Relationships Nowadays - Increasing passion, decreasing dedication

[Scrab22]

Hello,

 

I would like to share a thought thread with you.

Note that if you find a lack of knowledge in what I say, I will gladly accept a critique, but only if it's said well-mannered and fixed by the person (Don't lead me into reading books or "do some research" on my own. I believe in a social exchange of knowledge).

 

First of all the title says the point pretty much. I shall expand.

Passion - An increasing number of people are starting to wear more loose clothing. I don't think there's need to get into details. Both men and women are going with revealing and loose clothing, which accelerate passionate behavior.

 

Also, commercials and advertising - all contain sexual clothing, revealing body parts and sexual meanings. It also seems when joking, we immediately see a sexual perspective on almost anything nowadays.

 

I have an increasing hate for science because of this. I believe that research on human biology has led to accepting sexual behaviors because they're natural/real/fact. Science makes us increasingly see ourselves as animals, rather than moral, mindful human beings.

 

Weren't we once a race of mind? I know violence still occurred, along with rape or harassing, but prostitutes were very distinguishable from others. Now there's a lacking difference. More and more people are living with some sexuality in their heads - posing, talking, hanging out, etc sexually...

And what's bad about it? People are accepting it. Why is it bad? Not because sex is bad, but because a "sexual cloud" will wrap our minds, mindful relationships will decay from the world, the people will become increasingly instinctive, slowly turning them into animals (not necessarily wild and stupid), and diminishing all emotional depth that has ever existed..

 

I just read the following question on the internet:

Why do some women wear provocative/revealing clothing? If women don't want to be treated like objects, why do they dress in a sexually provocative way? - Quora

 

It's one of the questions that really bother me. But what bothers me more are the answers to it.

I will quote the top answer:

"Sexually appealing people have thoughts and feelings and rights and agency. Objects do not. Don't confuse the two."

True in a way, however the more you expose yourself the more sexuality will be triggered by the other side, preventing him from focusing on conversation, and further forcing him to initiate passionate moves such as embracing or kissing.

Not to mention the common cases of "why are you staring at my breasts?" or "pervert!".

Also, if you wear revealing cloths to be sexually appealing, then you want to be approached in a more sexual way, so you're gonna have to deal with some people staring at your body, and if you have a problem with it, remember it's eventually your problem.

We can take it further, saying that eventually it's the media's problem which advertises all those clothing to the "innocent", and further and further into God creating a fruit of knowledge to give an excuse for humanity's sins. But I won't enter that corner.

 

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scrab22

[Toodaloo]

The world does seem to be becoming more "sexualised" (if that is even a word).

 

It seems that more and more we are putting emphasis on looks and beauty rather than brains and achievement. When I was little we wanted to be doctors, firemen, nurses, lawyers etc when we grew up. These days kids seem to want to be singers and actors... They don't care as long as they are famous.

 

You only have to watch programmes like Big Brother etc to see it.

 

Perhaps that is the problem, TV...? Magazines?? More and more you see the simplest of things being advertised with a sexual context... You can't watch a soap at tea time with your kids with out someone being in bed with someone else...

 

It just feels as though you are battered with it sometimes.

 

I don't know why people bother with porn as you can get near enough on the music channels...

[Els]

This argument just introduces a false dichotomy. It's entirely possible for people to be both passionate and dedicated.

 

As a separate issue, problems do arise when it becomes socially acceptable for people to think only with their genitals and not with their rational mind. But really, you're going to blame 'loose clothing' for this?

[Scrab22]

I think there are people who are still into achievements.

However, most achievements you hear of are the ones that roll the money - business and hi-tech for instance.

I understand that my point is a false dichotomy in a way, but it was necessary in order to present one side as a whole.

 

I have just realized something.

Assuming high-demands - makes you laugh, charming, sexy, independent, successful.

Whenever a natural-emotional characteristic is mentioned or wanted, it seems they are the characteristics required for a successful 1st impression.

 

Most first impressions we hear of today are natural-emotional. Why can't we construct a relationship beginning with a mental or mindful approach?

 

And I pointed out "loose clothing" as an example. And it can be partially blamed. On one hand, it increases the sexual drive of the viewer. On the other hand, they can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. Even such small detail as clothing can be meaningful to relations.

[Discjockey80]

This is an excellent subject and one that we need to be aware of and keeping foremost in our minds all the more as things continue to decay.

 

 

As a Christian, this subject is all the more relevant to me as it reflects exactly what the Bible warns against and foretells is to continuously occur throughout history.

 

 

One of the amazing things that gets shunned by society is that in the Bible, with all of the warnings against adultery and such, it directs husbands and wives, in Corinthians, to essentially have sex and have it often and passionately. It sets up a situation by which a mindful, proper relationship can be built and laced with passion and sexuality. It also implies that its possible to purposefully choose to be sexual and passionate with our spouse. I find this is backed up by the couples who report that when they simply let their minds go there....it happens.

 

 

I say all this not to make it seem like people wont experience hardships or trials or bad marriages or relationships, but rather that there is a solution to safeguarding against all the crap that pervades our culture.

 

 

We are over sexualized and it's been a purposeful movement to do so to destroy our culture and way of life. Notice how anything that promotes morality is shunned and criticized in favor of that which promotes and encourages indiscriminate sexual behavior or an increasingly unhealthy nature. (Media, academia, etc.) I could go into what these forces are at greater length but this isn't the faith and spirituality board per say.

 

 

The false dichotomy comment above is right. They can be one and the same but there are those out there who don't want it to be.

[Shepp]

I have just realized something.

Assuming high-demands - makes you laugh, charming, sexy, independent, successful.

Whenever a natural-emotional characteristic is mentioned or wanted, it seems they are the characteristics required for a successful 1st impression.

 

Most first impressions we hear of today are natural-emotional. Why can't we construct a relationship beginning with a mental or mindful approach?

 

So instead of a girl who cracks you up you should be drawn to a girl with mental arithmetic skills?..

Each to there own an all but I'll take funny! What's life without funny!

[Scrab22]

Funny is fine. But most people put too much expectations in the emotions they want to receive. Of course the question of "What exact type of relationship do they want?" arises.

Anyways, think of the self-proclaimed not-easily-impressed "candidates".

They want to receive what they want (which they won't always tell), and when not impressed - dry interactions or just brush off.

This is a mark of lack of tolerance, patience, open mind...

 

But I'm not criticizing you, Shepp. Funny is good, but people expect too much from emotions, and should put a focus on the mind of the person. But that's for one type of relationship.

It's hard for me to express my point, also since it's a complicated subject.

But eventually it's each to his own. I just personally can't find someone who fits what I see as the right thing.

[serial muse]

 

Also, commercials and advertising - all contain sexual clothing, revealing body parts and sexual meanings. It also seems when joking, we immediately see a sexual perspective on almost anything nowadays.

 

I have an increasing hate for science because of this. I believe that research on human biology has led to accepting sexual behaviors because they're natural/real/fact. Science makes us increasingly see ourselves as animals, rather than moral, mindful human beings.

 

Weren't we once a race of mind? I know violence still occurred, along with rape or harassing, but prostitutes were very distinguishable from others. Now there's a lacking difference. More and more people are living with some sexuality in their heads - posing, talking, hanging out, etc sexually...

And what's bad about it? People are accepting it. Why is it bad? Not because sex is bad, but because a "sexual cloud" will wrap our minds, mindful relationships will decay from the world, the people will become increasingly instinctive, slowly turning them into animals (not necessarily wild and stupid), and diminishing all emotional depth that has ever existed..

 

I just read the following question on the internet:

Why do some women wear provocative/revealing clothing? If women don't want to be treated like objects, why do they dress in a sexually provocative way? - Quora

 

It's one of the questions that really bother me. But what bothers me more are the answers to it.

I will quote the top answer:

"Sexually appealing people have thoughts and feelings and rights and agency. Objects do not. Don't confuse the two."

True in a way, however the more you expose yourself the more sexuality will be triggered by the other side, preventing him from focusing on conversation, and further forcing him to initiate passionate moves such as embracing or kissing.

Not to mention the common cases of "why are you staring at my breasts?" or "pervert!".

Also, if you wear revealing cloths to be sexually appealing, then you want to be approached in a more sexual way, so you're gonna have to deal with some people staring at your body, and if you have a problem with it, remember it's eventually your problem.

We can take it further, saying that eventually it's the media's problem which advertises all those clothing to the "innocent", and further and further into God creating a fruit of knowledge to give an excuse for humanity's sins. But I won't enter that corner.

 

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

OK. Several things:

 

1. I don't think you can really logically make the argument that on the one hand, we are a race of mindful human beings, not animals - and then immediately turn around and suggest that a woman wearing loose clothing is enough to "force" a man to embrace or kiss her! (Because let's be clear, although you initially say it's both men and women wearing sexualized clothing, your real point appears to be that it causes men to lose control of themselves.) Really? That's all it takes for a man to lose his ability to be rational? How awful. You don't have much faith in men.

 

2. The historical perspective: I would also say that, although sexuality may be more acceptable in (Western) society at the moment than at other points in recent memory, we are hardly at a high-water mark. Science has nothing to do with it; it's a cyclical thing. There have always been repressive and permissive societies, back and forth, back and forth, to the dawn of civilization.

 

3. The gender perspective: I think the real difference is that at this moment we actually expect more from men, in the sense that loose clothing is not considered sufficient reason to assault a woman ("forcing" him to embrace and kiss her? ugh). Some may chafe at these newfangled restrictions but as a woman, I call this progress, and again, I think it expresses more, not less, faith in men in particular as rational human beings.

 

4. The science perspective: I'll just point out that while yes, we now understand our place in the evolutionary tree, we also understand that we are not chimps or gorillas or some other species. We happen to have extremely large brains and self-awareness is a part of that. Morality/social codes may also be an evolutionary advantage - we have created powerful, cohesive societies and as a result are the dominant species on the planet. The only reason to see ourselves as no different from other animals is if you want to justify acting like one when you see a woman in "loose" clothing. But then, one can find ways to justify just about anything, if you try hard enough.

 

TL;DR: Personal responsibility.

[braindamage]

I have an increasing hate for science because of this. I believe that research on human biology has led to accepting sexual behaviors because they're natural/real/fact. Science makes us increasingly see ourselves as animals, rather than moral, mindful human beings.

 

Really huh? Do you really think people read 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and then suddenly decide to dress scandidly and engage in indiscriminate sex or something?

[OpenBook]

1. I don't think you can really logically make the argument that on the one hand, we are a race of mindful human beings, not animals - and then immediately turn around and suggest that a woman wearing loose clothing is enough to "force" a man to embrace or kiss her! (Because let's be clear, although you initially say it's both men and women wearing sexualized clothing, your real point appears to be that it causes men to lose control of themselves.) Really? That's all it takes for a man to lose his ability to be rational? How awful. You don't have much faith in men.

 

Agreed. This logic is used by the Taliban to support their decree that all women should wear the burqa. And in any society where rape victims are blamed for provoking their attackers. It essentially transfers the male's responsibility for their own sexuality onto women ("She MADE me do it"). Real nice. :sick:

[Maleficent]

Also, if you wear revealing cloths to be sexually appealing, then you want to be approached in a more sexual way, so you're gonna have to deal with some people staring at your body, and if you have a problem with it, remember it's eventually your problem.

 

 

The problem isn't with women - it's with people who think like this.

 

Besides the only way a women can dress in something that isn't considered 'sexual' is by wearing sweatpants and a wolf shirt three sizes too large.

[Priv]

The problem isn't with women - it's with people who think like this.

 

Besides the only way a women can dress in something that isn't considered 'sexual' is by wearing sweatpants and a wolf shirt three sizes too large.

 

Couldn't agree more. You magnificant creatures you!

 

 

Weren't we once a race of mind? I know violence still occurred, along with rape or harassing, but prostitutes were very distinguishable from others. Now there's a lacking difference.

 

 

Where do you get this idea? Women throughout history were considered spoils of war, and still are fair game in many of today's conflicts (many of these women dress proper, burka's for example). And rape is a relatively recent crime. You really had to go out of your way for rape to be considered a crime and be prosecuted for it. That

s probably something that is only changing this/last century. And the sad thing is that even now, though thankfully in less and less cases, conservative judges are thinking the same thing as you. Dressed like a 'whore' she was asking for it. For a 'race of mind' we sure knew/know how to live it up with these properly dressed women. I don't see much enlightened morality in our history. So in that light, I kinda like the top answer. But I am an ogre and like scantily clad women and do like to stare and feel no guilt about that whatsoever

[Els]

Most first impressions we hear of today are natural-emotional. Why can't we construct a relationship beginning with a mental or mindful approach?

 

Such relationships absolutely do exist, even if they might not be the majority. It's also fallacious to assume that people of the past 'constructed relationships based on a mindful approach'. There were still plenty of men choosing women based on their appearance, and plenty of women choosing men based on the lifestyle they could bring them. Or, depending on how far back and which cultures you are talking about, they didn't 'construct relationships' at all, their parents simply picked their partners for them.

 

True in a way, however the more you expose yourself the more sexuality will be triggered by the other side, preventing him from focusing on conversation, and further forcing him to initiate passionate moves such as embracing or kissing.

Not to mention the common cases of "why are you staring at my breasts?" or "pervert!".

Also, if you wear revealing cloths to be sexually appealing, then you want to be approached in a more sexual way, so you're gonna have to deal with some people staring at your body, and if you have a problem with it, remember it's eventually your problem.

____

 

And I pointed out "loose clothing" as an example. And it can be partially blamed. On one hand, it increases the sexual drive of the viewer.

I don't understand how you can lament the 'lack of a mindful approach' in one breath and then say this in the next. If we are championing a 'mindful approach', why are we now defending animalistic behaviour as something that 'can't be helped'? Or is there only a need for one gender to approach everything in a 'mindful manner', while the other gets a free pass to behave like an animal?

[Scrab22]

Yesterday I had a discussion about the subject with a close friend of mine and he brought me some insight. I am still in question with myself, it's a very complicated subject which can have many perspectives upon.

In the meantime I will respond.

 

OK. Several things:

 

1. I don't think you can really logically make the argument that on the one hand, we are a race of mindful human beings, not animals - and then immediately turn around and suggest that a woman wearing loose clothing is enough to "force" a man to embrace or kiss her! (Because let's be clear, although you initially say it's both men and women wearing sexualized clothing, your real point appears to be that it causes men to lose control of themselves.) Really? That's all it takes for a man to lose his ability to be rational? How awful. You don't have much faith in men.

 

2. The historical perspective: I would also say that, although sexuality may be more acceptable in (Western) society at the moment than at other points in recent memory, we are hardly at a high-water mark. Science has nothing to do with it; it's a cyclical thing. There have always been repressive and permissive societies, back and forth, back and forth, to the dawn of civilization.

 

3. The gender perspective: I think the real difference is that at this moment we actually expect more from men, in the sense that loose clothing is not considered sufficient reason to assault a woman ("forcing" him to embrace and kiss her? ugh). Some may chafe at these newfangled restrictions but as a woman, I call this progress, and again, I think it expresses more, not less, faith in men in particular as rational human beings.

 

4. The science perspective: I'll just point out that while yes, we now understand our place in the evolutionary tree, we also understand that we are not chimps or gorillas or some other species. We happen to have extremely large brains and self-awareness is a part of that. Morality/social codes may also be an evolutionary advantage - we have created powerful, cohesive societies and as a result are the dominant species on the planet. The only reason to see ourselves as no different from other animals is if you want to justify acting like one when you see a woman in "loose" clothing. But then, one can find ways to justify just about anything, if you try hard enough.

 

TL;DR: Personal responsibility.

 

1. I'm still working on expressing my thoughts.

My point was that sometimes clothing can show your purpose.

OK, I call for a change. Let's change "loose" to "sexual", as in sexual clothing. If someone wants to look attractive in clothing/makeup, then it's attracting through external sexual means. My point wasn't that men have no control. My point was that in a place where people relay on sexual attraction, there can be a lacking of self-control, because a sexual drive is something sub-conscious that in a way diverts us from other matters.

Like having a relationship with a "bad person", and with time having the conclusion that all this relationship was about sex, and then ending it.

It's just an example, don't flame me.

 

2. My close friend told me that our sex drive has always been the same. The only different things are how much it's repressed, and how people view the concept. So I understand this point.

 

3. Wearing loose clothing marks for more faith since you feel comfortable wearing it on a regular basis. Understandable perspective.

Well, personally I don't need sexual clothing in a woman in order to find her a suitable partner for me. For me it's enough to have modest clothing and a deep and an accepting personality, although my primary goal is a deep and rich personality.

 

4. "...is if you want to justify acting like one when you see a woman in "loose" clothing. But then, one can find ways to justify just about anything, if you try hard enough"

Exactly! I haven't mentioned this, but it's true. People are using science or nature general knowledge in order to justify some behaviors. And this can be a problem when one justifies rape, breaking up, divorcing and fighting people for a woman - for instance.

 

Really huh? Do you really think people read 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' and then suddenly decide to dress scandidly and engage in indiscriminate sex or something?

 

Perhaps not much by reading those types of books. As I've mentioned in my 1st response, sometimes cloths can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. But people use general knowledge from science about human nature to justify some habits.

 

Agreed. This logic is used by the Taliban to support their decree that all women should wear the burqa. And in any society where rape victims are blamed for provoking their attackers. It essentially transfers the male's responsibility for their own sexuality onto women ("She MADE me do it"). Real nice. :sick:

 

That is an inconsiderate behavior, but I assume not all in such social group think in the way of "she made me do it".

It really depends on the mentality. For them, there is a huge different between a Burqa, and a miniskirt+undershirt when it comes to revealing yourself. If one behaves normally around one type of attraction, adding x amount of attraction will add to lack of control. If in the western world we're used to mild-revealing clothing, and they're used in the same way as we are to hiding clothing, then it's no wonder the huge x variable in how much difference there is in sexual attraction causes rape.

 

The problem isn't with women - it's with people who think like this.

 

Besides the only way a women can dress in something that isn't considered 'sexual' is by wearing sweatpants and a wolf shirt three sizes too large.

 

You're entering a bad personal level saying "it's with people who think like this".

Question before you make such claim about me. If you think I'm wrong, explain your point of view. This is the only way to reach fair conclusions and compromises in a well-mannered way. We're here to think together, there can't be one person right about such a complicated subject.

 

I wonder something very simple. If we are self-conscious enough to (an extreme example) not rape someone who wears revealing clothing, then what would happen if we were all walking the streets nude? How much self-control would we have in such situation?

"Unacceptable" is only in a social group, but norms can always change, as they have through time.

 

I just want to make a point to all of you. "Loose clothing" was an example. Even though I wrote allot about it, doesn't mean it's the whole point.

I even mentioned it in my 1st response:

"And I pointed out "loose clothing" as an example. And it can be partially blamed. On one hand, it increases the sexual drive of the viewer. On the other hand, they can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. Even such small detail as clothing can be meaningful to relations."

 

Edit: Was posted before the last two posts. I Read them.

Cristo - You're right about women not having a moral compass in some rape cases, but I believe there are some women who also have a moral compass. There are not a small number of men who also don't have a moral compass. Yes, it's a huge change in events. It's one way to see that repressing prevents some of the chaos today from occuring.

Priv - I didn't say I'm the kind of guy who would sentence every single woman with revealing clothing. My point was that it greatly alters the concepts of relationships. And as someone who feels like he came from a time with less emphasis on sexual attraction, I personally find the present situation disappointing.

Elswyth - I know it still existed. In everyplace where there is white, then will be even a tiny amount of black to complete the area. Vice versa, too. I'm not saying things were completely mindful.

And the parents picking their partners for them is good insight that I will think of. Thanks.

As for the other response to one of my quotes, I've answered to serial muse.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Scrab22

[braindamage]

Perhaps not much by reading those types of books. As I've mentioned in my 1st response, sometimes cloths can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. But people use general knowledge from science about human nature to justify some habits.

 

Well that is their faulty logic - you can't blame that on science. And also not on girls wearing short skirts for that matter.

[Maleficent]

 

 

You're entering a bad personal level saying "it's with people who think like this".

Question before you make such claim about me. If you think I'm wrong, explain your point of view. This is the only way to reach fair conclusions and compromises in a well-mannered way. We're here to think together, there can't be one person right about such a complicated subject.

 

I wonder something very simple. If we are self-conscious enough to (an extreme example) not rape someone who wears revealing clothing, then what would happen if we were all walking the streets nude? How much self-control would we have in such situation?

"Unacceptable" is only in a social group, but norms can always change, as they have through time.

 

.

 

 

 

 

Well, I'm not saying you are personally responsible for the problem but if you truly believe the problem is with women, then you are definitely part of what is encouraging the problem because you are blaming person A for person's B's behaviour.

 

 

So I will answer your simple question with a simple question.

 

 

Are there more rapes in nudist settings (beaches, party, BBQs whatever)?

No...

That's the kind of self control expected.

 

 

And I'm pretty sure that whatever the social setting, it's unacceptable to inappropriately touch someone without their permission.

[Shepp]

Funny is fine. But most people put too much expectations in the emotions they want to receive. Of course the question of "What exact type of relationship do they want?" arises.

Anyways, think of the self-proclaimed not-easily-impressed "candidates".

They want to receive what they want (which they won't always tell), and when not impressed - dry interactions or just brush off.

This is a mark of lack of tolerance, patience, open mind...

 

But I'm not criticizing you, Shepp. Funny is good, but people expect too much from emotions, and should put a focus on the mind of the person. But that's for one type of relationship.

It's hard for me to express my point, also since it's a complicated subject.

But eventually it's each to his own. I just personally can't find someone who fits what I see as the right thing.

 

I get that, I think, but "What exact type of relationship do they want?" is going to be different for everyone. No ones perfect after all, im certainly not but I still think I could live my life out happier with a girl who lacked tolerance than one who lacked humour. Picking a mate is after all a very personal thing! If everyone liked the same thing life would be pretty boring!

[Scrab22]

Well that is their faulty logic - you can't blame that on science. And also not on girls wearing short skirts for that matter.

 

True, not all girls wear short skirts.

It just that due to scientific discoveries of the human nature, it leaves a means to justify some behaviors today that were considered wrong, probably because there was no way to justify them.

 

Well, I'm not saying you are personally responsible for the problem but if you truly believe the problem is with women, then you are definitely part of what is encouraging the problem because you are blaming person A for person's B's behaviour.

 

 

So I will answer your simple question with a simple question.

 

 

Are there more rapes in nudist settings (beaches, party, BBQs whatever)?

No...

That's the kind of self control expected.

 

 

And I'm pretty sure that whatever the social setting, it's unacceptable to inappropriately touch someone without their permission.

 

As I've mentioned, media, commercials and advertising also play a role in how "society" behaves. Since most people are quite easily influenced by media (at least the most bold media), this can be one of the reasons.

Great point about nudist zones, I haven't thought of that.

And yes, touching someone without permission is bad. It's a sign of aggression.

[todreaminblue]

Originally Posted by Scrab22

Weren't we once a race of mind? I know violence still occurred, along with rape or harassing, but prostitutes were very distinguishable from others. Now there's a lacking difference.

 

 

please explain this comment scrab22....before i make any assumptions on what you are implying....can you explain why ...you feel prostitutes needed a mention in the first place......deb

[bunnyboileri]

I love chocolate but I don't ever go in a shop grabbing chocolate because its there. Restraint.

[serial muse]

True, not all girls wear short skirts.

It just that due to scientific discoveries of the human nature, it leaves a means to justify some behaviors today that were considered wrong, probably because there was no way to justify them.

 

But there are very repressive groups that feel it's acceptable to entirely silence women because the mere sound of their voices drives men to commit lewd acts. My point is that when it comes to what behaviors or social norms are considered sexualized, the goalpost is always moving. And that's regardless of our knowledge of science - the one consistency is that people committing aggressive acts are looking for external rather than internal factors to blame.

 

In the end, the issue really is that women should not be held responsible for the acts of men. They just should not. People should be responsible for their own actions, and that's just all there is to it. Nobody "forces" anybody to an aggressive act or a lewd one. It's a choice; it has always been a choice. Blaming "science" is just seeking another convenient scapegoat for a bad choice.

[StanMusial]

I would argue that what you lament is not real passion. More likely just lustful attitudes.

[Got it]

Hello,

 

I would like to share a thought thread with you.

Note that if you find a lack of knowledge in what I say, I will gladly accept a critique, but only if it's said well-mannered and fixed by the person (Don't lead me into reading books or "do some research" on my own. I believe in a social exchange of knowledge).

 

First of all the title says the point pretty much. I shall expand.

Passion - An increasing number of people are starting to wear more loose clothing. I don't think there's need to get into details. Both men and women are going with revealing and loose clothing, which accelerate passionate behavior.

 

Also, commercials and advertising - all contain sexual clothing, revealing body parts and sexual meanings. It also seems when joking, we immediately see a sexual perspective on almost anything nowadays.

 

I have an increasing hate for science because of this. I believe that research on human biology has led to accepting sexual behaviors because they're natural/real/fact. Science makes us increasingly see ourselves as animals, rather than moral, mindful human beings.

 

Weren't we once a race of mind? I know violence still occurred, along with rape or harassing, but prostitutes were very distinguishable from others. Now there's a lacking difference. More and more people are living with some sexuality in their heads - posing, talking, hanging out, etc sexually...

And what's bad about it? People are accepting it. Why is it bad? Not because sex is bad, but because a "sexual cloud" will wrap our minds, mindful relationships will decay from the world, the people will become increasingly instinctive, slowly turning them into animals (not necessarily wild and stupid), and diminishing all emotional depth that has ever existed..

 

I just read the following question on the internet:

Why do some women wear provocative/revealing clothing? If women don't want to be treated like objects, why do they dress in a sexually provocative way? - Quora

 

It's one of the questions that really bother me. But what bothers me more are the answers to it.

I will quote the top answer:

"Sexually appealing people have thoughts and feelings and rights and agency. Objects do not. Don't confuse the two."

True in a way, however the more you expose yourself the more sexuality will be triggered by the other side, preventing him from focusing on conversation, and further forcing him to initiate passionate moves such as embracing or kissing.

Not to mention the common cases of "why are you staring at my breasts?" or "pervert!".

Also, if you wear revealing cloths to be sexually appealing, then you want to be approached in a more sexual way, so you're gonna have to deal with some people staring at your body, and if you have a problem with it, remember it's eventually your problem.

We can take it further, saying that eventually it's the media's problem which advertises all those clothing to the "innocent", and further and further into God creating a fruit of knowledge to give an excuse for humanity's sins. But I won't enter that corner.

 

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

I think you are strongly underestimating the sexual objectifying of women that does not correlate to how much or little of clothing. It has been going on for decades and the more society controls a woman's sexual being the more controls there are on society.

 

In other words, you are strongly underestimating the sexual appeal of an ankle, for the 18th century man, and pin up girl for the 1940's.

 

Sexuality was there, and is there, however much a person's body is on display. You also see where women are covered completely up so as to control man's sexual urges.

 

Why is the woman, the object, for the other person's sexual urges and actions?

[Got it]

OK. Several things:

 

1. I don't think you can really logically make the argument that on the one hand, we are a race of mindful human beings, not animals - and then immediately turn around and suggest that a woman wearing loose clothing is enough to "force" a man to embrace or kiss her! (Because let's be clear, although you initially say it's both men and women wearing sexualized clothing, your real point appears to be that it causes men to lose control of themselves.) Really? That's all it takes for a man to lose his ability to be rational? How awful. You don't have much faith in men.

 

2. The historical perspective: I would also say that, although sexuality may be more acceptable in (Western) society at the moment than at other points in recent memory, we are hardly at a high-water mark. Science has nothing to do with it; it's a cyclical thing. There have always been repressive and permissive societies, back and forth, back and forth, to the dawn of civilization.

 

3. The gender perspective: I think the real difference is that at this moment we actually expect more from men, in the sense that loose clothing is not considered sufficient reason to assault a woman ("forcing" him to embrace and kiss her? ugh). Some may chafe at these newfangled restrictions but as a woman, I call this progress, and again, I think it expresses more, not less, faith in men in particular as rational human beings.

 

4. The science perspective: I'll just point out that while yes, we now understand our place in the evolutionary tree, we also understand that we are not chimps or gorillas or some other species. We happen to have extremely large brains and self-awareness is a part of that. Morality/social codes may also be an evolutionary advantage - we have created powerful, cohesive societies and as a result are the dominant species on the planet. The only reason to see ourselves as no different from other animals is if you want to justify acting like one when you see a woman in "loose" clothing. But then, one can find ways to justify just about anything, if you try hard enough.

 

TL;DR: Personal responsibility.

 

Brilliant!!!

[Got it]

Yesterday I had a discussion about the subject with a close friend of mine and he brought me some insight. I am still in question with myself, it's a very complicated subject which can have many perspectives upon.

In the meantime I will respond.

 

 

 

1. I'm still working on expressing my thoughts.

My point was that sometimes clothing can show your purpose.

OK, I call for a change. Let's change "loose" to "sexual", as in sexual clothing. If someone wants to look attractive in clothing/makeup, then it's attracting through external sexual means. My point wasn't that men have no control. My point was that in a place where people relay on sexual attraction, there can be a lacking of self-control, because a sexual drive is something sub-conscious that in a way diverts us from other matters.

Like having a relationship with a "bad person", and with time having the conclusion that all this relationship was about sex, and then ending it.

It's just an example, don't flame me.

 

2. My close friend told me that our sex drive has always been the same. The only different things are how much it's repressed, and how people view the concept. So I understand this point.

 

3. Wearing loose clothing marks for more faith since you feel comfortable wearing it on a regular basis. Understandable perspective.

Well, personally I don't need sexual clothing in a woman in order to find her a suitable partner for me. For me it's enough to have modest clothing and a deep and an accepting personality, although my primary goal is a deep and rich personality.

 

4. "...is if you want to justify acting like one when you see a woman in "loose" clothing. But then, one can find ways to justify just about anything, if you try hard enough"

Exactly! I haven't mentioned this, but it's true. People are using science or nature general knowledge in order to justify some behaviors. And this can be a problem when one justifies rape, breaking up, divorcing and fighting people for a woman - for instance.

 

 

 

Perhaps not much by reading those types of books. As I've mentioned in my 1st response, sometimes cloths can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. But people use general knowledge from science about human nature to justify some habits.

 

 

 

That is an inconsiderate behavior, but I assume not all in such social group think in the way of "she made me do it".

It really depends on the mentality. For them, there is a huge different between a Burqa, and a miniskirt+undershirt when it comes to revealing yourself. If one behaves normally around one type of attraction, adding x amount of attraction will add to lack of control. If in the western world we're used to mild-revealing clothing, and they're used in the same way as we are to hiding clothing, then it's no wonder the huge x variable in how much difference there is in sexual attraction causes rape.

 

 

 

You're entering a bad personal level saying "it's with people who think like this".

Question before you make such claim about me. If you think I'm wrong, explain your point of view. This is the only way to reach fair conclusions and compromises in a well-mannered way. We're here to think together, there can't be one person right about such a complicated subject.

 

I wonder something very simple. If we are self-conscious enough to (an extreme example) not rape someone who wears revealing clothing, then what would happen if we were all walking the streets nude? How much self-control would we have in such situation?

"Unacceptable" is only in a social group, but norms can always change, as they have through time.

 

I just want to make a point to all of you. "Loose clothing" was an example. Even though I wrote allot about it, doesn't mean it's the whole point.

I even mentioned it in my 1st response:

"And I pointed out "loose clothing" as an example. And it can be partially blamed. On one hand, it increases the sexual drive of the viewer. On the other hand, they can be worn innocently due to media, causing misunderstandings. Even such small detail as clothing can be meaningful to relations."

 

Edit: Was posted before the last two posts. I Read them.

Cristo - You're right about women not having a moral compass in some rape cases, but I believe there are some women who also have a moral compass. There are not a small number of men who also don't have a moral compass. Yes, it's a huge change in events. It's one way to see that repressing prevents some of the chaos today from occuring.

Priv - I didn't say I'm the kind of guy who would sentence every single woman with revealing clothing. My point was that it greatly alters the concepts of relationships. And as someone who feels like he came from a time with less emphasis on sexual attraction, I personally find the present situation disappointing.

Elswyth - I know it still existed. In everyplace where there is white, then will be even a tiny amount of black to complete the area. Vice versa, too. I'm not saying things were completely mindful.

And the parents picking their partners for them is good insight that I will think of. Thanks.

As for the other response to one of my quotes, I've answered to serial muse.

 

Umm, you better have full control! We do not have rights to supercede our wants/desires onto another human being against their wishes. Period. Full Stop.

 

Your thoughts, your desires, your actions, your problem. Your control.

 

Why is this hard to understand? Do you feel that these things conjure up a right or privilege to act on them?