reply to post by Biliverdin
Please back this up with said scientific and empirical evidence.
There's a recent thread that somewhat touches upon this question: why do men commit rape? Primarily, of course, because they're amoral; secondarily,
out of sheer sexual frustration.
In any case, you're in a position in which you need to posit something without any evidence to support it: that a mans biological response to a
woman's beauty - or toplessness, or even more, to the fact that nature has designed man as the sex which courts the other, could be 'wiped clean' -
eliminated - by "desensitization".
They 'subscribe' to? That would be about right, it is a choice, or rather an aspect of nurture, it is not hardwired as you are trying to imply.
It is completely hardwired.
Imposing rules does not change thought processes, it merely penalises them.
Excuse me, but that makes no sense. If one put up guards, i.e. laws, or rules, then one can remove the intensity of the impediment in question. True,
it does not "change" thought forms, but it limits their intensity and ability in dictating inimical behavior patterns.
If a woman for example covers her chest area, I will think less sexual thoughts than if she were completely exposed.
To ignore this is radical; it's to assume - which entails experimentation, of course - that there is no concrete connection between the impression of
a naked female body and the emotional effect it produces in the other sex, who, mind you, is programmed by nature to be aroused upon such a visual.
Also, as a I mentioned before, there is a correlation between covering and sexual arousal; the 'tension' in keeping hidden and private those parts
associated with personal function (a woman's breasts, which she uses to feed her child, is a personal and intimate thing) and the furtive desire to
see a woman's (or mans) naked body, is part of what makes sex so thrilling; as said, the ancient discerned that a woman's sphere of power is the
private, whereas the mans sphere of power is the public; the tension between these two states is what produces life's scintillating experiences.
To just do away with these archetypal differentiations, would severely dampen the intensity of rapprochement. It would make life intensely boring, and
dull. Hence, Differentiation is wonderful.. Differences between the sexes, rules of garb, etc - all adds to the intensity of living.
There is nothing moral about denying women the freedom to feed their children in public because it may offend others, or arouse them.
Why would a woman even want to feed in public?? That's what I would like to know.
If she wants to sit under a tree in a private area to suckle her child, I find nothing wrong with that. If, on the hand, she desires to breast feed on
a public bench, I can help but wonder "why"?? Is she trying to make a public statement? Is she politicizing her motherhood?
That's your problem, not the woman's. Deal with it.
How very mature of you. You would like me to acknowledge your 'rights' - your right to dress as you want - but you refuse to recognize my rights i.e.
my PERSONAL i.e. intellectual and moral rights, i.e. my right to be from external compulsion. Were not talking about something equivocal; there is no
uncertainty about the effect a woman's nakedness has on a mans mind; it's known, hence, we devise methods to free our thoughts from the external
compulsion of sexual arousal.
Well if it is natural while feel the need to conceal it?
You don't read very much, do you? Read Hegel, for example. There are values, ethical values, values ennobled primarily in the Jewish tradition, which
cannot be preserved unless the mind preserve it's freedom by choosing - not by external impetus - but by internal freedom, how it would like to live.
Nature may have made man this way, but it also gave man the power of reason - the ability to know the effect nature has on a mans freedom of will.
I see men walking around topless all the time, in the summer that is, and I can control my 'impulse',
That's because the female response to the sight of a mans exposed chest is not the same in its intensity - and frequency (i.e. not all females are as
sexually sensitive as you may be) as it is in men. But I suppose you will argue this as well
ame goes for a matriarchy while we're at it. I prefer progress and equality.
The idea of patriarchy and matriarchy - what do you think is implied by that? It's a basic dualism; it's either one or the other - there is no 'in
between'; there is only whats called a 'patriarchal' society, which is the standard traditional cultures of the west, and there are 'matriarchal'
societies, which were popular in pre-christian times.
In any case, it's not an exact formula; it really refers to a METAPHYSICAL attitude of the culture in question, rather than a particular mode of
You can preserve that if that is what you want, your choice of spouse, the way you both raise your children...beyond that, you have to learn to live
with the rights and freedoms that others have.
And you seem to not care that the values I would seek to imbue in my child could not exist in a society in which a bare breasted woman was a normal
sight. It wouldn't happen; the unconscious effect of that sight would prime him towards a totally different philosophical attitude in life - i.e the
one society inculcates by crystallizing that formality in law.
The natural state always has primacy - but it's not right, because nature is in itself immoral - or rather, morally neutral. Thus, we cannot derive
moral advice from nature.
Man's unique device is his ability to IMPOSE law and order on the chaos of nature.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason