RE: topless women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

LCannon -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 12:51:14 PM)

It's interesting(at least to me)most respondents are guys(apparently). 'Where one's imagination lies...'



GrahamCracker -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 2:43:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: p31woman

quote:

Fritz was right. Parts of our genitals serve more than one purpose.


Genitals by definition are reproductive organs. A man or woman without breasts can still reproduce, and still enjoy sex.

Yes, but we are talking about their effect on men. Let's face it. Women without breasts arouse men less easily.



GrahamCracker -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 2:45:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LCannon

It's interesting(at least to me)most respondents are guys(apparently). 'Where one's imagination lies...'


Imagination but not fantasy. At least, I hope not.



stellaluna -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 2:51:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: p31woman

quote:

Fritz was right. Parts of our genitals serve more than one purpose.


Genitals by definition are reproductive organs. A man or woman without breasts can still reproduce, and still enjoy sex.

Yes, but we are talking about their effect on men. Let's face it. Women without breasts arouse men less easily.

[8|]



miasma -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 2:52:31 PM)

No, they arouse you less.

Unless I missed the memo, wherein you were voted spokesperson for all the billions of other men on the planet. [8|]

I would surely love you to go to a chemo-support, or breast cancer forum, and make the same statement.



figmentPez -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 4:37:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

Ezekiel 16:7-8
7"I made you numerous like plants of the field. Then you grew up, became tall and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare. 8"Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.

In this passage (a metaphor about God's relationship with Jerusalem) God describes breasts and genitals as nakedness to be covered. Later Jerusalem plays the harlot by showing off her nakedness. I think this makes it pretty clear that adult women are not to go topless.



The ezekiel passage refers not to just covering someone because they were naked.
The women walked around naked. The male covering them with a "skirt" was how they claimed them. It was a metaphor yes, using a reference they would be familiar with. That is part of why Ruth asked to have herself covered when looking for a kinsman redeemer.
Later, when they refer to "naked, and squirming with blood" , it refers to the same thing. They walked around naked, even during menstruation.

In the harlot reference, "nakedness" refers to "shame", or "something hidden one doesn't want revealed".
"And the nakedness of your harlotries will be uncovered, both your lewdness and your harlotries".


I don't believe a word of this. First, I don't believe that adult women walked around naked in Ezekiel's day. Ruth certainly was not naked when Boaz claimed her, she had put on her best clothes (Ruth 3:3). Second, Ezekiel 16:22 is NOT referring to menstrual blood, it is referring to the blood of birth, see 16:4-6. The child Jerusalem was abandoned at birth, cord uncut and unwashed. Despite being left to die, the LORD said to "Live!". This is what Jerusalem forgot, that "she" owed her very life to the LORD. Nothing to do with adult women walking around naked.

Can you provide any Biblical proof of your claims? Because associating nakedness with harlotry doesn't work if everyone is naked anyway. There is no nakedness to expose if it's on display already. It makes no logical sense to talk about nakedness being exposed as shameful if nakedness was the normal state to be in. Yes, exposing nakedness is a metaphor for more things than the literal, but it cannot work as a metaphor for being exposed if nakedness is already being displayed as a normal thing.

And with that, I cannot stomach this thread any longer.



GrahamCracker -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 4:53:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: miasma

No, they arouse you less.

Unless I missed the memo, wherein you were voted spokesperson for all the billions of other men on the planet. [8|]

I would surely love you to go to a chemo-support, or breast cancer forum, and make the same statement.


Look. I don't have to be the spokesmen for all men to know this.

I have spoken with enough men and women. Are women aroused by men? Sure. I do not for a minute believe women and men have the same sexual arousal time frames. Nor are they as intensely excited by exactly the same things.

The same intensity? Quite possibly. But that is not the same thing as saying that they are aroused as quickly by sight.

Women find it hard to believe. How many women harass men with cat calls and wolf whistles? How many women rape men or even try? It's not just about physical strength and power. If women don't have the physical strength, they could accomplish the same things with guns or knives. But they simply don't do that.

Baser men do it all the time to women. Women hardly ever do it to men.



GrahamCracker -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 4:57:45 PM)

figment said:

quote:

I don't believe a word of this. First, I don't believe that adult women walked around naked in Ezekiel's day.


Probably not. I agree with you. The Bible sometimes uses references to nakedness but without intending to speak of literal nakedness. Sometimes, they took off their outer garment but retained their inner one. They were not fully unclothed unless it was forced on them unwillingly.



WhiteWindWarrior -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 8:35:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: p31woman

quote:

Fritz was right. Parts of our genitals serve more than one purpose.


Genitals by definition are reproductive organs. A man or woman without breasts can still reproduce, and still enjoy sex.

Yes, but we are talking about their effect on men. Let's face it. Women without breasts arouse men less easily.


GrahamCracker~

Good thing you inserted the word "less" because I would insert that I married a woman many years ago who was very self-concious about the size of her breasts. Even members of her own family would tease her about it. That never entered into my decision making process to marry her back in '59 and after 3 children the size thing is no longer an issue. IN fact it vanished, as she joined the ranks of the well endowed.

Fascination with the female breast never quit got my attention. I do like the female anatomy immensly, God certainly has done a wonderful thing there. It's just that I like the whole person as well as the body and it's various components.

But how many times I have met really knock out women (breasts included) that simply had nothing else going for them. If breasts are the exclusive reference point for revealing the true mystery of a woman, than there is a fatal flaw in the eye of the beholder.

Females determined to be nude here in this country are violating a basic concept about respect for the laws that exist in our land, right or wrong in your own opinion it is proper to observe the laws that are in place. If you don't like the laws you can try to exert political pressure to change them of course.

Try that in a middle eastern muslim culture and it might get you in even more trouble. Current events, such as witnessed by strict muslim cultures, suggest covering the entire female anatomy is the only way to go. This is driven largely by religious edict. Of course some ladies might benefit by such a cultural approach to handling the exposure of the female anatomy. [;)]

Sorry, but for me there is a lot to be said for the entire female instead of just two lovely attractions. Sex begins in the mind... [8|]



SonInMe1 -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 9:31:27 PM)

A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.

Proverbs 5:19



zamdad -> RE: topless women (11/29/2007 11:30:32 PM)

Seems to me that BeGone will be gone soon. Thus far he/she has started two threads deicated entirely to issues surrounding nudity. While begone has been polite, I am left wondering why the fascination with the topic?



Okami -> RE: topless women (11/30/2007 1:05:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Child4Jesus
This however doesn't take away from the fact that womens breasts in those places still arouse sexual desire.


Not true, but probably not completely proveable for either case.
Some tribes greet eachother by tugging on eachother's willies. Is that sexual as well? Growing up with it being non sexual and normal is a different perspective. You can't look at it with the standards of how you grew up and think it applies to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Child4Jesus
I personally believe that any rational person could gather from the Bible that the only person a man or woman should ever see naked, is the husband or wife.


What about the israeli women that walked around nude, a very acceptible occurance, until they were claimed for marriage?
What about King David, dancing around before the ark in nothing but an undershirt, flopping around in front of everyone, and the only reproach he got was from his wife, not that it was wrong, but because she didnt think it was befitting for a King. (And she was the one rebuked for thinking so)



SonInMe1 -> RE: topless women (11/30/2007 8:21:39 AM)

You can say what anything should be, but what is, is.

In america the exposed woman's breast is arousing. Its our culture. You can argue right or wrong but it isn't going to change.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: topless women (11/30/2007 3:57:28 PM)

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

Okami,

An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



GrahamCracker -> RE: topless women (11/30/2007 5:13:56 PM)

quote:

Fascination with the female breast never quit got my attention. I do like the female anatomy immensly, God certainly has done a wonderful thing there. It's just that I like the whole person as well as the body and it's various components.

But how many times I have met really knock out women (breasts included) that simply had nothing else going for them. If breasts are the exclusive reference point for revealing the true mystery of a woman, than there is a fatal flaw in the eye of the beholder.


WhiteWindWarrior,

Please understand that arousal is not the same thing as being seriously interested in that person. Males by nature are more easily aroused by sight than females. For the average dedicated and committed Christian guy, it doesn't get beyond a quick glimpse.

Acknowleding that fact doesn't diminish the point that you made: It doesn't equate with genuine romantic interest or even a "I'd like to get to know you better" stage.



WhiteWindWarrior -> RE: topless women (11/30/2007 9:01:52 PM)

GrahamCracker ~

I'm pretty sure I've got the difference between arousal and serious interest thing pretty well locked up after all these years. At this stage the arousal part doesn't even register anymore so for me it's a moot point, memories take over now... [sm=smile-l.gif][sm=popsigh.gif]



OneOfHisJewels -> RE: topless women (12/1/2007 1:32:46 AM)

quote:

Generally, women do not gawk at men's shirtless tops. But we cannot say that men don't gawk at women's tops.



UH....I tend to...some of us women are more visually stimulated than you men would like to think..I really don't think guys should walk around topless unless they are directly swimming..and then they're not walking, they're swimming...once they come out of the water, on should come the t-shirt(yes, they can dry off first).



SonInMe1 -> RE: topless women (12/1/2007 7:58:54 AM)

I would think there are vastly more women who have gotten silicone breast implants than men.

Face the facts.



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/1/2007 8:04:58 AM)

It seems pretty clear to me that exposed breasts are considered sexual or at least cause arousal because of how society treats them. I mean, if you think back a couple of decades, lingerie (and not the kind we have today - I'm thinking Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin roof) caused a lot of arousal and became a huge controversy. So perhaps breasts are associated with being sexual simply because society and laws insist on keeping them covered.

Food for thought...



stellaluna -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 12:12:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
I would think there are vastly more women who have gotten silicone breast implants than men.

Face the facts.

Huh?



SonInMe1 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 8:36:11 AM)

quote:

I would think there are vastly more women who have gotten silicone breast implants than men.

Face the facts.

Huh?


If men's exposed breasts are just as much of a turn on for women as women's exposed breasts are for men, then why is there so much more cosmetic surgery done on women then for men?

There is no comparison between a man with his shirt off and a woman without a top...be real. Its completely different.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 9:22:47 AM)

I keep hearing over and over again on these boards that men are more visually stimulated than women, and the only basis for this seems to be the fact that men are more prone to perversion (porn) and sexual crimes than women. To carry that thought to its logical conclusion specific to this topic: Is the fact that men make up over 90% of the convicted pedophile population mean they are more visually stimulated, more prone to perversion, or that they are just more likely to commit crime in general?

I hate to break it to you fellas-but most females I know would find a well built bare male chest sexually stimulating. If they don't admit it to you-trust me they do to their girlfriends. [:D]

Now I would find a bare chested Matthew Mcconaughey significantly more interesting than a bare chested Micheal Moore-but that doesn't lessen the fact that most healthy females I'm aquainted with would notice, be attracted to, and sexually stimulated by, a man baring a well built chest. Yet it is not a crime for a man to appear in public shirtless. To me that's a double standard, and part of the old myth that us gals just don't find males "distracting" at times. Perhaps we just hide it better (and/or have more self control). [8D]



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 9:43:15 AM)

Oh, and specific to plastic surgery-over the last decade, men have become significant consumers themselves. And if the hardcore bodybuilder population at my gym is any indication of gender specific "look improvement" quests-men are winners hands down. (and yes-one could say the want to be muscular for their health-but spend time on any bodybuilding forum and you will quickly find that male bodybuilders do not at all negate the "chick magnet" factor of their fitness equations.)



stellaluna -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 9:45:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

quote:

I would think there are vastly more women who have gotten silicone breast implants than men.

Face the facts.

Huh?


If men's exposed breasts are just as much of a turn on for women as women's exposed breasts are for men, then why is there so much more cosmetic surgery done on women then for men?

Because we live in a society that says the appeal of a woman is largely measured by breast size. The bigger, the better, because that's what men will look at. Self-esteem, sadly, is often directly related, so women are anxious to feel more "like a woman." It's stupid.

quote:


There is no comparison between a man with his shirt off and a woman without a top...be real. Its completely different.

For some people. For others, not so much.



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 10:48:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: miasma

quote:

Erogenous zones, maybe, like lips or earlobes or nose tissue that all engorge upon arousal-- just like men's breasts-- but sexual organs? I don't think so.


100% correct.

It is a cultural thing, which means in this country, largely a religious thing. Read about the history of Purtianism in this country, Victorian sexual morays, etc. You'll reach this conclusion:

quote:

North American culture has sexualized the breast to a point where most people can't see past that as it's only function.
(among others)

I don't have a problem with "topless women," it's usual and ordinary in Europe and quite a lot of the rest of the world.

quote:

Here, it is "indecent exposure".
Overseas, it's just tanning.
In some countries, it's everyday wear.


Or as Marlene Dietrich put it, "In America, sex is an obsession, in other parts of the world it's a fact."



LOL, Marlene Dietrich would know, she was pretty obsessed with sex herself, considering her personal life! I wouldn't think that that was because she eventually became an American citizen, though :)

And describing things as "French" was historically a way of noting a certain raciness in them. (French farce, French letters, the "French" disease-what the English used to call venereal disease.)

I myself wouldn't exactly take European cultural mores regarding sex as my standard. Consider who wrote a book about highly deviant sexual practices, and had a certain category of them named after himself (the Marquis de Sade).

Erich Von Stroheim never failed to include degradation in his films-Gloria Swanson eventually parted company with him over some of the things he wanted to include in "Queen Kelly".

Americans may err a bit on the side of prudishness (or at least that may have been the case historically, I don't think that's a "problem" these days), but at least our approach to sex has been a wholesome one, generally speaking.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI