Yes, I guess what I’m asking is are we pretending that this “conditioning” isn’t a real thing? I also read recently (sorry if this is wrong) that there was a study done on arousal of breasts between societies where they are covered up vs where they are not. It found the level of arousal remained consistent.
Why wouldn’t having to deal with that arousal be the problem and responsibility of the aroused instead of, by default and preemtively, limiting the rights of any prospective and involuntary “arousee” in existence?
If arousal isn’t a real thing and it’s the fault of the person being aroused, would that suggest total nudity should be ok as well?
Remember this whole discussion is about discrimination. So what you’re asking is “In contexts where full male body nudity is arbitrarily deemed acceptable, why wouldn’t full female body nudity be acceptable as well?”
And the answer, of course, is that there’s no reason to make a distinction, is there?
Well yes. In the same context there are varying degrees of nakedness. A man only need his pants off to be able to describe him as exposing himself, you know exactly what’s going on and the rest is kind of irrelevant. Whereas with a woman you would have to specify as to whether she is exposing her genitals or breasts.
Whereas with a woman you would have to specify as to whether she is exposing her genitals or breasts.
I feel like we’re kind of looping back to the beginning here - why do you think a woman would have to specify that? Why is it reasonable to burden 50% of the human population with that obligation?
It’s the same reason wokeness has become used as almost a slur. Being aware of social injustices is great when it’s based in reason. The reasoning falls apart when I am legally being forced to pretend something is something when it’s not. The trans issue is reasonable until you get a situation where someone can change their gender day to day and I now become forced to pretend. The same idea for breasts, I’m being forced to pretend like almost all women use them as sex organs regularly. It’s hard because they are multipurpose. Would you say an unerect penis is not obscene and acceptable to be shown in public and in the presence of children? Just because it’s not being used as a sex organ in the moment doesn’t mean it doesn’t still carry some significance.
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
I really don’t think that’s a useful mindset. We’re all just people here, having conversations and - ideally - socratic dialogues. What could be gained by sticking anything to anyone?
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Well, I see it like this: A conversation can only ever be had under the assumption that all participants are acting in good faith. If that assumption breaks down then the conversation simply cannot continue. Once you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your conversation partner does not want to share information with you or does not wish to convince you of their point of view but instead has some kind other motive that does not involve listening to and understanding your points, then there’s nothing else to do but to exit the conversation.
Why wouldn’t having to deal with that arousal be the problem and responsibility of the aroused instead of, by default and preemtively, limiting the rights of any prospective and involuntary “arousee” in existence?
If arousal isn’t a real thing and it’s the fault of the person being aroused, would that suggest total nudity should be ok as well?
Remember this whole discussion is about discrimination. So what you’re asking is “In contexts where full male body nudity is arbitrarily deemed acceptable, why wouldn’t full female body nudity be acceptable as well?”
And the answer, of course, is that there’s no reason to make a distinction, is there?
Well yes. In the same context there are varying degrees of nakedness. A man only need his pants off to be able to describe him as exposing himself, you know exactly what’s going on and the rest is kind of irrelevant. Whereas with a woman you would have to specify as to whether she is exposing her genitals or breasts.
I feel like we’re kind of looping back to the beginning here - why do you think a woman would have to specify that? Why is it reasonable to burden 50% of the human population with that obligation?
It’s the same reason wokeness has become used as almost a slur. Being aware of social injustices is great when it’s based in reason. The reasoning falls apart when I am legally being forced to pretend something is something when it’s not. The trans issue is reasonable until you get a situation where someone can change their gender day to day and I now become forced to pretend. The same idea for breasts, I’m being forced to pretend like almost all women use them as sex organs regularly. It’s hard because they are multipurpose. Would you say an unerect penis is not obscene and acceptable to be shown in public and in the presence of children? Just because it’s not being used as a sex organ in the moment doesn’t mean it doesn’t still carry some significance.
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
I really don’t think that’s a useful mindset. We’re all just people here, having conversations and - ideally - socratic dialogues. What could be gained by sticking anything to anyone?
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Well, I see it like this: A conversation can only ever be had under the assumption that all participants are acting in good faith. If that assumption breaks down then the conversation simply cannot continue. Once you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your conversation partner does not want to share information with you or does not wish to convince you of their point of view but instead has some kind other motive that does not involve listening to and understanding your points, then there’s nothing else to do but to exit the conversation.
I can see your point that in the context of a public discussion board it may make some sense to consider a possible audience, but I also feel like this comes with such a rat’s tail of different problems that it’s probably not worth the effort. It provides a very perverse incentive for an argument to devolve into some kind of spectacle sport, where one ends up disregarding the conversational partner and instead is rewarded for focussing on an imaginary audience. I think that’s not desirable and it’s therefore best to treat every conversation as if it were private - if possible.