Well I believe you haven't read all of my posts, otherwise you would understand that I said that the image is ugly, and justified the ugliness based on the fact that pregnancy is used to drive a political agenda through the picture. This, I believe, is immoral. And no, it has nothing to do with the beach. People at the beach aren't driving political agendas by their nakedness, nor do they stay with breasts out, only covered by the palms of their hands.Serena is showing neither genitals nor fully showing breasts in the image you apparently find so morally appalling. — John
Yes, I very much share some of those feelings.Having said that, I do tend to find celebrities' apparent needs to share everything with the public, and the public's tendency to lap it up somewhat disgusting, but more for aesthetic, than for moral reasons. This is also reflected in the 'minor celebrity' phenomenon of people sharing images and anecdotes showing mundane details of their lives on social media. " Look, this is me at the beach!" I do find that disgusting as well. — John
Again, to whom? To you? It clearly isn't one to you.Because it's no big deal — Sapientia
No, a conservative isn't a prude. I didn't suggest you should not show your sexy six pack to your wife, of course you should, she should enjoy that. But only she. (well people at your gym can enjoy that too, or the beach, etc. but certainly not the street).I'm a liberal and you're a prude. — Sapientia
Nobody can be sure of anything, so what's your point? :s We shouldn't judge things just because we can't be sure? Our judgement should take into account the uncertainty.I don't doubt that you go around judging what you take to be indecent behaviour. My point was, in what we were talking about, how can you be sure? — Sapientia
What do you even mean the female body becomes protected in public display? Protected from what exactly? :sWorse, the naked body of women becomes protected in public display. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, it's a way to spread propaganda.In this instance, the concern isn't so much about sex, but the celebration of public nudity is politically associated with people who advocate for permissive sexuality. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Wow wow wow, slow down please. Why should we "attack" women who go on the Slutwalk march?If we respect the publicly naked body, for example, he won't be able to attack women Slutwalk march for going topless. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, I don't think I'm prudish at all BC, it seems you picked that meme from Sapientia. I don't think there's anything wrong with showing your body in the right circumstances. There is however something wrong with purposefully looking to be sexually attractive.Agustino: You are Exhibit A in the Case of the Prudish Philosopher. — Bitter Crank
I do celebrate it, I have no clue why you'd think I don't. At the gym and in the right places. With my wife when I will get married eventually. And also by currently being a celibate - that's also a way to respect and celebrate my body, by the way. Freudians are really behind aren't they?Because they have a problem with being an embodied being. One suspects they have rejected their own body, and then generalized this rejection to others. If they thought being a body was really a good thing, they would celebrate it instead of constructing barbed wire fences and visual screens around it. — Bitter Crank
No I don't think it's normal at all. I want to be sexually appealing to the woman I love, not to any random woman on the street, that's silly now. Why would I want that? :sPeople who are physically and mentally healthy NATURALLY want to appeal sexually to others. It's NORMAL. — Bitter Crank
I was speaking about decency there.Maybe where you come from that is so, but I doubt it. — Bitter Crank
No, I'm not "bothered" by seeing it at all, it's just that it's not decent, and it would be better if it didn't happen. If I see a smoking hot woman walking by, I'm really not that interested anymore, as I would be when I was a younger boy :P - I really feel no need to be. But if I were to love that woman, that would be a different question...Exposed and eroticized torsos (of either sex) bother people who are uncomfortable with eroticism. — Bitter Crank
Yes, and your retarded man clearly has only one pair of robes...The man informs you that his robes are at the cleaners. He shrugs and continues walking.
"Would you like to play again?" — VagabondSpectre
That is persuasive to you I cannot guarantee, but that there are reasons for holding such a belief, that I can provide you.All I really want is even one well founded and useful rule that is persuasive to me — VagabondSpectre
We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education.and how long before we stop caring and mystifying/immoralizing/obsessing over genitalia as a society due to our steady over-exposure? — VagabondSpectre
No.Isn't that somewhat wholesome? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, you can add to that attempt to show off.indecency = attempt to be sexually provocative. — VagabondSpectre
I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post.By defining indecency as an attempt to be sexually provocative (rather than instances of individuals actually being sexually provoked (to avoid the ankle dilemma?)) you have essentially shoved your subjective (and perhaps religious reasons) into this one odd postulate that I will attempt to convince you is flawed. — VagabondSpectre
Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent.Well, arguments that I might accept would be based on some kind of harm caused by an action — VagabondSpectre
So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :sThe reason why what I would describe as a "sex act" would be immoral for display in public is that witnessing them can be psychologically harmful to children — VagabondSpectre
Maybe you would have trouble, but I have no trouble at all. This is a common occurrence for me. Attractive women don't attract me much anymore. People can train themselves to stop being enslaved by the cultural instincts that society breeds in them, especially when these instincts are immoral.Men like you and I might have a hard time thinking straight if a very attractive woman suddenly exposed herself in our presence, but isn't that our problem and not hers? — VagabondSpectre
We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education. — Agustino
I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post. — Agustino
Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent. — Agustino
So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :s — Agustino
No, I'm not "bothered" by seeing it at all, it's just that it's not decent, and it would be better if it didn't happen. — Agustino
Okay, how is this possible if I have no emotional response at all to exposed torsos, especially for man? Growing up this was a VERY common sight for me. There's no emotional reaction. I still think it's wrong.It's quite possible (even probable) that your emotional response to exposed torsos led you to view it as indecent and (if carried to far) immoral--rather than morals being the reason for your emotional response. — Bitter Crank
We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education. — Agustino
Like I TRIED to claim? :sIsn't this like when you tried to claim that babies are born with a desire for god? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack.Babies aren't born with any knowledge about decency; they're born naked and will happily piss, shit, and vomit on you.
If a child gets raised by a pack of dogs, they act like a dog. Do you honestly believe that humans are born with biologically pre-programmed ideas? — VagabondSpectre
Yes. So?You previously stated that if a women tries to be sexually provocative by showing her ankle then she is behaving immorally... — VagabondSpectre
Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog.All you have done is stated that "attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral" but you have not justified why (beyond some insane fear mongering of the collapse of western society that is clearly fueled by your passion for religious conservatism and your hatred of liberalism). — VagabondSpectre
Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.And you wonder why others call you a prude... Sexual attraction is a natural part of human life Aug, get used to it. By your standards any woman who makes sure she has good posture is an immoral whore. — VagabondSpectre
They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed.Seems to be that being sexy hasn't harmed Beyonce or Madonna. In fact I think they profited from it. — VagabondSpectre
The harm takes the form of neglecting their human nature, failing to actualise their potentials for a lot of things, amongst which relationships (that's why Madonna isn't even married anymore, because who could be married to such a person, except maybe someone equally bad) - and also failing to uphold their dignity.What harm are you taking about? — VagabondSpectre
Okay, how is this possible if I have no emotional response at all to exposed torsos, especially for man? Growing up this was a VERY common sight for me. There's no emotional reaction. I still think it's wrong. — Agustino
I doubt this is the case (that sexuality is central to our personality, etc.). Some people seem to WANT this to be the case, but I doubt it. It's certainly true for the people who have bought into this idea however - their life does seem to be all about sexuality.But because sexuality is central to our personality and physical development from infancy forward, (and one doesn't have to cite Sigmund Freud for support) the morality of all things sexual are probably strongly influenced by experience and emotions. — Bitter Crank
Typical of Freud, when something doesn't fit the theory, it's a problem with the person (they're repressing something) not with the theory :-}Keep digging. — Bitter Crank
I didn't say it's immoral btw, I said it's not decent. They are a bit different, lacking decency is not ALWAYS immoral. Decency is a matter of social norms that we expect to hold ourselves accountable to in order to foster a more moral (and predictable) environment. So for example a man walking without a shirt on in the street will be indecent, but not immoral unless he's doing it to (1) show off, or (2) to sexually attract others. The social norms though are indeed built on objective moral standards.Also, you are presumably straight, so you probably wouldn't find a male torso arousing. But still, too much nakedness (uncovered breasts! Oh, no! Save us from concupiscence!) is immoral. — Bitter Crank
Sexuality is important, like all other factors of our existence, but not the absolute central bit — Agustino
self-controlled - your own master, captain of the ship — Agustino
poor Freud — Agustino
:-} There's a problem with this because it assumes that sexuality is the same for man as it is for animals, and this is not true - at least not true in comparison to MOST animals, there may be some with regards to which comparisons can be made.Humans, on the other hand, do have the cognitive ability to screw up the sexuality of their offspring (and much else), which they do with regularity and aplomb. — Bitter Crank
Like I TRIED to claim? :s — Agustino
Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. — Agustino
Yes. So? — Agustino
Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog. — Agustino
Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.
So yes, sexual attraction is part of life, and I have no problem with it IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. — Agustino
They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed. — Agustino
And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack. — Agustino
Man is a spiritual being (and before Vagabond jumps up in arms about some bullshit), all that means is that we are rational creatures, possessed of both will and intellect - we are PERSONS. — Agustino
:-} :-} :-} You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly.Tried and failed to maintain the claim, yes. You ended up trotting it back to some ultra-vague nonsense that dropped the god parameter entirely and settled on anything vaguely superstitious ("in any way beyond the physical"). You elected not to defend it against my subsequent rebuke. — VagabondSpectre
No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion?Teaching someone mathematics isn't "actualizing" the mathematical ideas they already had, it's introducing them to new ideas which previously did not exist in their mind. — VagabondSpectre
:s what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are.You would condemn an ugly woman from wearing makeup, or an ugly man from compensating with his career, right? — VagabondSpectre
Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman.What if the desire to be sexually attractive is to advertise yourself on a market of fair exchange where when two people have sex it's not simply one using the other (or whatever it is you're afraid of?). — VagabondSpectre
What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT!What if instead of "using" other people for sex, they "had mutually gratifying sex together" and both enjoyed it? — VagabondSpectre
No, they absolutely can't control me, try as they may. I'm actually quite good with that. It's not about me, it's about the intentions of their heart. They have impure intentions (to control me, make me lust for them), which is their problem and their sin. Whether they succeed or not is of a secondary nature. Even if they fail every single time, it's still sinful, because intentions matter.You're essentially saying that you don't like women who try to be attractive because you think they are disrespecting your spiritual nature (by controlling you?) with their bodies... — VagabondSpectre
Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings.They're called feral children. They tend to have no language and literally behave in a manner congruent with their development. In the case of a child growing up with a dog pack, they act like a dog.
Your ideas about pre-existing ideas in human babies is really a mal-formed/naive way to view human psychology. — VagabondSpectre
>:OI would hope that you would fuck a woman rather better than a dog would. >:) — Bitter Crank
Agreed.The basic kernel of human sexual drive isn't all that different from other animals. For instance, you don't have to decide to be sexual. Sexual is baked in — Bitter Crank
It is more complicated precisely because we're different from animals in that we're also persons. So we have to deal with the fact of our personhood when we feel the impulses of our sexual desire. The idea obviously would be to get the two in harmony, and religions (and Freud) would I think advocate for the same, even though they may share different means of doing that.Human sexuality, the sexuality of embodied persons, however is more complicated -- as you point out. But it is in the complexity of human existence that we get screwed up by bad/stupid/evil ideas. — Bitter Crank
I'd rather be labeled a prude than a sex-crazed maniac *shrug*. — Heister Eggcart
What if you are one, and because you're afraid of yourself and what you can do, you've chosen prudery? >:)Perhaps if I was a sex-crazed maniac I'd be shrugging my peepee? — Heister Eggcart
Again, to whom? To you? It clearly isn't one to you. — Agustino
No, a conservative isn't a prude. — Agustino
I didn't suggest you should not show your sexy six pack to your wife, of course you should, she should enjoy that. But only she. (well people at your gym can enjoy that too, or the beach, etc. but certainly not the street). — Agustino
Nobody can be sure of anything, so what's your point? :s We shouldn't judge things just because we can't be sure? Our judgement should take into account the uncertainty. — Agustino
You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly. — Agustino
That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. — Agustino
No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion? — Agustino
what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are. — Agustino
Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman. — Agustino
What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT! — Agustino
The reason for that is such a relationship bears a utilitarian modus operandi, where two people engage in sex for self-serving ends. The man who fucks a prostitute exchanges desires the sexual pleasure she can provide, and the prostitute desires his money. When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people. That is why casual sex is prostitution, because it bears the logic and modus operandi of prostitution and degrades both of the participants, whether they freely agree to it - like the man and his prostitute do - or not. — Agustino
Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings. — 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.