RE: topless women (Full Version)

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



Message

wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 10:58:55 AM)

I believe that studies have shown that women are less visually oriented when it comes to sexual stimulation. I think that's why more erotic literature has been devoted to women, and more "girlie magazine" type of erotica has been devoted to men.

Speaking only for myself, I've never been much for taking note of men's bodies, as in seeing a man on the beach and saying "What a hunk" or anything like that. I've noticed if a man was handsome, or not, but not just "body parts". When I consider TV commercials, for one example, I recall that it's only fairly recently that there have been women's equivalents to the "sexy model" in them--now that we're supposed to do everything that men do, I suppose.



p31woman -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 11:30:14 AM)

Actually, studies do not show that.

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 11:32:05 AM)

Yes, to erotic material-but women respond more to verbal erotica, men to visual.



p31woman -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 11:37:27 AM)

The study I linked to is talking about visual erotica.



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 11:43:16 AM)

Then that's a new development, as every study I've ever read about on the topic said the opposite. It makes sense to me, as women are the primary consumers of romantic and erotic books (ie, the "bodice-ripper" genre), and men have been the primary consumers of porn films.

But I can believe that that has changed, considering how the culture has ceaselessly pushed the notion of "sexiness" on young women so that they would be the "equal" of men in this as in other things. I suppose that it would've had to have changed, with the advent of such things as male strippers, etc, to women. It's a shame that of all the rights and areas of inequality for which women had to struggle, this would need to be one.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 12:29:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: p31woman

Actually, studies do not show that.

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."


and p31woman slays another myth! [sm=yummy.gif]

While some may think it a "trying to be like men" thing responsible for more honest studies in this regard-I really don't think any serious discussion on this can take place outside of the consideration of generation after generation after generation of the supression/oppression of female sexuality. (ie...Good Girls Don't..). While I understand some of this was done under the banner of "protecting" females from the very real consequences of sexuality (STDs and Pregnancy outside of marriage), I never understood how even back to the 60's it could be considered illegal to give birth control to single women, yet single men could buy condoms without question. [:'(]

There has been, and continues to be, a significant double standard in regards to male and female sexuality, and I have to consider that at least some of that is responsible for some women not willing to fess up to noticing hunky men, or not yet being comfortable with outward expressions of their sexual natures when they pop up. (Note: Before too many get bees in their bonnets, I'm not saying that ALL women who don't admit to enjoying the site of well built men aren't comfortable with their sexuality....). It's not to far of a stretch for me to also take this into account when considering men being larger consumers of porn.

due to this double standard-I'm not surprised a double standard exists in American "indecent exposure law". I don't think you can chalk this all up to the poor men being far more a slave to their sexual natures. It makes more logical sense to me that this double standard exists due to cultural acceptance and norms. (We are used to seeing bare chested men-at least at beaches and pools, because men being bare chested is culturally acceptable). Societies where women are regularly bare chested wouldn't even be having this discussion. [:D]



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 12:38:05 PM)

What I was trying to say, is that, with so many areas of real inequality that needed work, I don't see how making women as comfortable with porn as men were historically, was such a priority. I don't think that it must mean that a woman is uncomfortable with her sexuality if she is uncomfortable with porn, any more than that would be the case for men.

And if the former studies were mythical, the myth was based upon what women themselves said. It's not too much of a stretch for me to believe that the constant cultural barrage of all-sex, all the time, has created an equally artificial standard for women to feel that they must meet, as the old standard of women being less visually sexually stimulated than men.


There's still the discrepancy of men-movies and women-books. Even now, women are the (by far) largest consumers of both romantic (whatever the degree of "spiciness") and erotic literature.

I imagine that the truth for most women lies more in the middle.

I can't say that I would see it as a gain that women would be more comfortable with blatant visual sexual stimulation (ie porn).



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 1:46:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: p31woman

Actually, studies do not show that.

"Usually men subjectively rate erotic material much higher than women," he says. "So based on those data we would expect lower responses in women, but that was not the case. Women have responses as strong as those seen in men."

From that article:

"This study, which itself carries several limitations, and I would argue more than a few major theoretical flaws, is still one of the first to offer statistically significant empirical evidence that both women and men respond subjectively and significantly to visual erotic material. Which is good news for those of us who believe that our response to sexual or erotic imagery may be a bit more complicated than X or Y."

The link within that quote is active. This issue is not as black and white as you seem to think.



SpongeBlog -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 1:50:33 PM)

I'm not normally in this folder. But I was here last night, or whenever it was, because of a thread that got moved here. And because I'm a man (equipped with all the things required to fulfill my God-given commission to pursue a wife and be fruitful) I couldn't help but to be captured by the word 'topless' in the thread title. The words 'sex' and 'topless' can be tucked away in the smallest font possible with no spaces or paragraphs and we males will find it with a glance of the eye. You have to understand that's how men are glued together.

I don't want to read all the various posts because I've been through one of these threads before and had some of my posts deleted for using tasteless humor, and because everyone will dance around the fundamental question that needs to be answered...

Why do you want men you are not married to look at your breasts!!!!! Please, spare me having to read all the threads and the temptation of using crude humor that will come up, and educate this mindless, hormonal, brainstem oriented male.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 1:54:08 PM)

quote:

This issue is not as black and white as you seem to think.


I absolutely agree the issue is not so black and white, any more than human sexuality is. There are many nuances of gray.

Though I for one tire of seeing "men are visual, women are not" bandied about AS IF that is a black and white fact, written in stone for all eternity, and accounts for everything from increased sexual crime statistics to perversions amongst men. Quite clearly it's not such a black and white fact after all. Yet it is used for many of the "underpinnings" (and excuses to be quite frank), of these conversations involving sexuality and gender.



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 2:01:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

quote:

This issue is not as black and white as you seem to think.


I absolutely agree the issue is not so black and white, any more than human sexuality is. There are many nuances of gray.

Though I for one tire of seeing "men are visual, women are not" bandied about AS IF that is a black and white fact, written in stone for all eternity, and accounts for everything from increased sexual crime statistics to perversions amongst men. Quite clearly it's not such a black and white fact after all. Yet it is used for many of the "underpinnings" (and excuses to be quite frank), of these conversations involving sexuality and gender.

Yeah, you're right. At the same time, though, just because this issue seems to be getting a negative stigma, this doesn't necessarily mean its not true.

I happen to believe that men, in fact, are more visually stimulated sexually than women are, as a general rule of thumb. Obviously there will be some men and women who fall down on both sides of this, but, generally, I think this is the case.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 2:45:46 PM)

quote:

I happen to believe that men, in fact, are more visually stimulated sexually than women are, as a general rule of thumb.


We all have an opinion. That what makes forums tick isn't it? [8D]

I happen to have a cultural background where libido for all things (food, sex, family, dance, wine, political opinions and life in general) seems to be a strong under current in our blood. So for women to notice nice looking men, be visually stimulated by the male form, or to find a well built male chest attractive is not at all unusual to me. That being the case-I do not think it correct that a woman can be arrested for being topless, and a male cannot. Since I find the male chest attractive (well-the well done ones anyway...LOL)...I truly don't get why some men don't "get" the obvious (to me) double standard here. [8D] .



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 3:34:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

So for women to notice nice looking men, be visually stimulated by the male form, or to find a well built male chest attractive is not at all unusual to me.

I don't think anyone was making a point to the contrary. The question is not whether women are stimulated visually, but whether that stimulation is the same as a man's

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

That being the case-I do not think it correct that a woman can be arrested for being topless, and a male cannot. Since I find the male chest attractive (well-the well done ones anyway...LOL)...I truly don't get why some men don't "get" the obvious (to me) double standard here. [8D] .

I suppose I disagree and there are many reasons for it. For example, for a woman to touch a man's chest is not the same as a man touching a woman's chest (I'm talking here in normal non-sexual contact). However, as I've already stated, this has more to do with how our culture views and treats breasts than it does with breasts themselves.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 4:39:00 PM)

FINALLY! Intelligent conversation on a topic instead of the usual rhetoric! HURRAY! [:D]

quote:

I don't think anyone was making a point to the contrary. The question is not whether women are stimulated visually, but whether that stimulation is the same as a man's.


Since the equipment is different....I suppose one could argue it's not EXACTLY the same indeed...though I suspect you may have meant "degrees" of stimulation. Though again-that is HIGHLY subjective is it not? And is it fair to make laws based on the fact that SOME people have a subjective belief that men are more easily stimulated than women, at least "degree wise"?

quote:

For example, for a woman to touch a man's chest is not the same as a man touching a woman's chest (I'm talking here in normal non-sexual contact).


Well-It's not often I go around touching men's chests outside of sexual contact...and then the touchee is my mate of almost 20yrs. Nuff said. [8D]

(Ok-maybe not enuff said-because being a gym rat, I see plenty of well built male chests, and I would be a liar if I stated: Why Rhett Butler...I hardly even noticed.)


Though whether I linger there or just notice IS ENTIRELY ON ME.

quote:

However, as I've already stated, this has more to do with how our culture views and treats breasts than it does with breasts themselves.


We agree on this one for sure.



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 4:53:36 PM)

I can only speak for myself-of course-but I can honestly say that I have never paid very much attention to men's bodies, as in "what a hunk" or something like that. I would've noticed if they weren't especially attractive, attractive (as opposed to sexually stimulating) being the operative word, if I had a particular reason for noticing.

I do notice men's hair-in my far away younger days I loved long (waist length even) straight silky hair on men.

A Chippendale show (putting aside the moral ramifications) would do nothing for me. I would probably make hardly conscious note that the men were attractive, but no stronger reaction.


I've never been wild about the "hunky" muscular look anyway. I always had a strange attraction to those long rangy rocker-types (think Peter Frampton, almost any Seventies rock hero, especially guitar or keyboard players, LOL).

I wonder what the skins God gave Adam and Eve looked like, when He made them cover their nakedness, as they no longer had the innocence to be naked without sexuality entering into it?



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 4:54:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

Since the equipment is different....I suppose one could argue it's not EXACTLY the same indeed...though I suspect you may have meant "degrees" of stimulation. Though again-that is HIGHLY subjective is it not?

To a degree it is...can you elaborate on the question, though?


quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

And is it fair to make laws based on the fact that SOME people have a subjective belief that men are more easily stimulated than women, at least "degree wise"?

No, not at all. But I have trouble coming to the conclusion that the law is in place for women not to be topless simply because men tend to be more visually stimulated...


quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

Well-It's not often I go around touching men's chests outside of sexual contact...and then the touchee is my mate of almost 20yrs. Nuff said. [8D]

I said that out of my own experience. I have various friends who would touch my chest - that makes it sound worse than it really is. Its like if you're messing around playing a game and someone slams your chest. Or, like if I were giving a hug to a girl I know and (from the side) if she were to place one of her hands on my chest. Does that make sense - I get the feeling that this is coming out all wrong.



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 4:57:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wunderschon

I wonder what the skins God gave Adam and Eve looked like, when He made them cover their nakedness, as they no longer had the innocence to be naked without sexuality entering into it?

Interesting take on the Creation Narrative. Why do you think that it was about sexuality?



wunderschon -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 5:17:32 PM)

Well, I would think that sexuality would be one aspect of it because the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are filled with injunctions to be modest. Also, it totally fits with the fact that even now, children are considered innocent and their nakedness not an immodesty (though we have to take care in this day and time for other reasons). It seems to go hand-in-hand that as they grow old enough to be aware of their own nakedness, they are taught to be modest and cover it.

I'm not a Bible scholar, so I don't know if this is true or not-but I've read that it wasn't an especially cold climate at that time. If that's true, it wouldn't be strictly for warmth.

It's almost instinct that when a woman is for some reason is publicly unclothed, she will try with two hands to cover both her bosom and her lower region.



HisLamb26 -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 6:47:05 PM)

quote:

No, not at all. But I have trouble coming to the conclusion that the law is in place for women not to be topless simply because men tend to be more visually stimulated...


Good point-though I didn't read the whole thread-that did appear to me to be the gist of some of the arguments. ie Women's breasts are "Sexual", men's chests aren't. (Obviously I disagree, as I find a well built male chest a sexually appealing trait. But the difference is-I'm not whining for them to keep it covered-just arguing it's unfair for a double standard to exist in the law re. "indecent" exposure.)


quote:

I said that out of my own experience. I have various friends who would touch my chest - that makes it sound worse than it really is. Its like if you're messing around playing a game and someone slams your chest. Or, like if I were giving a hug to a girl I know and (from the side) if she were to place one of her hands on my chest. Does that make sense - get the feeling that this is coming out all wrong.


Well-It's been a long time since I've played a contact sport with males, and I can't think of a time I've hugged a brother at church and touched his chest.....My friends at church kind of frown on other ladies touching their husbands....LOL. [:D]

I guess I'm not getting you on that point-but overall this has been an interesting exchange and I've enjoyed discussing this with you.



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/4/2007 6:51:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisLamb26

Well-It's been a long time since I've played a contact sport with males, and I can't think of a time I've hugged a brother at church and touched his chest.....My friends at church kind of frown on other ladies touching their husbands....LOL. [:D]

I guess I'm not getting you on that point-but overall this has been an interesting exchange and I've enjoyed discussing this with you.

I knew that wasn't going to out right. Regardless, though, I have enjoyed the discussion as well!



FurGodWurLivin -> RE: topless women (12/5/2007 1:59:02 AM)

I always find it interesting that people in general (and more and more so in the church) are devoting so much of our conversations to something (sex) that only occupies 0.09% (maybe) of your life at large...

Adam



OneOfHisJewels -> RE: topless women (12/5/2007 2:18:56 AM)

quote:

I always find it interesting that people in general (and more and more so in the church) are devoting so much of our conversations to something (sex) that only occupies 0.09% (maybe) of your life at large...



You are such a cool guy! And a good example..

I am probably more guilty of dwelling on this subject than you...and I'm female, and you're male...

which proves that blanket statements about male and female drives are plain silly.

I agree women shouldn't be topless..but frankly, I don't think men should be either..ok I'm weird.



gonzoguy -> RE: topless women (12/5/2007 11:49:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin

I always find it interesting that people in general (and more and more so in the church) are devoting so much of our conversations to something (sex) that only occupies 0.09% (maybe) of your life at large...

Adam

Maybe its the fact that the subject has been taboo in the Church for so long (and, I might add, has resulted in a lot of dysfunction and misunderstandings)?



zamdad -> RE: topless women (12/5/2007 11:19:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin

I always find it interesting that people in general (and more and more so in the church) are devoting so much of our conversations to something (sex) that only occupies 0.09% (maybe) of your life at large...

Adam


Perhaps the culture we live in has become so sexually saturated mostly because we, the church, have avoided the topic or made it off limits. The Bible has much to teach on the subject of sex and it's a topic the institutional church is all too eagver to avoid. If we chose to address it, it would help to improve how we relate with one another and we would not be so fascinated by the topic.



c_h_b -> RE: topless women (12/6/2007 2:01:55 AM)

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.



That odd squeaking sound you hear is Scripture being twisted context.

God was speaking (metaphorically) to a people who already had strict dress codes and morals, yet were blatantly violating them. Metaphorical passages don't make much of anything "obvious" other than the specific situations to which they are intended to apply.



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



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI