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
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.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
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
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.What about that picture is defaming? — 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.And why is it "political"? — 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"? — 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
Okay, what does this ability have to do with publicly showing your naked body while you're pregnant? :sbut rather the ability to love living life at every stage, which for a woman can include pregnancy. — 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).She and women around the world are imploring women, to accept the beauty of THIER bodies — ArguingWAristotleTiff
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.No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response. — geospiza
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
Well who are you to suggest the opposite? :sDo 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
why do you need to "bring the reality" to it? — Agustino
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.that suggests that some men are making an active choice to keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires. — 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. — Agustino
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 women find the male chest to be disgusting, should we forbid any man from appearing shirtless in public? — VagabondSpectre
No - it's just an ankle.If some men find public displays of female ankle to be disgusting, should they be forbade from doing so? — 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.You find public displays of the female/pregnant body sickening, but why??? — 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.What exactly is the basis of your sentiments toward nudity and sex other than the discomfort you personally feel toward it? — VagabondSpectre
No, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public.Aren't you a part of a political movement aimed at vilifying public displays of the female form? — VagabondSpectre
No - it's just an ankle. — Agustino
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, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public. — Agustino
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.Why is a shirtless male on the street bad but an ankle sporting women is O.K? — VagabondSpectre
What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question?Who decides the standards of decency? Tradition? the bible? You? God? — 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.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
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.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
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
What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question? — Agustino
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 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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.