to be raped wearing a head-dress or covered from toe to neck, as not.

We are born naked, some cultures run around almost totally naked and do alright. It is what you are used to? I would rather be in a society that accepts the body freely than one that covers it up with all the seething and festering undercurrents that it tends to arouse.

Dear Polycarp,

It would appear that
you really do have quite a bit in
common with Muslims in your desire
to cover women up.

Interesting...
And all because men can't control
their erections in some cultures...

Dear Polycarp,

Did you ever think that underneath our clothes we are all naked? We are born naked. Every time we see a person we can think, "That person is a result of a sex act!" (with the exception of in-vitro fertilisation and similar exercises)

When Linnaeus (1707-1778) expressed the idea that flowers are sex organs he was criticised as dirty-minded by the wowsers of his day.I feel great joy in seeing the colourful display of uncovered sex organs in my garden. The sexual organs of the monocots like the lilies have multiples of three petals, and the sexual organs of the dicots like the roses have multiples of four or five petals.

I am happy that your parents felt lust for each other. Otherwise you wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't be able to interact with you. I am glad they occasional didn't engage in sexual outercourse.

Men and women are built differently. That is one reason they wear different clothing. Most men like to be attractive to women, and most women like to be attractive to men.

We are surrounded by sex, and I would rather enjoy it than deny it.

Porky really does have a lot in common with the erstwhile Mufti Hilaly, doesn't he?

AAah... the predictable frenzy :) (and ratings bonanza)

Graham is sending the cheque in the mail O_^

Kidding of course.

What I find fascinating about the thoughts expressed is that very few of them address the actual point.

WHY are women so UNcovered and MEN..... so covered in our attire?

My point is not to "cover women up because I/we might get uncontrolled erections"

THE point is to investigate how the huge difference in attire arose?

Foxy.. you were on the right track earlier but you seem to have gone astray with that erections/muslim comment :)

The other side of this intellectual coin might be... "LETS UNCOVER MEN" .. but why stop there? Lets uncover women MORE and then men MORE until......? I often wonder what looks one might get if a 65 yr old bloke rocked up to Church (Or a board meeting of Telstra) in a sleeveless 'muscle singlet' and board shorts kind of package.

Then..picture that for a 25yr old with a good physique.....

On the issue of skin exposure, I think some of you are in denial. We all know the triggers for lust and desire. The point is...NOT that desire is wrong or evil, but that it be controlled and always have the right context.

Lust is definitely 'evil' because by definition it is 'unrestrained craving' (dictionary)

It is the lack of contextual restraint which makes "lust" evil.
It is not 'lust' to desire one's wife...but it IS "lust" to desire your neighbours.

So... before some of you start calling me the Christian taliban or Christian Hilali.... think about genuine equality... and equality of attire :) Then..if it's humanly possible.. come back to the real point of WHYYYYY do women dress in such an exposed manner and men to not.

P.S.. David.. our parents should not be 'lusting' after each other..because by definition "lust" is 'unrestrained'....craving.

If it was not restrained it would mean that even though one party reallly WANTED it...but the other did NOT.. the wanter would 'rape' the unwanter.. no? "unrestrained"

So.. the Biblical idea is the best "Be filled with the Spirit...not drunk with wine" and the fruit of the Spirit is 'SELF CONTROL' :)
(among many other virtuous behaviors)

Our parents should have conceived us by way of mutual agreed desire...not unrestrained craving.

Polycarp wrote:

Lust is definitely 'evil' because by definition it is 'unrestrained craving' (dictionary)

It is the lack of contextual restraint which makes "lust" evil.
It is not 'lust' to desire one's wife...but it IS "lust" to desire your neighbours.

Dear Polycarp,

I think your statements are confused. My dictionary (Webster's Third New International) defines lust as:

1. sexual desire.
2. An intense longing.

There's a lot more, but those are the main meanings. There is nothing wrong with lust in either of those meanings. Sexual desire is necessary for a species to continue.

It is lust to desire one's own wife. It is not evil to desire your neighbour's wife. It is a perfectly natural thing to desire your neighbour's wife if she is an attractive woman. Sexual desire is not evil at all except by a crazy morality that sees natural impulses as evil. It may be wrong to try to fulfill your lust with your neighbour's wife. I say it may be wrong because I can see cases where it might not be wrong. If your wife and your neighbour's husband have an impairment in their sexual functions and both have indicated that they wouldn't mind if you two got it on I don't see anything wrong.

Poly

Many people already have answered your question.

Reread Veronika, Foxy, Pelican, David F - just to name a few.

The reasons for the difference in clothing are many and varied; culture, age, peer pressure and so on.

Your comment: "Then..if it's humanly possible.. come back to the real point of WHYYYYY do women dress in such an exposed manner and men to not."

There is no single answer. Nor is there necessarily an answer that will satisfy you - and that is the point: You raise questions for which you already have a set opinion and when you do not hear what you want, you claim that no-one has answered your question.

Just as you claim to be persecuted when vehemently disagreed with, you continue to see everything in personal subjective terms. As you are incapable of stepping back to take in a wider objective view, you will never see the answers even though they are there.

I want to know why men pay ridiculous amounts of money for thin strips of material with which to throttle themselves while wearing ridiculous business suits in the Australian summer, when most women don't.

Is it a form of auto-eroticism, or are ties symbolic penises? You know, mine's bigger/flashier/more expensive etc than yours...

CJ Morgan wrote: "I want to know why men pay ridiculous amounts of money for thin strips of material with which to throttle themselves while wearing ridiculous business suits in the Australian summer, when most women don't."

Thoreau's observation is still accurate. "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." They are fit to be tied.

Polycarp
Perhaps we should look at the issue in more anthropological terms. Those from white Anglo-Saxon origins for the most part, dwelled in cold climates thus covering up was about survival and coping with harsh winters. Equally those from warmer climates were dealing with the opposite problem, excessive heat, and thus had no qualms about wandering about half-naked.

It is not surprising that we have evolved over the years to incorporate what was a biolgical response into a sociological one.

It is now 2008 and we can move on.

Polycarp.... get a life...if all people are intereted in church or bible study is what a woman is wearing or not wearing they really do have a reponsibility to train their mind to raise just a little above their navel and concentrate on what they hould be concentrating on instead. Men of faith hould be training in purity and have STANDARDS OF THEMELVES which are higher than what you are currently giving them credit for. On the other hand if all you wanted to do wa raie a contraversial topic...you certainly have raised a ruckus.

I'm finally coming to the inevitable
conclusion that the situation is
indeed not only hopeless, but a
waste of time.

We can all put out arguments forward,
answer the questions until we're blue
in the face... to no avail.

When someone decides not to see the
glaringly obvious, it becomes the
hardest thing to try to explain it.

as Ayn Rand once said,

"Reason is not automatic
Those who deny it
Can't be conquered by it..."

It is not often that I agree with CJM but on this occassion I do. I once read that the tie was invented by some bloke who was going to an important function and discovered food stains on his shirt front, so the tie was invented for a prctical reason. Ties are ridulous!

Polycarp,
I disagree with your original post. Recently I was at a large airport waiting to meet someone and while waiting I noted that few women wore dresses or skirts, by my reckoning 95% wore slacks and on another occassion at Sydney,s Central station all the young womwen were wearing slack or jeans. They may dress more provocatively when going out for the night,etc. but for general day dress it now seems slacks are the go. I think that is for practical reasons.

Interesting developments to b sure.

Fraccy.. Veronika didn't really answer the question, she just stated her view..

"Women show legs and cleavage cause our legs and cleavage are part of our bodies. Rather nice parts."

Well she kind of answered it, but her reasoning is pretty errr tardy.
If we used her reasoning, then we (blokes) would be pumping up b4 we front up to wherever and showing off our 'nice bits' because they are 'rather nice'...hmmmmmm

Veronika. Yes.. cleavage (breast exposure) and legs (particularly the errogenous zones) as you put it seems to be sending the wrong message i.e. "we ARE in fact sex objects and here..look at meeee" :)

I think a better message is "We are people.. and you can SEE that I'm female, you can also SEE if I'm attractive to you overall...and I'd prefer that we keep the suggestiveness for our intimate moments and contexts to the exclusion of others"

Banjo's comment about most females wearing slacks.... yep.. probably right, but it must surely depend on the season? (Pelican)

Back to Fractelle. Agreed, there is no single reason, but I think the most prominent would be as follows: (a purely human perspective here)

1/ We (blokes) still like to regard females as opportunties to spread our genetic footprint.
2/ Females know this.
3/ They fit in with this due to socio-psycho-genetic pre-disposition and dress accordingly in the interests of mating.
4/ The more they dress alluringly, the more we blokes are likely to compete for them.(Thus weeding out the frail ones)
4/ The fashion industry has exploited the above and made a lot of money out of it.

On TIES? ooooooo.. the last time I wore one was... errr.. decades ago.
My standard outfit now is a windcheater and Yakka multi pocketed work trousers.. even to funerals.(and Church)

2 FOCUS POINTS.

I wish to emphasize that ultimately,

a) our attire should reflect a committment to much deeper values than carnal or transitory pleasure.
b) We need to always resist pressure from fashion zarrs to conform us to anything of that nature. (carnal/transitory)

Polycarp wrote:

"I wish to emphasize that ultimately,

a) our attire should reflect a committment to much deeper values than carnal or transitory pleasure."

So the string that you started has produced a sermon.

We humans are transitory and carnal. My clothing is not a platform to express my opposition to racism, militarism, destruction of the environment and belief in nonsense religion and nonsense ideology. My clothing doesn't even reflect my preference for critical thinking or love for nature.

My clothing keeps me warm, covers me up sufficiently so I don't get arrested and feels comfortable. If it also makes this 83 year old body exhibit my interest in the carnal and inspire female lust WHOOPEE!

I think you are a decent and good man imprisoned in the labyrinth of a mind numbing, sense corroding and silly making religion.

Dear Polycarp,

When you started this string you wrote:

"This is not a troll :) but mean't to explore the serious issue of the differences in male and female attire."

Definition of a troll: Fish by trailing a baited line behind a boat.

Then you produced a sermon on clothing.

"I wish to emphasize that ultimately,

a) our attire should reflect a committment to much deeper values than carnal or transitory pleasure.
b) We need to always resist pressure from fashion zarrs to conform us to anything of that nature. (carnal/transitory)"

You drew us into discussion so you could produce your sermon. We were the fish you trolled. You were dishonest in denying it was a troll. However, I really hadn't heard of anybody mention zarrs since I left my native planet of aipotu. Do you come from there, too?

Now David.. you already know my position so it's hardly a troll.

We have explored the issue, made some progress... and it is important that I as the thread starter make a definitive position statement.

I believe that the differences in attire owe more to fashion exploitation and sexual permissiveness than anything else. But it saddens me that most women seem to desire a deeper relationship than a one night stand, yet the attire many of them wear, even those who want a 'good man'.. seem to say the opposite.

So, such a thread as this is socially important in spite of your opinion about it being a troll.

How do you get 'a sermon' from my 2 point summary?

blessings

Porky: << ..such a thread as this is socially important.. >>

Only in the mind of a bible-bashing Christian Taliban wowser. Nobody else seems to have regarded the topic as 'socially important' at all.

David f is correct: Porky's opening claim that the topic was not a troll is patently false, particularly in the light of his subsequent sermonising.

Typical, really.

"But it saddens me that most women seem to desire a deeper relationship than a one night stand, yet the attire many of them wear, even those who want a 'good man'.. seem to say the opposite."

In most cases the cloting choices David is refering to are not saying anything about a persons preferences for relationships. David's opinion of those cloting choices does say a lot about where his mind dwells.

R0bert

David! old school mate! very old. This is the 21 century! wake me up when September ends.

EVO

Hi EVO.. no mate no.. no no no :) your comment is one of capitulation to fashion trends. You are looking at the status quo and not recognizing how it was manipulated to be where it is.

It's like some German person waking up in the middle of Nazisms glory days and thinking it's always been that way and mocking someone who sounds the 'danger' signal.

Robert.. 'my mind' ? hmm I detect a bit of self righteous sermonizing there also.
No Rob.. my mind dwells on basic fundamental psychological fact. You sound like ur on the edge of a forest saying "what forest? all I can see is trees."

CJ.. in good form, as usual, - blind and abusive :)

Polycarp,

Your self-deception astounds me. Do you really not understand why no one wants to engage with you on this issue? Do you really believe that you can "see" something others cannot?

I don't know if it's sad or funny.

Look within.

David, I can see the forest and the tree's. The problem seems to be that you see a tree and decide that means the tree wants to be woodchips.

Your approach to womens clothing choices reminds me of an old joke

http://www.funnyhumor.com/jokes/900.php

R0bert

Not a bad joke Robert :)

Veronika.. of course I can see other views here. And very few of them are actually answering why female attire is so often much more skimpy than males.

They are just doing what you did.. "we want to look good" kind of thing.

Well.. I suggest they are just repeating the required mental position the fashion industry dictated to them during it's marketing campaigns.

The effectiveness of such campaigns is evidenced by the simple fact that so few people are prepared to question it..and they see someone who does (me) as some kind of wierdo :)

If the differences in attire were due only to 'looking good' etc.. rather than geared to capitalize on the male female attraction element where the female is much more potent to a man (ask the Muslims:)...then one would expect blokes to rock up to the next High Anglican Mass with muscle singlets on.

Listen to Veronika, Boaz.

>>Do you really not understand why no one wants to engage with you on this issue?<<

Smart.

What many have spotted is that you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

Nothing anybody says will convince you that this topic has as much life as that much-celebrated Norwegian Blue. You can bang it on the counter, shout "Ello, Mister Polly Parrot" in its ear and nail it to the perch, it is still utterly without relevance and meaning.

Even you are having a hard time inventing new angles.

>>They are just doing what you did.. "we want to look good" kind of thing. I suggest they are just repeating the required mental position the fashion industry dictated to them during it's marketing campaign<<

Either that or - hey! they might actually be expressing their very own view, consistent with their self-image and their self-confidence.

>>The effectiveness of such campaigns is evidenced by the simple fact that so few people are prepared to question it.<<

Aaaaah, the sweet smell of conspiracy theory.

"ASIO have put a tail on me, recording my every move"

"I can't see anybody"

"Of course you can't, that's how I know they're there...."

...or, Boaz, it could just be that the campaigns are ineffective, so there's nothing to "question".

>>If the differences in attire were due only to 'looking good' etc.. rather than geared to capitalize on the male female attraction element where the female is much more potent to a man (ask the Muslims:)...then one would expect blokes to rock up to the next High Anglican Mass with muscle singlets on.<<

Are you sure this isn't a secret fantasy of yours, Boaz?

Let's be honest with each other for a moment, shall we?

I'll admit that I don't believe for a moment that you are atracted to blokes dressed in muscle singlets.

And you, for your part, admit that this thread was just a troll, to enable you to sermonize.

No Pericles I don't admit it was a troll in the sense that's normally used.

You said:

"Either that or - hey! they might actually be expressing their very own view, consistent with their self-image and their self-confidence."

Now that is an 'angle' but it's at the core of what I'm arguing.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it..you should be able to see that a persons sense of 'self confidence' connects to specific psychological factors and attitudes.

Let's take an example "If u've got it..flaunt it" is a commonly used one.

"Generous breasts".. Lets show them off. Perhaps the blokey equivalent is "I've got a rippling muscular upper body and I'll make sure I wear a tight T-shirt to show it" now.. just near us is a major gym and I often notice blokes with that combination of physique and attire at Safeways.
I must confess.. that while I don't have so much of a physique.. I also use the T-shirt thing, but it get's jolly unbearably hot here sometimes.

I think it's mostly about context and appropriateness. On a stinking hot day, a girl can wear pretty skimpy clothes without deliberately choosing clothes which reveal 30% of her boobs.
The problem is.. today 30% tomorrow (due to fashion dictates or perhaps carnality...its 40% then 50%....and so on.

Female shorts might cover their bum cheeks.. but next year..it's fashionable to show 20% of them..... then.. and then... and so on..

I don't think it's a matter of confidence but morality. I have oodles more respect for a girl who dresses modestly but sharply than one who shows it all off.

CONTEXT has to be taken into account. Beach.. near nude, but ok.
Office.. smartly dressed. Church.. modestly. As long as we as a culture reinforce the right message in context we should be ok.

I do care how we function as a community. And I think we would be much better off with a more modest approach to attire. Hence...this thread.

Well, Boaz, don't say I didn't warn you.

"I'll admit that I don't believe for a moment that you are attracted to blokes dressed in muscle singlets. And you, for your part, admit that this thread was just a troll, to enable you to sermonize."

Your response?

>>No Pericles I don't admit it was a troll<<

Which of course puts a whole new slant on your next remarks...

>>"I've got a rippling muscular upper body and I'll make sure I wear a tight T-shirt to show it" now.. just near us is a major gym and I often notice blokes with that combination of physique and attire at Safeways. I must confess.. that while I don't have so much of a physique.. I also use the T-shirt thing,<<

There are some very good gyms here in Sydney that I'm sure you would enjoy.

Although not close to a Safeways, unfortunately.

Polycarp: "Veronika.. of course I can see other views here."

As Pericles foreshadowed, you either misread my post or you are cognitively unable to understand it.

Let me ask you again, do you understand why people don't want to engage with you on this issue?

Dear Veronika..."no"... I'm trying to explore a serious issue...and it must be misconceptions or apathy as to why not many are engaging.

I went to a Chinese takeaway yesterday and I found 2 magazines there for the customers.

'Maree Claire'
'Cosmopolitan'

I thought I'd have a comparison..and I was quite stunned by the noticable difference.

MC seemed (from my limited perusal) to show very modest yet highly fashionable female attire on the models. I absolutely respected those portrayals that I saw.

COSMO on the other hand was dripping breasts and what not, everything barely kept in place and though I didn't notice any, I think Cosmo also has a 'sealed section' sometimes no? So..the focus of the whole mag is 'sex sex sex' and it uses that to promote itself by persuading young girls that 'this' is what it's all about. The caucasian lady serving in the Takeway totally agreed.. and has a young daughter.

So to me the evidence is compelling that the exposing nature of female attire is closely connected to the fashion industry and it's desire to capitalize.

The Lady also observed "try BUYing anything other than the trampy stuff Cosmo promotes for a young teenager" (it's hard she says)

I'm yet to examine Dolly and the such like.

Pericles.. what on earth are u on about?

Dear Polycarp,

When Jesus said that only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven (if he said it as who knows what words were put in his mouth) he showed himself to be a bigot. It didn't matter how good a person was or what a righteous life one led one had to accept his mumbo jumbo. That is bigotry, and it has inspired Christian bigotry and atrocities.

On this string you are worried about women's clothing. If you are a teenage girl with a great body why not flaunt it with the aid of clothing that attracts attention? She is going to lose that great body soon enough. She is programmed to attract males, and males are programmed to be attracted. Males are programmed to attract females, and females are programmed to be attracted. Some people are programmed to be attracted by their own sex. Your sick religion worries about all that. I am not saying that Christianity in itself is sick because Christians have done worthwhile things inspired by their Christianity. I think your puritanical brand is sick.

You keep on about how bad the Catholics are. You slam Muslims. You excuse Calvin's cruelty. No love for those who don't accept your nonsense. You deny the record of Christian cruelty and persecution.

Outside of Christian cruelty and persecution I enjoy the contributions that Christianity has made - the beauty of the cathedrals, the music of Bach, the Russian Orthodox liturgy and the other appeals to the senses, charitable works in many areas. Christianity has brought joy, comfort and succor. Your brand worries about showing a little breast.

I think it is sick to worry about a bit of cleavage. Sometimes one of those adorables gives this old man a seat on the train, and I appreciate the cleavage along with the kind heart under it.

Dear David....

We've coved the John 14:6 territory before.. but clearly you did not grasp the answer.

Firstly, coming from the Messiah, the words are not in the slightest bigoted. He is the one who did the signs, wonders and miracles.

Secondly, what is spoken here refers to FAITH.. belief in Christ as being 'the way'. You and I both know, that pressure and force can never produce 'belief' or genuine faith. Jesus spoke about those who called Him Lord, but their hearts were far from Him.

DAvid..on the Catholics...for goodness sake YOU mentioned the RC Church is a theocracy not me. I simply mentioned some FACTS about them. (Indulgences and history) I'm sorry if the ugly truth hurts, but ugly as it might be, it is still truth.

JESUS is THE WAY.....

He IS..."the" way..by FAITH.. by belief..

Force, pressure, violence can only ever produce OUTward compliance...not inner faith. Jesus NEVER tried to pressure or force anyone into following Him. He did the opposite "If any man would follow me..let him DENY himself" etc...

I hope I never have to explain this again.

I know of no Christian would would understand John 14:6 as a reason to declare war on, or plan forceful attacks on non believers.
But I can show you from youtube COUNTLESS examples of Muslims who absolutely understand that they have a mission to destroy YOU (a Jew)
and all infidels.. 'to the last man' according to one sword wielding Palestinian cleric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

I watched this with about a 100 Jews at Beth Weisman synagogue, Melbourne..they took it rather seriously.

Now..much as I would like to say that cleric is just obeying the Quran, I know it well enough to know he is not. Still the Quran does call for the subjugation of non Islam by military violence and force. (9:29) 'That'....is a simple, undeniable FACT.

Dear Polycarp,

We've heard all this from you before - why
do you persist in bringing up Surah 9 - no
matter what the thread?

You're beginning to sound quite unhinged.

Why do you feel it necessary to dwell on
the fundamentalist aspect of another religion?
Over and over again...

I'm getting to that stage now that when I see
your name attached to anything on this Forum -
I'm tempted not to read it because - (Yawn) -
it's the same old thing...

Please stop it. No matter what you've suffered,
seen, or experienced as a result of fundamentalism,
it's time for you to let go and move on.

If you can't, you need to get some serious
counseling for your own mental health.

Dear David f,

You're a man after my own heart.

You said in your last post:

"I think it is sick to worry about a bit
of cleavage. Sometimes one of these
adorables gives this old man a seat on the
train, and I appreciate the cleavage along
with the kind heart under it!"

Well said!

Polycarp wrote: "Firstly, coming from the Messiah, the words are not in the slightest bigoted. He is the one who did the signs, wonders and miracles."

The fact that the words are attributed to Jesus does not make them less bigoted. He obviously was not the Messiah since he did not bring peace on earth as predicted or even re-establish the kingdom of David and Solomon which is where the whole Messiah nonsense started. I hope you can someday get rid of your silly superstition and actually pursue a religion of love.

Again you quote some nasty words from the Muslims and disregard the horrible actuality of fanatic Christianity.

Polycarp wrote: "But I can show you from youtube COUNTLESS examples of Muslims who absolutely understand that they have a mission to destroy YOU (a Jew)
and all infidels.. 'to the last man' according to one sword wielding Palestinian cleric."

To quote again from the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary:

“Instead of being united in love for God, we as Christians have sinned grievously against God's covenant people. Two thousand years of Church history have left a trail of blood: contempt, hatred, hostility, persecution and wholesale slaughter.

Time and again the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of Christians. They have been humiliated, deprived of their rights, accused of murdering God and blamed for every imaginable calamity. During the Crusades, the Inquisition, the pogroms and, most horrific of all, the Holocaust, millions of Jews have suffered flagrant injustice."

Nothing Muslims have done compares with the Holocaust. Throughout the ages since your superstition emerged the reality of Christianity has been a more fearful menace to Jews than Islam with all its nasty words.

I have a feeling of deja vu. Have a nice day.

"When a woman uses her body to gain acceptance, instead of her brain, she's reverted to old fashioned Victorian era ethics where the woman is a second class citizen reliant on her sexuality in order to progress.”

Rw523252’s posts near the start of the thread raise angles which might have made for some interesting discussion had they been picked up on.

While many women delight in the freedom of today’s dress code, where ‘less’ is seen to be ‘more’, and consider we’ve advanced a long way from the more conservative dress of earlier generations, I’m not so sure if we really have progressed, or if we aren’t in fact, as rw523252 suggests, racing back to the past.

Far from being truly liberated, I see women today as more captive than ever to the dictates of fashion and to the need to dress in a way that wins them male approval. Some might see dressing provocatively as their right of choice. I guess it is, but when it becomes the norm rather than the exception, we eventually reach a tipping point where women’s rights are in danger of being severely compromised.

Women’s dress shouldn’t have to comply with the prudish demands of patriarchal religious fundamentalists, but equally, neither should it have to present an image of sexual allure. Each demand, in my view, is as demeaning to women as the other.

Cleavage! mmmmmmm. A story from which comes to mind, and one of survival, hope and the land of milk & honey.

"That's right! breast feeding! I guess David, that the sight of that, would near kill you.

They say the first thing a new born see,s, is the warmth of the mothers face and this is implanted and stored in our deepest part of the brain" not true. I,m sure being a hungry little baby so my mothers say,s, and it was those two food sacks" that was the main focus and I,m dam sure, that this is why I cant take my eye off them today!

I,m just hungry!:) "I knew there was a reason for my strange behaviour!, and not to mention, way back in early human history, a woman was viewed best, by the size of her breasts for the purpose's of successful child rearing and not much has changed my old friend, coz you see" the animal is still in us.

EVO

Well said Bronwyn... and much as it might erk some who probably delight in a degee of antagonism between myself and you.. we are in complete agreement, and.. dare I say..for the same reasons.

Dear Foxy.. you were a bit mischeivious there.. you neglected that David F posts inflammatory, hate mongering, rabble rousing and fear and loathing in this thread against Christians. He repeated his now well worn mantra of "The Holocaust..blame Christianity" (summary of his position)

So..if you wonder why I respond.. it's really very simple :) it's not that I bring this or that into every thread, but that people like David say things which are repungant and dangerous, not to mention untrue.

It was the wrong thread David posted to, but it still managed to be said here.. so..I'll respond here.

I'll be happier when you criticize David equally for his 'hate mongering' against Christians as you do for what I say about Islam.

But it is noteworthy that in terms of the topic.. Bronwyn has picked up on an important angle that is the essense of what I wanted to explore.

David likes cleavage? good grief..if he likes it so much there's plenty on the net. I'd rather a girl dressed in non overtly sexual Marie Clare style offering me a seat than a cosmo style girl who is likely to stir in me unfulfillable desires.(with her at least)
Why do we like cleavage? aaah.. as the front page of the herald today showed :) David..ur gonna like this mate
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24615485-661,00.html

Now..how many males are going to care about the 'story' looking at this?

Polycarp wrote: I'll be happier when you criticize David equally for his 'hate mongering' against Christians as you do for what I say about Islam.

I have not promoted any hate-mongering against Christianity. You were right to put it in quotes. My statement: "The Holocaust was applied Christianity." is not hate mongering at all. It is a fact that many Christians of good will have admitted and have tried to atone for. They are trying to improve Christianity. Nobody but you has called me a hate-monger because nobody but you is in a state of denial in that area.

You have promoted hate against Islam because you ignore their record and cherry pick scurrilous statements probably from non-Islamic sources. Not only do you hate Islam but you don't care for Catholicism, you defend Calvin for killing Servetus and you call Bishop Spong who has tried to emphasise the love in your religion a heretic.

They have not criticised us equally as I have posted nothing but a truth that you prefer to deny.

I would also prefer to see girls dressing themselves as they want without meeting your demands of coverup or other demands that they exploit their sexuality. If they want to coverup, exploit their sexuality or make some other choice it should be their decision.

Dear Polycarp,

David has answered you beautifully.

I'm not going to continue to explain
things to you - you obviously don't
get what many people are trying to tell
you (including myself).

All I can say is - if you want things to
change on this Forum - you have to change.
You can't expect to keep doing what you're
doing, and get different results.

That's illogical.

Davidf:
"I would also prefer to see girls dressing themselves as they want without meeting your demands of coverup or other demands that they exploit their sexuality. If they want to coverup, exploit their sexuality or make some other choice it should be their decision."

I agree completely. While there are times I wish I could advise people (male as well female) that their choice in clothing is not at all flattering, it is not my place to do so. Instead I try to set an attractive and stylish example instead.

Point for EVO to consider regarding your mammary memories, female babies are breast fed too. Think about it.

I think I understand now. Thanks Bronwyn.

>>Far from being truly liberated, I see women today as more captive than ever to the dictates of fashion and to the need to dress in a way that wins them male approval<<

This is, suitably paraphrased, what every woman says to her man, in the seconds before she dives into yet another dress shop.

"I'm only doing this to make myself beautiful for you, dear", she says

"Oh, don't bother on my account," he says dutifully, looking around for the nearest pub that's showing the footy, "I think you are beautiful as you are".

"Oh, you're just saying that", she dimples, and disappears inside.

The reality is that they both know it's just a game.

She simply needs an excuse to buy a new dress (because that's what women do), and he is happy to play along, so long as she doesn't drag him in with her instead of letting him retreat to the pub.

Fashions have changed over the years, not so that increasing amounts of flesh may be shown, but to continue the commercial practice of selling attractive apparel to women who - by definition - like pretty clothes. I saw hemlines rise in the sixties, only to fall (to ground level, in fact) in the seventies. I've seen skin appear and disappear at different times, not through increased lasciviousness, but through the desire of clothing manufacturers to maintain their own personal "bottom line".

This female/male attractiveness thing is simply a convenient fiction.

It is maintained by all parties in order to keep domestic peace ("I suppose you'd rather I went round in a sack?") and to keep the rag-trade in business.

Fractelle! Woman check-out one another's breasts all the time,( but as a baby, its just food for all sexes ) and you know it. So you've never seen women size each other up? Some pay more attention than men do( regardless of clothing ) and more conscious of the physical based competition with ferocious consequences.

Polycarp. Its a wonder how you religious, breed at all! May I ask you, does the bible tell you how to have sex. I bet you don't answer this one. Is there a ritual you must follow and can you sin while you do it?

Fully cloth-en women in some nations, was very efficient, to safe-guard, to prevent misconduct and so forth. What you cant see, wont get you into trouble, and this was some of the thought,s all those thousands of out of date practice's ago.

Foxy is right! You need to change mate, or loose it altogether. I think the depth of your religion maybe doing you some harm.

Take it easy, and and chill out man!:)

EVO

Polycarp: <<I'm trying to explore a serious issue...and it must be misconceptions or apathy as to why not many are engaging.>>

You're wrong. It's certainly not apathy — the OLO community is actively engaged in questions of society, hence their presence on the board. It's not misconceptions either, whatever they might be — there are plenty of conceptions to be had about the issue and theoretically a lively conversation could ensue.

The reason that no one wants to engage on this issue with you is because of you. The fact that you couldn't answer my question demonstrates your remarkable lack of insight and perspicacity. You railroad yourself through the argument misunderstanding pretty much everyone, and forcing round arguments into the square holes of your laughable misreading of Christian and Muslim texts. It's shot through with your own idiotic brand of man=protector/women=nuturer bullsh!t.

It's really, really, really boring. It's not the conversation — to be honest, I find it interesting and wouldn't mind contributing to a thread on the topic. It is you.

You're a blind man who refuses to believe the world has colour and dimension. Once again, look within.

Very droll, Pericles!

Whether or not we dress to please ourselves or our men, we are, as you point out, as enslaved by the fashion industry as we ever were. I can't see that changing any time soon, but maybe one day it might.

As an individual, I still feel it's possible to resist that entrapment in several ways - shopping less for example, buying recycled, choosing classics and rejecting overpriced brand names.

The trend towards sexualised dressing, however, irrespective of who it's intended to please, is I think harder to separate from. Having the freedom to choose how much of ourselves we wish to reveal is all well and good. But when the trend to skimpiness becomes entrenched, as it now has - over several fashion cycles, it just makes the challenge for women - to be taken seriously and judged on their words and actions rather than their sex appeal - that much more difficult.

That's the reason I dislike the trend. It has nothing to do with religious or moral values. I just see it as demeaning to women. To me, it's just another way for those who want us there to keep us in our place.

Polycarp

"Well said Bronwyn... and much as it might erk some who probably delight in a degee of antagonism between myself and you.. we are in complete agreement, and.. dare I say..for the same reasons."

You and I occasionally find ourselves on the same side of a debate, Polycarp, but believe me it is always for VERY different reasons.

EVO

Sigh...

You have something in common with Poly/Boaz, he simply doesn't get it either that a fetish with breasts is part of our western culture. There are plenty of others (cultures) where breasts are either displayed openly or just not a major source of fascination. Yet all our world's cultures start life as babies and are (hopefully) breast fed.

Do you get the point now? Breast feeding has NOTHING to do with our view of the female body. It is a learned. Whether women are wrapped from head to foot in cloth or completely naked - it is always cultural. What is inherent and natural is to have an attraction to other people. Opposite sex if you're heterosexual, same sex if you're homosexual. I do believe that gay males were mostly breast fed also.

That you and people like Poly/Boaz can only evaluate from the narrow field your own biases is your misfortune.

Bronwyn wrote: "But when the trend to skimpiness becomes entrenched, as it now has - over several fashion cycles, it just makes the challenge for women - to be taken seriously and judged on their words and actions rather than their sex appeal - that much more difficult."

Why does one have to make a choice between taking a woman's words and actions seriously and judging her on her sex appeal? Why not consider the entire person? Dualism which is common in our society separates sacred and profane, mind and body, good and bad. I take my wife most seriously as she is thoughtful, original and intelligent. I also find her physically appealing. Neglecting either set of attributes in favour of the other would be a putdown.

Well" tell me this. Are women prepared to excepted the facts, that they play the sex card and( too their own double lives) take the low-down,(respect)because of attraction instead of true love or excepted dress codes, and other peoples expectations.. and your quite right!

This a very prickly situation", the which I don't want to get involved in for a number of reasons one being a male, that cant possibly understand the intricate workings of the female minds.

And I do have a wife! and she does have her own point of veiws

Be well.

EVO

I don't know if this will help...

A famous actress once said,

"I dress for women.

I undress for men!"

EVO

I really don't care whether you are married or celibate.

I do care, in the interests of intelligent discussion, that you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of anthropology, or even that women are visual creatures too.

Foxy

I applaud your continuing humour - it is much needed, thank you.

Well, one thing I have learnt, is never argue with a woman. The reason I jumped in with this crap, is the fact that this thread was and is going nowhere. so put your claws away!

EVO