I'm suggesting that the pregnant body of a woman isn't meant to be beautiful, and yes, I don't consider that picture of Serena to be beautiful, but rather ugly. Why is it ugly? A combination of factors, including the fact that the pregnant body is used as if it were meant to be beautiful in order to send a political message. I don't consider this to be art at all.

Now there's nothing wrong with the pregnant body, it has its own symbolism and meaning to offer, but it's not in beauty, but rather in nourishment, protection, etc. I think a picture like this just defames that. — Agustino

This is just a guess not an assumption so please do not take it that way but my guess is you have never contributed to the creation of a child. There are hopes and dreams created through the 10 lunar months that your partner is pregnant that enamor you with the upcoming birth of a part of you, blended with part of your partner. That actually translates to an appreciation of the beauty of a woman when she is literally carrying your baby. At times men will wonder if the pregnant woman in their home is actually the same woman he married because co-habituating a body is a pretty magnificent and creepy feeling all at the same time, something a man could never understand. But in the glow of the pending addition to your life, a pregnant woman could not be more beautiful.
So maybe it comes down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially in the creation of another human but I think that pregnant women are beautiful simply because the glow of life that shows in their whole being.

This is just a guess not an assumption so please do not take it that way but my guess is you have never contributed to the creation of a child. There are hopes and dreams created through the 10 lunar months that your partner is pregnant that enamor you with the upcoming birth of a part of you, blended with part of your partner. That actually translates to an appreciation of the beauty of a woman when she is literally carrying your baby. At times men will wonder if the pregnant woman in their home is actually the same woman he married because co-habituating a body is a pretty magnificent and creepy feeling all at the same time. But in the glow of the pending addition to your life, a pregnant woman could not be more beautiful.
So maybe it comes down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially in the creation of another human but I think that pregnant women are beautiful simply because the glow of life that shows in their whole being. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, I don't have any children, so you're quite correct about that. I certainly agree with all this, and I hope I haven't given you the impression that I don't. But all this is something very different from what that picture illustrates. I think what that picture illustrates is quite defaming of what you're saying right here, in that it obscures these elements, rather than showing them.

Basically I think sexual attraction is mimetic in nature (most of the time), whereas beauty is something independent of social standards. Sexual attraction occurs largely because other people are attracted to the person in question. In rare cases it occurs because of love.

I think what that picture illustrates is quite defaming of what you're saying right here, in that it obscures these elements, rather than showing them. — Agustino

What about that picture is defaming?

And why is it "political"?

What about that picture is defaming? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The fact that it doesn't illustrate the non-physical beauty that you're speaking of. It's not an image which arouses in you feelings of the glow and beauty of a newly created life. Neither does it illustrate the bond between mother and child, or between mother and father for that matter.

And why is it "political"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Because Serena is doing this just to show she is PROUD of her pregnant body and isn't ashamed of showing it out in the open for all to see. It's part of a political movement aimed at normalising public displays of intimate matters, as if such things were meant to be put on public display. To me, this is quite sickening.

Sexual attraction occurs largely because other people are attracted to the person in question. — Agustino

The phenomenon you are citing has more to do with status and competition than sexual attraction. Sex appeal has a very real basis in biology.

Sex appeal has a very real basis in biology. — geospiza

I am skeptical of this. Yes, it does have a basis in biology, but that doesn't play as big of a role as we're often made to think it does.

The fact that it doesn't illustrate the non-physical beauty that you're speaking of. It's not an image which arouses in you feelings of the glow and beauty of a newly created life. Neither does it illustrate the bond between mother and child, or between mother and father for that matter.

And why is it "political"? — Because Serena is doing this just to show she is PROUD of her pregnant body and isn't ashamed of showing it out in the open for all to see. It's part of a political movement aimed at normalising public displays of intimate matters, as if such things were meant to be put on public display. To me, this is quite sickening. — Agustino

Do you understand the miracle of the birth of a human? I mean Dude, this has little to do with politics but rather the ability to love living life at every stage, which for a woman can include pregnancy. If you don't find it attractive and find obscure reasons to justify your perspective, you are inferring something that is just not in the picture. She and women around the world are imploring women, to accept the beauty of THIER bodies, not the ones who air brushed down two sizes to a level of anorexia that often stops the ability for the woman to even conceive a baby.

muttering.....talk about objectification at an empirical level (N)

but rather the ability to love living life at every stage, which for a woman can include pregnancy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Okay, what does this ability have to do with publicly showing your naked body while you're pregnant? :s

She and women around the world are imploring women, to accept the beauty of THIER bodies — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Which is another stupid thing. Some women aren't physically beautiful, that's not the end of the world. It's not even a big thing. There's much more important things than physical beauty. Her "way" of dealing with this is telling them a lie - "hurr hurr you're already beautiful" - oh really? Rather than teaching them that the most important beauty consists in being virtuous, they teach them that they already have a beautiful body even while it's false, and reality will show them that it is false sooner or later, and they will be miserable, because they put their money on something that is corruptible and can be lost (physical beauty).

I am skeptical of this. Yes, it does have a basis in biology, but that doesn't play as big of a role as we're often made to think it does. — Agustino

No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response.

No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response. — geospiza

lololol
mods feel free to delete

No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response. — geospiza

It's a biological response that is culturally and psychologically mediated. You can train yourself not to get a boner, except at command (I have done that for example). What you find sexually attractive is also culturally mediated by what others find sexually attractive. If you see this smoking hot girl followed by 5 guys salivating after her, then chances are you'll be very sexually attracted to her. If you saw that girl alone, then you'd be less attracted to her than otherwise, but still attracted to her if she meets the image that society has projected of an attractive woman.

Which is another stupid thing. Some women aren't physically beautiful, that's not the end of the world. It's not even a big thing. There's much more important things than physical beauty. Her "way" of dealing with this is telling them a lie - "hurr hurr you're already beautiful" - oh really? Rather than teaching them that the most important beauty consists in being virtuous, they teach them that they already have a beautiful body even while it's false, and reality will show them that it is false sooner or later, and they will be miserable, because they put their money on something that is corruptible and can be lost (physical beauty). — Agustino

Do you have a heart in there Agustino? Holy cannoli! Who are you to suggest what is and isn't a GOOD POSITIVE movement to bring the reality to a woman's body as it morphs over life?

Do you have a heart in there Agustino? Holy cannoli! Who are you to suggest what is and isn't a GOOD POSITIVE movement to bring the reality to a woman's body as it morphs over life? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well who are you to suggest the opposite? :s

And I don't understand what you mean by "bring the reality to a woman's body as it morphs over life"? Isn't her body already real as it is, why do you need to "bring the reality" to it?

And by the way, I think people like her have no heart. Because they teach girls who are not beautiful to act as if they are, and prepare them to be heartbroken and disappointed over and over again, instead of teaching them that physical beauty isn't that important in the first place, and they should find a man who values them for their moral character rather than for things which can be lost, like physical beauty.

why do you need to "bring the reality" to it? — Agustino

Because there are people in this world, one that I have been interacting with for the last hour, that suggests that some men are making an active choice to keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires.

that suggests that some men are making an active choice to keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Is a good woman one who benefits herself, or who benefits her man? I like to go to the doctor who most benefits me, not who benefits himself, I don't know about you. So since when would it be wrong for men to be important in setting up the ideal of what a woman should be? And the opposite is also true - a good man is one who most benefits his woman, not himself. Hence the standard of what a good man is should be set by women.

Also I am a bit puzzled at what exactly you refer to by "keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires" - what objectification level are you even talking about?

It's a biological response that is culturally and psychologically mediated. — Agustino

This is a secondary effect.

And the opposite is also true - a good man is one who most benefits his woman, not himself. — Agustino

I guess that depends on whether he is a man's man, or a ladies' man.

Agustino, You need to slow down on your edits to your posts otherwise my responses appear obscure.

I must respectfully bow out as I need to go inventory ugggg
Have a good day Agustino~ I enjoyed our debate

Okay no worries! :) Take care!

Thank heavens there is at least one woman here to keep things grounded.

Because Serena is doing this just to show she is PROUD of her pregnant body and isn't ashamed of showing it out in the open for all to see. It's part of a political movement aimed at normalising public displays of intimate matters, as if such things were meant to be put on public display. To me, this is quite sickening. — Agustino

Aren't you a part of a political movement aimed at vilifying public displays of the female form?

You find public displays of the female/pregnant body sickening, but why???

If some women find the male chest to be disgusting, should we forbid any man from appearing shirtless in public?

If some men find public displays of female ankle to be disgusting, should they be forbade showing ankle?

What exactly is the basis of your sentiments toward nudity and sex other than the discomfort you personally feel toward it?

If some women find the male chest to be disgusting, should we forbid any man from appearing shirtless in public? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, except in the appropriate contexts, like the beach. But certainly if someone goes shirtless on the street that should be considered a problem.

If some men find public displays of female ankle to be disgusting, should they be forbade from doing so? — VagabondSpectre

No - it's just an ankle.

You find public displays of the female/pregnant body sickening, but why??? — VagabondSpectre

Because it is used to promote a nefarious political agenda, which is a problem. It's much like prostitution - it's using something that is natural and wholesome - the pregnant body - for an evil and nefarious end.

What exactly is the basis of your sentiments toward nudity and sex other than the discomfort you personally feel toward it? — VagabondSpectre

And let me guess - the discomfort is due to my insecurity, even though I have a sexier body than most men. Sure. :-} Typical absurd progressive thinking.

Aren't you a part of a political movement aimed at vilifying public displays of the female form? — VagabondSpectre

No, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public.

No - it's just an ankle. — Agustino

Where are you getting your decisions about what's appropriate and what's inappropriate?

Why is a shirtless male on the street bad but an ankle sporting women is O.K?

And let me guess - the discomfort is due to my insecurity, even though I have a sexier body than most men. Sure. :-} Typical absurd progressive thinking. — Agustino

No Augustino, I wasn't going to call you ugly (you love to take the chance to bolster your self-image though :/ )... I want to know the actual basis upon which you declare certain things to be inappropriate and others appropriate. I'm not interested in how sexy you are or think you are...

No, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public. — Agustino

Who decides the standards of decency? Tradition? The bible? You? God?

I could pretend to be a puritan and admonish you for not condemning the indecency of an exposed female ankle. I could accuse you of having a nefarious political agenda and that all I'm doing is sanctioning a lack of decency in public...

In Saudi Arabia it's considered indecent for a women to be unchaperoned by a man, at all times (in public), so what would you say to Saudi Arabia when they accuse you of supporting sexual depravity?

Why is a shirtless male on the street bad but an ankle sporting women is O.K? — VagabondSpectre

Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency.

Ankle sporting women aren't doing anything that is indecent.

Who decides the standards of decency? Tradition? the bible? You? God? — VagabondSpectre

What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question?

I could pretend to be a puritan and admonish you for not condemning the indecency of an exposed female ankle. I could accuse you of having a nefarious political agenda and that all I'm doing is sanctioning a lack of decency in public... — VagabondSpectre

Yes, you could. And then I would explain to you why women showing their ankles isn't an example of lack of decency. I would say that a woman wouldn't show her ankles for any nefarious or immoral reasons - such as provoking sexual desire, showing off, etc. I would say that her showing her ankles in public would not produce any negative social consequences, but on the contrary it may be useful when it's very hot outside for example.

In Saudi Arabia it's considered indecent for a women to be unchaperoned by a man, at all times (in public).

What would you say to Saudi Arabia when they accuse you of sexual depravity? — VagabondSpectre

I would ask them why they consider it indecent for a woman to be unchaperoned by a man in public. They will probably tell me that it's either because the woman should be protected at all times because of the danger that exists from a man trying to pick her up, rob her, etc. They may also tell me that a woman who isn't with a man may be provoking for other men and may incite their lust. In the first case I'd suggest that we should use police to protect women such that they are not harassed by men while out in the street. In the second case, I'd ask them if the lust provoked in the men looking at the women is any different if she's with another man. They'd either say yes, or no. If they say yes, then I'd ask them to explain how this is possible, granted that the woman, and not the man is the cause of this lust in the first place. They might try to say that the presence of the man would produce fear in other men, keeping their lust at bay. Then I may say that we should try to produce the same fear by means of the law, not by means of requesting her to be escorted by a man at all times. And so forth.

And by the way, they do walk unchaperoned many times >:O . Saudi and those places are very very hypocritical.

What you're really trying to say is that the boundary between what's decent and what's not decent isn't very clear - and I would agree, and we need to discuss where we need to place that boundary. But there clearly are things which are decent and things which are not decent. If I go outside with my penis swinging from side to side completely naked on the street, I think we can both agree that that's not decent. However we may disagree over finer details, such as whether X article of clothing is decent to wear or not.

Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency.

Ankle sporting women aren't doing anything that is indecent. — Agustino

Let's say that he wants to stay cool on a hot day, or just that shirtlessness is the most comfortable for him.

Is it still immoral for him to walk around shirtless? If so, why? (because someone else might find it sexy? Because he intends to appear sexy?)

(by your logic, a woman who shows ankle because they want too appear sexy is behaving immorally. You should probably look into correcting your moral reasoning here)

What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question? — Agustino

Honestly, I expect really terrible answers because I know you base your position here on subjective and personal-religious emotional sensitivities

Asking you what determines the standards of decency isn't some "gotcha" or trick question; you stated that something is indecent, and now I'm asking how you came to that conclusion...

Yes, you could. And then I would explain to you why women showing their ankles isn't an example of lack of decency. I would say that a woman wouldn't show her ankles for any nefarious or immoral reasons - such as provoking sexual desire, showing off, etc. I would say that her showing her ankles in public would not produce any negative social consequences, but on the contrary it may be useful when it's very hot outside for example. — Agustino

I'm attracted to the ankles of women, and some women intentionally excite me in public by displaying their ankles to me in public. That makes ankle display immoral right?

I would ask them why they consider it indecent for a woman to be unchaperoned by a man in public. They will probably tell me that it's either because the woman should be protected at all times because of the danger that exists from a man trying to pick her up, rob her, etc. They may also tell me that a woman who isn't with a man may be provoking for other men and may incite their lust. In the first case I'd suggest that we should use police to protect women such that they are not harassed by men while out in the street. In the second case, I'd ask them if the lust provoked in the men looking at the women is any different if she's with another man. They'd either say yes, or no. If they say yes, then I'd ask them to explain how this is possible, granted that the woman, and not the man is the cause of this lust in the first place. They might try to say that the presence of the man would produce fear in other men, keeping their lust at bay. Then I may say that we should try to produce the same fear by means of the law, not by means of requesting her to be escorted by a man at all times. And so forth.

And by the way, they do walk unchaperoned many times >:O . Saudi and those places are very very hypocritical. — Agustino

The appearance of an unchaperoned (but fully burka-d) female is apparently indecent exposure according to Saudi men. They're attracted to the sight of a lone female and since females know this, for them to appear unchaperoned in public is to intentionally and knowingly provoke sexual desire (let alone to expose their faces).

A woman appearing in Saudi Arabia without a man is like a woman appearing in your town without a top or bra.

The distinct problem here Aug' is that what you deem to be sexually provocative is down to your own subjective and learned sensibilities. Some women would actually like to walk around topless for comfort reasons, but because you find breasts so sexually provocative suddenly their display becomes immoral and nefarious. So far the only actual qualifier you've offered is "intending to be provocative", and if we were to use that as a standard to determine indecency, then make-up of any kind, any decorative hair-styles, any clothing which flatters the human form, (basically any overt aesthetic display by men or women) can be viewed as an attempt to provoke sexual desire (aka, immoral and nefarious). Similarly, any unintentional instance of sexual provocativeness (a woman walking around naked because she likes being naked) therefore is NOT immoral or nefarious (because there's no intent?) Of course not right? It's still immoral because if you're forced to see a nipple then.... Reasons...?

If you grew up in a nudist colony you wouldn't look at a woman's breast and have an instant reaction. In similar fashion you are not affected by the sight of ankles in the same way what a man from the 18th century might have been.

You pretend to have insight about what's moral on this subject but all you're doing is tracing existing taboo lines.

I don't think public displays of nudity (from anyone) are inherently indecent...

I would hazard to say that public sex acts are indecent, but I would not include brief kisses (even between men) under the description of a "sex act".

If god didn't describe nudity as shameful in Christianity, might you assent to this position?