So how much control over it should we expect? And how do we know what to jettison and what to build on? — Brett

We have very little control over it. Much of what we have now is historical contingency. We cannot change historical contingency. Marx, for example tried to find ways through revolution to steer historical contingency into determinism, but overshot the mark. There is nothing to keep. We enculturate and through our material circumstances are "free" to follow our contingent narrative. In this context, we are motivated out of little else by our own wills- survival, comfort/maintaining environment, boredom. Besides, this we get the contingencies of whatever various circumstances we must deal/suffer with.

This does sort of suggest that culture has a purpose that is beyond us. Which is kind of contradictory. — Brett

It absolutely has a purpose beyond us. Institutions are often created from historical contingencies and then the cultures surrounding those institutions take on a "life of their own". Individuals take on the values of the institutions so that the institutions can operate. Even birth itself is a sort of ideology that the current society is good and should be replicated, literally, unto another individual who then, in turn, internalizes those values so as to get by, in the "ways of life" of a society.

The consequence is fewer families and falling population numbers. Maybe not a problem in China right now, but when it comes to supporting the older generation where are the numbers going to come from. — Brett

Well, now you are going into well-trodden areas of my core philosophy. I'm an antinatalist.. so the more we can catalyze less procreation, the better. One less person, is one less person who suffers and "deals with" life (with no consequences for the non-being that wasn't born). But this discussion is for another thread.

But generally speaking, yeah you might start seeing certain societies which start not valuing these long-held tropes and perhaps you do start seeing decline as people just don't care. The libido becomes less directed towards the things society wanted it directed towards to make the function that it intended occur.

The boy sees the breasts and is stunned by the what is different from him and his friends. The breasts aren’t sexualised yet. But the sense of difference is powerful. That’s not cultural. But then entering puberty the breasts become sexualised and the hidden nature of them becomes the cultural context. Or the other way around. I don’t think culture creates a sexual direction or imperative, not on purpose anyway. It’s a combination of his initial interest, maybe the “other”, his first real experience of it, and the consequences of then being deprived of it through social mores. — Brett

No, I'm agreeing with you, that that might be more-or-less the narrative. My only difference is that I think culture indeed helps create direction/imperative and on purpose. The hiding/revealing, aspect could have been by design, just as the neck rings. It's just a more subtle version of it. Society needs there to be attraction for procreation perhaps. Attraction becomes its own trope. Attraction itself becomes its own mythology.. made into romantic odes, love stories, romance stories (and much cruder stuff...), caricatured in pop-psychology and pop-biology, etc. But functionally, attraction becomes a way for procreation to eventually occur..in other words, it may not be automatic like the animal, so it becomes pushed to the cultural/social level (and then re-envisioned as if it was automatic, giving it false attribution).

But I agree, the initial fascination with the other, and especially an other that is concealed may be the foundation that is later refocused in other ways to make physical attraction a thing. I don't know. I'm also just theorizing. What I do know is, it may be too "just so" to say something like.. "It's just innate and natural". That just seems too case closed.

Does there have to be a reason behind what is taboo that we understand? Can’t we just go with the idea that somehow parts of the body in different cultures become taboo. Though that word is so loaded I feel uncomfortable with it. — Brett

Yes, somehow they do. It's not hard why sex differences do.. If a culture wants sexual attraction to be a thing, then society can help this along by trying to make sex differences appear something that is mysterious, tantalizing, only revealing through its hidden nature. This is all by association, and thus becomes attached to endless male fascination, and then this becomes attached to more tropes, until its an echo chamber. And then you have whole social constructions around attractions, revealing, wanting someone to reveal, being tantalized by it, taken by it, attracted to it, etc.

The boy seeing the bared breasts that were so radically different from him or his male friends then finds that they disappear behind clothing and are later revealed, but not completely, through the cut of clothing or type of clothing. There’s a powerful sense of curiosity sublimated there. He’s never going to forget that powerful sensation of difference that his culture diverts into something else. So his curiosity does become entangled with ideas of concealment and desire. — Brett

Yes, so you get the point of its cultural construction.

The thing is if he had grown up with girls around him going topless he probably wouldn’t have looked twice at them. So just because they’re naked breasts doesn’t make it sexual. Which makes me think of my comments about the African women who embellish their bodies. Their breasts are exposed all the time, so I’m guessing they don’t have great meaning sexually in terms of looking. But the embellishments obviously does have some meaning in that sense. — Brett

Yes, exactly.

But why did the boy on the beach stare? Because they were breasts? Why would they attract him so strongly. At that age his exposure to cultural aesthetics is still pretty low. The only other reason I can think of is the difference. The difference that is so stark between him and females is the radical difference in their anatomy. Not their minds but how they look. We can’t really know someone’s mind, can we, enough to define the difference? — Brett

I did mention that perhaps it's because these body parts are the "other". But that gets diminished with exposure, as you are saying too, so if this was something seen again and again, it wouldn't matter. It's something usually taboo, known to be covered in adults, and even by then some cultural elements of its broader significance is still there. It's not about cultural aesthetics, but its significance. This is something known to be private that now is not. That is something that would shock people initially.

Possibility, this whole debate is based on a flawed outlook in the OP which unfortunately chose to frame it a certain way that makes the choice seem black or white. The assumption is that wearing a certain style of clothing warrants being seen as an object. Obviously there are many reasons for wearing the clothing. One of them could be to feel good wearing the clothing as to exemplify what the culture deems as attractive (and thus what one has enculturated as attractive). This of course blends into what makes one prefer anything at all.. It is preference- one likes that look.. one took one's own aesthetic choices, often enculturated from broader archetypes, blending it with one's individual tastes often based on those broader ideas. Or it could be a signal to others that one wants to present as aesthetically attractive or sexually attractive. None of this limits, overshadows, or denies any other aspects of that person's agency or being. I think most people recognize this, which is why I am trying to steer the conversation more towards things like "What makes someone or certain traits attractive in the first place?" which to me is fertile ground for philosophical ideas.

It's not a dichotomization, of course. Plato did just that though, by, in paraphrase, introduced the idea of 'inner beauty' in this case. Then the arguments/metaphors follow, like; the beauty of mathematics, the beauty of truth, the beauty of the mind/inner beauty, etc.. — 3017amen

In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned. Communities want you to value X, Y, Z in these realms in order for you to appreciate them and value them. It could be functional. Someone who is "good" at math but finds no beauty in it, might not value it as much as a mathematician who savors a problem as "elegant" or "symmetrical".

Similarly
but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained?
— schopenhauer1

Of course I don't think it's cultural. Using the cognitive science example of the attachment-theory, it's an innate feature of consciousness (I.E., Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries.) Same when a new-born comes out of the womb. Everyone say's how beautiful it is (the object itself), without any 'real' Platonic inner beauty/intellectual connection. — 3017amen

I'm not sure how attachment theory has as much to do with it. Perhaps it can relate to how one functions in a relationship.. but not sure.

Existentially, the rubrics of society has very little impact. You would have to explain why human's masturbate. Alternatively, one would have to explain why people are born with either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. But in either case, what you have is a something that's intrinsic and innate viz the need to procreate (masturbation) along with the physical object which is the desired means to an end, (at least initially-love at first sight, infatuation, etc.). — 3017amen

As I stated, it's not the libido itself that is cultural, but what it's directed towards perhaps. "This is what one finds attractive. That is not, unless you like unattractive things.." etc.

In other words, with some exceptions of course, there is a stick and a hole, along with some Platonic realm and other cognitive phenomena at work (Love). And I don't think either one of those have really changed much, meaning, as self-aware conscious beings, cognitive science has taken us all the way up to the theory of Love, which is where the mystery ends... . — 3017amen

I just don't think Platonic ideas have to do with it much. It is almost an abuse of language to say the symmetry in math is like the symmetry in a face or a body, etc.

It's not cultural, as much as it's Existential. You should know better Schop1 :yikes:

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences? — 3017amen

Well, I don't necessarily buy into Schop's or Plato's idea that beauty is some non-material Platonic ideal that is sussed out when presented with art/nature. I think a lot of its origins is cultural-based as to what counts as beauty.

I will say Schop's idea of Will is more dead on to what is going on. Much of human relations is out of boredom. What is loneliness but boredom directed at the absence of other people (rather than a more interesting activity or other experiential phenomena)? Showing skin, having the hip-to-waist ratio, cleavage, plump, but not fat butt, etc. It's so easy to fall into "just so" evolutionary psychology reasons people appreciate these aspects. They do indeed correspond with sexual dimorphism (these are charactersitics that are not typically male, but only female), but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained?

Perhaps in an odd Freudian idea.. The sexual libido learns by society what is proper to associate one's desires for. As I stated earlier, society needs sexual relations to function a certain way and regulated to make procreation happen. Sexual attraction may be all a part of this narrative. What is actually society pushing people along (i.e. during puberty you should have these strong desires rather than they really are manifest.. in other words the hormones though they are a factor are not the actual telos-directedness which is actually triggered by society saying what the hormones should be aiming for..etc.). So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think.

Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. Humans are not so cut-and-dry. Bats can fly and we can fly but one's origination has nothing to do with the other. Animals have behaviors and so do we, but the mechanism for how behaviors manifest in a social-linguistic world that we create (in other words social construction), is so far removed from innate behaviors of other animals, that it seems to be misapplied attributions to what similar mechanisms to other animals that would indeed not be the case, but only appears so because we so want an answer for our own behaviors and their origins and the analogy to the animal world coupled with evolutionary theory provides a convenient "just so" theory.

No longer relevant, or replaced by something else, and if so what? — Brett

It's just that.. why or when did this happen? It's kind of like "When did humans develop X, Y, Z notion". It's just something to ponder or try to understand. We may never know exactly how bread was invented/discovered, but we can probably reconstruct theories. But the point is, if it is a social construction, then that means it mutable, changeable, just like some of the traditions you are mentioning have changed.

This is probably a bit tangential but I wonder why or when certain body parts became associated with sexual attraction, etc. I doubt hunter-gatherers think twice about any of this.. This is why I said earlier that this is very much cultural tropes we picked up from civilization many years back and are now sort amplifying this echo-chamber of "what makes something attractive". It's interesting, because I really don't want to go down the route of evolutionary psychology to answer this. I think we can maintain social construction theory and it would still work. Evolutionary psychology is fraught with "just so" theories, projections, retrojections, false analogies to other animals, people's biases, etc. It is almost a non-starter. You have theories of symmetry, and some experiments but it is too late for controls and comparisons by the time people have already been enculturated, one would think. I'm sure someone can come up with a handful of anthropological studies, but I don't know..

All you've said is that it's become customary for women to dress in the way they do. You haven't offered me a reason why? — TheMadFool

But I did.. Again..

Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like.

Wearing certain clothes and make-up for women also seen as a signifier 1) The woman is buying into the set norm of what looks good to others, and thus wants to present herself as following this norm, and thus showing to herself or others that she can follow this norm and exemplify it herself. 2) The woman might be showing other women she can exemplify this norm. 3) The woman might be showing men that she can exemplify this norm, possibly trying to attract them (or women for that matter) in a sexual or physically pleasing way.

Men also have norms of dress and looks that signify that they are buying into a set of norms around what counts as attractive (could be things like form-fitting shirts, showing off more muscles, following popular trends of sorts). Mainly though, males have set up the norm that they are the gazer.. the one who views in this physical realm. They were also enclturated but to mainly be the viewer.. So they formed habits from friends, society, the like of how to show appreciation and pleasure from staring at the women who is exemplifying the norm of attraction. Brett had a point where it could have started as wa way to bond with friends, or something someone picked up from a family member, or peer. Thus their norms might be something like 1) If I want to buy into the set of norms for what to do when a woman exemplifies the norm of looking a certain way to be attractive, I must stare a little longer to show my appreciation for following this norm.

The effect is usually something like 1) The women gets the ego-boost from the recognition. 2) The male gets some sort of aesthetic pleasure from the viewing, and possibly an unconscious idea of possession from the staring. Many times these are all signifiers if its for attraction so 3) The male hopes the female recognizes his appreciation and thus recognizes him 4) The female may or may not act on this appreciation depending on her level of attraction, etc.

At the end of the day, all of this can dissipate in theory if both sides just decided to not buy into the narratives. It is much harder obviously to actually do because it is so ingrained in society and habit-formation, but it could happen. Then, the power the women gets from trying to attract would not even matter... No need for the ego-boost and no need to stare longer. It can even happen if it was one-sided. If scantily clad women walked around and no one stared longer or cared or thought anything more than seeing a pebble on a beach, then women would no longer walk around scantily clad. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time..no one cares in the tribe as it is not a habit to find this anything of significance. — schopenhauer1

I not only gave a reason for why society started it but three reasons why women would participate in the tropes. I also mentioned how it's a two way street and the reasons why men also participate in it. The sign is only significant when there is someone who interprets it and acts accordingly. Males take the information and make something out of it, making it significant. What else do you want? That is a reason why on both accounts. I also mentioned how the whole thing would disappear if one party thought it wasn't significant anymore.

What reason lies behind dressing in revealing clothes transforming from a novel idea (in the beginning) to a custom? Why has sexually enticing clothing become, as you assert, a trope. — TheMadFool

I believe I did answer this when describing the whole process. I stated that the very origins probably lies here:

Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like. — schopenhauer1

Once something becomes a habit or a trope, it is often pervasive. It becomes just the "way it is". But is it? No, of course not, it was made up a long time ago in a civilization far far away. To get pop-culture here, this lyric kind of reiterates it from Bruce Hornsby:

Said, hey little boy you can't go where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said, hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules?
He said, "son
That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
Ah, but don't you believe them"

I mean, granted that is about institutional racism, but still this all goes back to tropes tropes tropes. So really it was pushed by social institutions feedback to individual enculturation back to society again, making a feedback loop, as often these habits and tropes are. As I said before:

Why we perpetuate the tropes in the first place is probably because cultural cues tell us that this is an important aspect of the social order. People then internalize this social cue to feel an ego-boost from it, etc. It becomes a feedback loop of the individual and society, like many social institutions. For example, society needs hard workers, we encultrate people to feel they need to work hard, people get a sense of pride from working hard, and then society gets its hard workers. — schopenhauer1

Secondly, regarding your comment on the nakedness of hunter-gatherer women, think of why women (and men too) began wearing clothes. Clothes serve to protect the wearer from the elements but also, once humans made the transition to civilization, to protect modesty. — TheMadFool

But look at what caused what. Modesty happened after the switch to clothes for protection, meaning it was a derivative social phenomenon from the original reason. Perhaps the habit of clothes wearing, made the anything outside of public nudity transgressive. The habit of wearing clothes made diminished the original habit of being naked. So hunter-gatherers who are naked probably use other signifiers for attraction, or perhaps attraction is a different phenomena, more akin to familiarity and comfort with someone, etc. Or perhaps in some cultures, its the male peacocking behaviors and the women's gaze that counts more for what you might call "objectification".

What is the problem with tropes? Does something being a trope disqualify it from philosophical discussions right off the bat?

The idea behind a trope is simply that something is repeated to the point of it losing appeal for the audience. That's more a psychological problem of people than that the trope is inherently uninteresting. Repeating something over and over again makes that thing a trope and uninteresting but this loss of interest in the trope is not because it doesn't have meaningful and thought-provoking content but because it's heard or talked about so often that the mind relegates it to background noise (my theory). — TheMadFool

I guess what I mean is habits and norms that should then be seen as tropes, relegated to background noise and then perhaps disappear altogether (who knows what can happen if everyone dropped pretenses).

The process might look something like this:

Society needs a way to manage sexual relations such that the species continues doing what it does (mainly procreating senselessly but that's a different issue). Habits of attraction form to move this along (pretty clunkily as we aren't as cut-and-dry like many other animals). So we have acceptable norms around what is considered attractive. Apparently showing ample cleavage, slightly larger hips, clear-of-blemished face, with a hint of color, shadow and and lining around the eyes to make it stand out, hair done in certain styles, and showing off a larger buttocks (but not too large) region is set as the norm in many places. This has been instilled since youth, and has been internalized by the signs and patterns that she has been shown from larger society, family, friends, institutions, historical contingency, media, and the like.

Wearing certain clothes and make-up for women also seen as a signifier 1) The woman is buying into the set norm of what looks good to others, and thus wants to present herself as following this norm, and thus showing to herself or others that she can follow this norm and exemplify it herself. 2) The woman might be showing other women she can exemplify this norm. 3) The woman might be showing men that she can exemplify this norm, possibly trying to attract them (or women for that matter) in a sexual or physically pleasing way.

Men also have norms of dress and looks that signify that they are buying into a set of norms around what counts as attractive (could be things like form-fitting shirts, showing off more muscles, following popular trends of sorts). Mainly though, males have set up the norm that they are the gazer.. the one who views in this physical realm. They were also enclturated but to mainly be the viewer.. So they formed habits from friends, society, the like of how to show appreciation and pleasure from staring at the women who is exemplifying the norm of attraction. Brett had a point where it could have started as wa way to bond with friends, or something someone picked up from a family member, or peer. Thus their norms might be something like 1) If I want to buy into the set of norms for what to do when a woman exemplifies the norm of looking a certain way to be attractive, I must stare a little longer to show my appreciation for following this norm.

The effect is usually something like 1) The women gets the ego-boost from the recognition. 2) The male gets some sort of aesthetic pleasure from the viewing, and possibly an unconscious idea of possession from the staring. Many times these are all signifiers if its for attraction so 3) The male hopes the female recognizes his appreciation and thus recognizes him 4) The female may or may not act on this appreciation depending on her level of attraction, etc.

At the end of the day, all of this can dissipate in theory if both sides just decided to not buy into the narratives. It is much harder obviously to actually do because it is so ingrained in society and habit-formation, but it could happen. Then, the power the women gets from trying to attract would not even matter... No need for the ego-boost and no need to stare longer. It can even happen if it was one-sided. If scantily clad women walked around and no one stared longer or cared or thought anything more than seeing a pebble on a beach, then women would no longer walk around scantily clad. For example, in many hunter-gatherer societies, women are naked all the time..no one cares in the tribe as it is not a habit to find this anything of significance.

That there's an fundamental inconsistency lurking in how women think of themselves - as not objects [of sex] AND as objects [of sex]. It undermines women's position on the issue of equality with men - they want not to be treated as chattel but there they are, dressing, behaving, as chattel might if the were to come alive. — TheMadFool

Ok, that goes back to the tropes. Both sexes are buying into it. The woman is buying into it by trying to be attractive with physical attributes. The man is buying into it by finding it attractive. So perhaps that answers the questions.. buying into tropes.

In a way I can agree with you that if the tropes are dropped (on both sides though), then the whole phenomenon might lose all power.. it becomes a non-issue. Why we perpetuate the tropes in the first place is probably because cultural cues tell us that this is an important aspect of the social order. People then internalize this social cue to feel an ego-boost from it, etc. It becomes a feedback loop of the individual and society, like many social institutions. For example, society needs hard workers, we encultrate people to feel they need to work hard, people get a sense of pride from working hard, and then society gets its hard workers.

Well, what definition do you suggest we all compy with? — TheMadFool

I'm fine with the one I just wrote there. It seems to be a summarization of what you're trying to say, no? But anyways, what about that definition though? What is philosophically interesting about it? I'm suggesting what's philosophically interesting is the tropes we have created around it. Read the last couple of posts to see what I'm saying. Otherwise, there's not much interesting argument. Are you asking why people feel the need to attract others? Are you asking why attraction is even a thing? Are you asking why physical attributes are attractive? How they are attractive? I think we all agree that often people make physical attributes a way to attract others.

Indeed, that doesn't follow because a woman may just want to display her goods in a manner of speaking without wanting to actually sell them to anyone but the fact that she's spreading out her merchandise for men to see suggests that women, let's just say, know what men want. — TheMadFool

I thin it's going around in circles because you need to get a handle on what "objectification" means here. You and Possibility are both correct if your definition is "To display one's physical attributes to get other's attention, mainly for purposes of attraction, sometimes for a particular person, but often times with unintended consequences from others". That is your definition.. what about it makes it philosophically interesting? I'm trying to say one way is the tropes we have created culturally to even make that a phenomena. I'm also trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology or psuedo-scientific explanations for both what counts as attractive and habits of attraction or being attracted to someone.

Indeed, it's a fair transaction. But the point is that being an object of desire is sometimes a boost to one's agency, rather always necessarily undermining it. — Olivier5

Agreed.

I think for the most part, we are unaware of why we do most things that we do ‘naturally’. I agree that most constitute an unspoken cultural reality that has been learned through mimicking and group association, and that much of the reason why men stare at women has very little to do with (ie. consideration for) the women themselves. — Possibility

Secondly you inserted (consideration for) in the sentence about the reason men stare at women. That changes my meaning. It’s not that the staring has very little to do with consideration for women, and therefore objectifying them, because that suggests they are purposely doing it to indicate a lack of consideration for women when in fact it means the stare has very little to do with women. The women are caught up in something that exists apart from them. — Brett

I agree with Brett here. Men might stare at women as some sort of habit formed. That habit is one which is a trope of male culture in the broader culture, started somewhere in the mists of Western history or civilization itself.

I find it quite interesting because the trope is really giving the woman power not the man. He learns that staring longer is some sort of signal (if the woman notices). I'm not sure how much the magnetism of the scantily clad woman is really the case- as if it is a knee-jerk reaction that has no culturally learned component (this is where I may disagree with Brett, I don't know). There has been a sort of learned response, making it seem as if magnetism.. as if Roy Orbison's "Pretty Women" is just a "truism of nature". But perhaps not so. Anyways, If the woman notices the extra long stare, she might get an ego-boost herself. There is the power. The male provides the ego-boost, while thinking he's "getting something" from the gaze (as Brett mentioned, some sort of association with possession perhaps, even if not acted upon). Ironically, the male gives power to the female by staring. If men stopped staring those few extra seconds (or more in less nuanced males), the power of the physical signal would be diminished and even disappear. How did this even happen to begin with? Tropes is my theme here and I'm sticking to it. The culture has simply created the tropes for the two sides to use to allow physical attraction to even take place in the first place.. I am trying to move beyond evolutionary psychology as just this blunt hammer for everything related to sexual attraction and relations.

A lot of the time it's other driven. If the male is particularly groomed to be an alpha-type (assuming that's even a trope in the culture to begin with), they might think the woman will notice the extra few seconds he taking to stare, and then make the decision to make another pass his way so that he can send more signals, and she can send more signals and on and on. In other words, the lusty alpha male mentality might think themselves magnetic and charming enough (with the stare at the beginning) to "get" the woman to pay attention to him as well. Anyways, my point is that a lot of this goes beyond the simple ideas of "objectification", etc. It's a lot to do with tropes one picks up and signals one consciously or unconsciously learns from habit/culture to send.

Which brings me to another point.. What makes something physically attractive? Is it "you know it when you see it?"

The staring is a role males are involved with and women are among those, but not the only ones, he stares at.

Edit: by the time he’s a mature male he no longer knows why he stares at women. — Brett

Yep. That makes sense. It's a weird combination of social cues and the intertwining in personal narrative and habit formation.

When would roles and signals not be natural? — Brett

Well, natural in terms of biological.. instinct rather than cultural.

Unless culture has warped them so much that their origins are no longer clear, or that culture has created alternative meanings as a way to explain current norms, or to fit ideological hopes. Like if men stopped staring at women relationships between the two would be improved, when in fact it has very little to do with women. — Brett

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but the way I interpret it, you are saying that the male is just playing the role of the one who must stare at the woman, rather than someone who instinctually stares at the woman.

It’s possible that being stared at challenges my subjective confidence in what and who I am. It’s a challenge of sorts. In adolescent, that period of confusion and insecurity, staring reverses that, don’t you think, it challenges the world to dare challenge me. Most staring seems to be done by men, and in the beginning it’s done at girls, not so often older women. It’s an easy way to build up a fragile ego or sense of self. — Brett

It could be. It's playing a role or sending signals or both. In a society where one believes in alpha males, and that alpha males "get the girl" then if one wants to be an alpha male and get the girl one sends the signal by staring or "possessing" as you stated. Similarly, if one believes in alpha males, and alpha males "win the fight" then if one wants to be an alpha male and win the fight, one sends signal by staring. It's ironic that we analyze this as if it is natural rather than roles and signals one picks up in broader ideas in society.

An interesting point about staring or the gaze is having your photo taken. Most people feel some anxiety. Some manage a practised pose but others go to pieces. It’s like a challenge to the idea of yourself, or as you suggest, the role you imagine you successfully present to the world. — Brett

Yes, because one usually may not think of how one poses for others.. but photos make it the very thing one must focus on. How do you present yourself for the other? How is one being perceived? It becomes another role. One is natural when one is not hyper-aware of how one looks for the other, but rather is in the moment.

It’s possible that starring is primitive way of possessing. — Brett

But going along the theme of habits.. this itself would be habit one formed at some point. This habit of possessing through staring is itself a role, something that is played out that one learned or picked up or is considered an expectation of some sort.. Again, just proposing some ideas here other than "this is biological".. scantily clad X female means X male stares.. but is that just some cultural thing picked up? It's almost the most pop-cultural of pop-cultural tropes.. I think of a ZZ Top music video or something :lol:.

I have to say that there have been moments when crossing a busy street at a crossing and there are three lanes of traffic waiting, halfway across the street I almost forget how to walk naturally, thinking all eyes of the drivers waiting are on me. Because I’m concentrating so much on “walking naturally” I don’t look up to see if they are actually watching me. It’s the idea of the staring that does it to me. So there is something perceived as very powerful in the stare, even imagined, of others that affects us. — Brett

Yeah very interesting point.. The gaze and what one wants to present and signal to others and be signalled by others.. It's all playing roles.

Many men still stare without, I suspect, any understanding of why they do it. Initially it may have helped in bonding with other male friends. I suspect that not many men stare when they’re alone like they do when they’re with other males. — Brett

Yep, but you bring up the point.. the habit of a few seconds of staring that started to bond with male friends becomes just the habit of staring a few extra seconds. The point is the mystery of its real origins. Pragmatically, one can argue that the outcome is to bring the person to a state of habits of being attracted or even habits of attraction. It's oddly very behaviorist if looked at in this regard.

This would seem to indicate an ideal look. If true then what was once cultural is now subverted by a homogenous look perpetuated by the apparent success and happiness of western women. Just what is the “ look” of western women suggesting. — Brett

Well, interesting ideas.. That's what I'm getting with my posts to Possibility and 3027amen.. How much of this is cultural.. and how much of it is due to very ingrained cultural ideas (stuck in there somewhere back in time...)?

Someone mentioned roles and subjectiviites, I think it was @fdrake. Perhaps people early on are playing roles.. The male who takes an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman walking down the street is playing the role of a male who is supposed to take an extra few seconds to stare at a scantily clad woman down the street.. The origin has been lost in time.. both in broader culture and that person's actual biographic life as to when they picked up on this cue.. Pop-culture says that staring came during puberty.. I don't know.. It could be that the cultural cue is that during puberty you are supposed to start looking harder at certain physical cues (like the scantily clad woman). It is all so intermixed, one couldn't even parse out the cues from the actual "biology" and then one misattributes it to biology.

I think, once again, this tendency to dichotomize is rearing its head. Sure, I'm dichotomizing myself ( I'd like to call it parsing) self-awareness over the inescapable world of aesthetic's, but drawing the distinctions and associated virtues/vices is the point. — 3017amen

I think we are assuming too much on aesthetics. It's more about keeping up with the Jones's perhaps? As I said to Possibility:

I think the way TMF phrased it leaves this kind of a moot point. I really don't understand the debate, honestly. However, I can think of way more interesting ways that the phenomenal experience of attraction causes problems. Purely looking at phenomenal/social experiences:

What is physical attraction anyways? Is it cultural or universal? In other words, can people be taught to find what was originally considered not attractive to be attractive with enough time and cultural cues?

Why is it seen that squishy parts are considered pleasing in some areas but not in others? Is evolutionary biology too reductionist and "just so"?

These are all more interesting than the OP because the OP assumes a lot of things like a) what is attractive is universal b) being partially or fully naked means objectification is taking place. Both may be false. Why start with these assumptions? This is just taking what is culturally (or pop-culturally) given and then running with it, which is jumping past the philosophically interesting parts... — schopenhauer1

In other words.. we may buy too much in the narrative of our own cultural practices of what is physically deemed attractive.

It's too easy to buy into "just-so" theories of physical attraction. Let's say we all valued what many think are ugly? Is it universal or cultural? Perhaps it has been cultural all the way but we then analogize through cultural cues made up some time by the Greeks or the Middle Age Romantics, or by pop-science's tendency to overgeneralize the human experience to other animals.. I don't know.. This could be totally wrong too but I'm just throwing out ideas to shake us out of the mindset that big breasts, slender waist, slightly bigger hips, ample buttocks, symmetrical face with certain proportioned features are what are indeed universally pleasing and attractive. Maybe it is.. but maybe we can't even get out of the whole scheme itself if it was indeed cultural because it's too ingrained.. Maybe it's taken as a given physiologically/biologically when indeed it was cultural all along.. maybe a combination of both..

It's hard to play objective detective with our own species being so culturally driven (enculturated).

Absolutely. It is possible to value someone for their appearance without treating them as if they exist purely for your aesthetic appreciation or physical use, and have no other intentions. — Possibility

Yeah.. I agree I guess. I don't see the problem.

I think the way TMF phrased it leaves this kind of a moot point. I really don't understand the debate, honestly. However, I can think of way more interesting ways that the phenomenal experience of attraction causes problems. Purely looking at phenomenal/social experiences:

What is physical attraction anyways? Is it cultural or universal? In other words, can people be taught to find what was originally considered not attractive to be attractive with enough time and cultural cues?

Why is it seen that squishy parts are considered pleasing in some areas but not in others? Is evolutionary biology too reductionist and "just so"?

These are all more interesting than the OP because the OP assumes a lot of things like a) what is attractive is universal b) being partially or fully naked means objectification is taking place. Both may be false. Why start with these assumptions? This is just taking what is culturally (or pop-culturally) given and then running with it, which is jumping past the philosophically interesting parts...

Indeed Schop1 ! And the phenomenal experience is the physical attractiveness (or unattractiveness) of the object itself. — 3017amen

The definition TMF gave was about dehumanization and disavowing the humanity of others. So I saw others speak of agency here. So if I guess we say that to not objectify is recognize their agency, and to objectify is to not recognize their agency, can't someone be scantily clad, be physically attractive, and still see their agency? I don't see the problem.

I don't understand women all that well. I see women railing against their objectification by men and yet the choices they make in their clothing suggests they wish to be treated as such. — TheMadFool

I think you have to get at the phenomenal experience itself. What about wearing scantily clad clothing makes a person have the status of being "objectified" automatically?

Once you see all the things that are trying to kill you (not actively, of course, but by the very nature of entropy, chaos, and disorder), you begin to appreciate life a little more. You realize that there isn’t really a point in being so attached to anything in this life because, in the grand scheme of things, they … don’t really matter. — Abdul

I always advocate that the lucky ones were never born at all.

Just a helpful suggestion- if you click and drag a text and then let go, you will see a quote button appear. Click the button and it will automatically quote the text you highlighted. When you post your comment, there will be a notification for the poster you quoted so that they can see that someone responded to them. When they quote you, you will also see a notification. This allows for easy viewing of who has responded.

I firstly question the paradox that is a Utopia. How would one know they are existing within Utopia, without experiencing non-utopian life, in order to understand what Utopia is.
Therefore one can exist within a percieved personal Utopian sphere, wherein other people may not consider it to match their idea of Utopia.
This personal utopian sphere fits is also impermenant and in constant flux. — wanderingmind

None of this would matter, because obviously if you were in a utopia, you would need to know exactly what it is you need to know to know you are in a utopia (or not, if that's part of what makes it a utopia). I am talking THE perfect world for each and every individual.

But you see, the point is we are not living in a Utopia and therefore, why is bringing more people into a non-utopian world worth it? Even if a real utopia cannot be played, this doesn't negate that indeed, this world is not it and does not need to be played in the first place.

I am not claiming this way of looking at life is flawless, and I hope through discussion it could be moulded, and improved, but by living this way I am freer and happier. — wanderingmind

So a question I am posing in a couple threads similar to this kind is: Is a world that isn't a utopia worth being born into?

So in your video game analogy, is a video game where you, the player (this is no abstraction, but your very physical being), can be harmed and suffer, something worth playing? What happens if the character (you) can experience eternal joy or fulfillment without having to play any game? What if you can play a game where you can dial-in or dial-back the hardness as you go?

Both of these scenarios are not this game (this world). We also cannot escape the rules of this game (the constraints of this world). That being known, is this game worth being played, just because it's the only game in town? Being a non-utopia, why should this be something another person should be forced to play (lest the decide to hit game over before the end)?

Okay, I think we're talking past each other then, because I was just saying addressing the metaphysics is the wrong conversation. I see Becky's quoted claim as off myself (as far as the description goes, because energy isn't a type of thing, but rather a metric for a property; that's always a property of something physical, and we "aren't" and can't "become" energy), unless it's possibly a metaphor I don't quite get. — InPitzotl

Yeah, I'm just trying to say that whatever she was trying to say, it didn't seem to be fleshed out as to how the world being "chemistry and physics" means something evaluative about the human experience.

I was also noting that "chemistry and physics" is an epistemological methodology, and not a metaphysical claim in itself, unless explained as such. Does Becky mean scientific naturalism? Does Becky mean physicalism? Could he/she be committing "scientisism"? It's hard to tell just from the statements. It was more a prompt to explain the position more fully. It could go in many directions, but I see Becky didn't really address the issues much further.

Actually, I meant the first response to this whole thread, sorry if I wasn't as specific, so it was before that post.

(A) is a value-judgment; I offer that it has no meaning for a reason to continue living unless it has meaning to the subject under consideration. What is your objection? — InPitzotl

I don't have one. I was just saying that the fact that we can harness DC electricity isn't a reason for humans to live by itself.

(B) is just a generic prescriptive question; — InPitzotl

Correct. Something that the statement "the world is made up of chemistry" doesn't really get at, which was my point of the statement.

(C), I offer again that life is just an opportunity, open ended. You should keep on living if there's something about life that you value. So I ask again, what is your objection? — InPitzotl

I guess my main evaluation is in regards to suffering. This is not a utopia. Is the world worth bringing more people into if it isn't a utopia? I concluded that it is not. A mediocre world (one that is at least not a utopia) is not worth bringing more people into in the first place. However, I can see not committing suicide once born because of the fear of pain and the unknown, and being attached to projects already in place once born. However, I do take Schopenhauer's (and Buddhist for that matter) ideas seriously that there is a basic lack in the humane experience. This I call inherent or "necessary" suffering (it doesn't go away, it's always there in the background). On top of this, it is self-evident that there is also myriads of ways to contingently suffer. Contingent suffering is suffering that is circumstantial to each person's circumstance (not necessary) but nonetheless still pervasive in almost all human lives (e.g. physical pain, mental anguish, frustrations, disappointments, tedium, etc.). I also see the idea of the absurd (often discussed in existential literature). That to me, is the repetitious nature of living that one sees if one reflects too long (the world turns, we basically have to do the same things over and over). To get a better understanding, see my first response.

My basic objection to Becky was her (his?) objection to my response by saying "the world is chemistry and physics" and therefore X evaluation of the world.

You're still walking through my playground. What does it mean to say humans should keep living, keep continuing, and keep procreating for reason X? What does it mean for life to matter? How does metaphysics help you answer that? — InPitzotl

Metaphysics might not, though someone like Schopenhauer has some interesting answers using a metaphysical starting point.

I offered that life is an opportunity; open ended. If you have something you care about, you can devote your life to it, and that's a reason to live. What is your objection? And how does metaphysics help support your objection? — InPitzotl

You can see it sort of in my first response.

But I submit it doesn't matter. Whatever quarks are, that the stuff coming out of my faucets is H2O is just a model saying such things as that I can run a DC current through it, and get two parts of something I call hydrogen and one part of something I call oxygen. So who really cares what the metaphysics is? That's irrelevant. What's relevant is simply whether that model is apt. — InPitzotl

I don't know, that's a pragmatic claim, which itself is a metaphysical claim. What works, is what is the case. Okay, if you say so I guess? But it looks like you are making an epistemological claim, which I would agree would help a species built on surviving on empirical patterns. That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand.

But with respect to the claim that we're chemistry, it's irrelevant what the metaphysics are. It's quite simply the wrong conversation to be had. What's relevant is simply whether the physics is apt to cover it. — InPitzotl

But that isn't the actual question at hand which is nothing to do with the physics, but what we should do as humans in the world.

ETA: Just to remain close to the topic I'll toss my view in. Life is quite simply an opportunity. Beyond that I don't think there's much to say; what it's an opportunity for is open ended, and whether that's a sufficient reason is open ended (and as some have said, it's not even necessary to have a "reason" to live to live). I would only hope that people find something to do with that opportunity and enjoy it if they can. — InPitzotl

I mean we do live until we don't, but this isn't much of a statement. So dear sir, why should humans keep living, keep continuing, keep procreating? This itself has nothing to do with whether we can harness DC energy or not.

Im not talking about how how names refer to their referents in the world but rather the specific statement that math and science are the world. That is not a metaphysical position. It is using an epistemological statement for a metaphysical position. Further, my actual point is that even that metaphysical position doesnt tell us much about the himan experience itself other than claiming perhaps a statement about the constituents that make up people and the world