The Death of Pretty (an article on how many women want to be seen now)

[GraceDK]

Im coming very late to this thread … I just wanna give my compliment to Debora: You are hot and so is your man if he is the one on the picture…

And Luna : You rock. I totally admire your way of writing and expression which I really identify with… I could hope that men would deal more with their own immodesty instead of always talking about that of women and girls and trying to reduce us to our sexuality without knowing that is what they do, and pretend they know what women are thinking. The porn-market is driven by the money and interest of men, also sadly Catholic men…

Besides I am real tired of women being held subconsciously to standards that men aren’t. I remember once hearing the socalled “great thinker” Peter Kreeft saying about American colleges that “they had become places for young men and their whores.” That, and other nonsense from this “philosopher” made me not wanna waste one more moment on his “great ideas”…

In this aspect I am happy to be a European. I think we have less of this kind of nonsense than you Americans do. Here Kreft wouldn’t get away with such statements without scandalizing a great many people, also men.

 

[Debora123]

Well, you ARE on the beach. It’s better than most of what is worn IN the context of being on the beach. Although a pretty sarong type skirt would be equally cool and more modest - and after all, we are not called simply to a bare minimum of modesty.

To wear to mass? No. To work? Probably not, unless you work in a surfwear shop or as a lifeguard or something.

Heh, no thanks… I can’t say I even own a “sarong skirt,” and as others have said, my shorts are perfectly fine, so Running around and falling over on the sand the way I was, I’m pretty sure people would have gotten a flash of upper legs anyway, if I was wearing a skirt.

I will mention though, that I was there that day specifically to fly a kite on a windy fall day, not to go swimming. If I was going swimming, well, let’s just say I wouldn’t be wearing jeans and a big baggy T shirt. I won’t say what kind of bathing suit I’d be wearing, because I don’t want to start yet another modesty debate, haha.

And yes, of course I agree with your last paragraph. I have also been saying all along that appropriate choice of clothing depends on many things, PLACE being one of them.

 

[chevalier]

I could hope that men would deal more with their own immodesty instead of always talking about that of women and girls and trying to reduce us to our sexuality without knowing that is what they do, and pretend they know what women are thinking. The porn-market is driven by the money and interest of men, also sadly Catholic men…

Grace, firstly, there are threads here by males asking about how to keep their thoughts chaste. Some of the “modesty threads” are started by ladies. You can’t say it really is just men talking about standards for women all the time, although you might feel that way.

Secondly, from the perspective of a man, European and not particularly hot-blooded, while I see a lot of opinions that appear rather excessive, fundamentalist (and some from women), it feels that if a male dare as much as criticise raunchy fashion, there will be outrage and backlash and talk about objectification (by him, not by fashion designers), and he will be accused (and instantly convicted) of being an immodest person that can’t guard his own eyes. Several pages ago in this thread, it happened to me, and I was criticising the come-hither sexualised aspects of fashion, not the “failure” to wear an all-covering garb.

Thirdly, there’s a difference between nitpicking about inches, centimetres etc, and having a problem with attention-enhancing designs, so to call them. When the purpose is functional or even artistic (even though personally I’m not a fan of that kind of art), the other sex can easily be told to mind its own business and that argument has a lot of merit, on the other hand, in the case of what is meant to draw the looks of the other sex and invoke base sexual associations, the same claim does not work.

Besides I am real tired of women being held subconsciously to standards that men aren’t.

Please tell me what those are. I’m not being cheeky, I just would like to hear. It is important to get perspective.

 

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by **Debora123 **

 

[Debora123]

Yes, and at times dresses worn at court showed much more cleavage than most of the tops worn nowadays.

 

[Debora123]

Im coming very late to this thread … I just wanna give my compliment to Debora: You are hot and so is your man if he is the one on the picture…

And Luna : You rock. I totally admire your way of writing and expression which I really identify with… I could hope that men would deal more with their own immodesty instead of always talking about that of women and girls and trying to reduce us to our sexuality without knowing that is what they do, and pretend they know what women are thinking. The porn-market is driven by the money and interest of men, also sadly Catholic men…

Besides I am real tired of women being held subconsciously to standards that men aren’t. I remember once hearing the socalled “great thinker” Peter Kreeft saying about American colleges that “they had become places for young men and their whores.” That, and other nonsense from this “philosopher” made me not wanna waste one more moment on his “great ideas”…

In this aspect I am happy to be a European. I think we have less of this kind of nonsense than you Americans do. Here Kreft wouldn’t get away with such statements without scandalizing a great many people, also men.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[chevalier]

But to be honest I wasn’t defending today’s fashions or agreeing with those past ones. I generally try not to criticise historical fashions for the same reason as one can’t judge historical events or past, historical reality through the lens of the present (except that we know that adultery and fornication did take place at courts and I doubt it really was uninfluenced by any tolerance of sexually stimulating behaviours). (By the way, history brings many surprises in regard of what people got away with in terms of fashion, some of which would not fly in our modern times.) On the other hand, I do have a problem with the modern fashions primarily because of the come-hither factor (I may roll my eyes at the absurd level of skin uncovered as compared to the cultural norm but absent a raunchy factor I’ll just roll my eyes and move on, much like with some of the dresses of 18th century). I’m disinterested in counting inches but I have a big issue with the underlying principle of much of today’s fashion, which seems to be to make the clothing raunchy and attention getting, offering gratuitous sexual stimulation (thus bringing sexual tension “in the air” to unnecessarily high levels and contributing to how we’re bombarded with it from every direction) and not shying away from a vulgar or crude expression of sexuality, with which I have a problem on an aesthetic level too (although aesthetics and morals are two different things). Additionally, the way I see it, if someone (absolutely regardless of his sex) dresses to provoke and arouse (whether intentionally or not would be a question of culpability but not of what really takes place), there’s already some kind of sexual interaction taking place (someone is giving and someone is receiving arousal, albeit there is no physical contact), which annoys me on the points of monogamy (we’re meant to interact sexually with one spouse, not with 50 people at the party), dignity (flaunting “assets” like meat on the market is incompatible with the dignity of a human person), privacy (we don’t need to watch other people’s sexual adventures, e.g. it’s repulsive to have to watch a man gloating over a provocatively dressed woman and both of them are causing us to watch it, not just he alone) and some other issues, not excluding public order (where there’s tension, there will be commotion, and we especially shouldn’t be teasing uncivilised drunk types who may fail to control themselves, let alone their thoughts, we should know better than that; plus, we should allow people mental peace at churches, workplaces, schools and so on). In this interaction, the unwilling spectator may actually be made a victim of some kind of sexual assault in the same sense as if we hypothetically forced someone to watch porn (historically people were forced to watch live sexual imagery in order to break their commitment to chastity, before porn was invented), hence my analogy to a sexual attempt assault (which would make very little sense if it were based on inch counting performed on a clueless person’s garments designed by a clueless tailor). Hope this clears up some of my points.

 

[Debora123]

But to be honest I wasn’t defending today’s fashions or agreeing with those past ones. I generally try not to criticise historical fashions for the same reason as one can’t judge historical events or past, historical reality through the lens of the present. (By the way, history brings many surprises in regard of what people got away with in terms of fashion, some of which would not fly in our modern times.) On the other hand, I do have a problem with the modern fashions primarily because of the come-hither factor (I may roll my eyes at the absurd level of skin uncovered as compared to the cultural norm but absent a raunchy factor I’ll just roll my eyes and move on, much like with some of the dresses of 18th century). I’m disinterested in counting inches but I have a big issue with the underlying principle of much of today’s fashion, which seems to be to make the clothing raunchy and attention getting, not shying away from a vulgar or crude expression of sexuality, with which I have a problem on an aesthetic level too (although aesthetics and morals are two different things). Additionally, the way I see it, if someone (absolutely regardless of his sex) dresses to provoke and arouse, there’s already some kind of sexual interaction taking place (someone is giving and someone is receiving arousal, albeit there is no physical contact), which annoys me on the points of monogamy (we’re meant to interact sexually with one spouse, not with 50 people at the party), dignity (flaunting “assets” like meat on the market is incompatible with the dignity of a human person), and some other issues, not excluding public order (where there’s tension, there will be commotion, and we especially shouldn’t be teasing uncivilised drunk types who may fail to control themselves, we should know better than that; plus, we should allow e.g. workers to work in peace at their workplaces). In this interaction, the unwilling spectator may actually be made a victim of some kind of sexual assault in the same sense as if we hypothetically forced someone to watch porn, hence my analogy to a sexual attempt assault (which would make very little sense if it were based on inch counting performed on a clueless person’s garments designed by a clueless tailor). Hope this clears up some of my points.

What particular popular article of clothing from “today’s fashion” do you find “raunchy?”

I ask, because it blows my mind how so many people here complain so much about today’s fashion… and yet I look around and don’t seem to see all the scandelousness being talked about so profusely on here.

Of course, every great once in a while I’ll see someone wearing something preeeetty crazy and thus pretty inappropriate… but I don’t consider those things popular modern fashion. Those things are rare. (nonetheless, when I see that I just maybe chuckle inside because I think it looks funny, and go on about my normal day… rather than getting angry for no reason.)

Please enlighten me as to what articles of clothing you are referring to so I can once and for all understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[BellsMom]

I don’t know about pretty. I think I prefer the term beauty, because it is a word which expresses the whole person, there is both inner and outer beauty, it’s more body and soul…

I loved what you said here. I hadn’t thought about it before but there is a different feeling to the word “beautiful” as compared to “pretty”. Beauty feels more whole and lasting than pretty.

 

[chevalier]

Why does anyone hhave to be or look demure? In days past, a woman may have looked demure as she was taught, to show she was a good girl and to ‘catch’ a man.

That’s a valid point. I’m not saying that was a general trend but wherever and whenever things really looked like that (and they often did), there was hypocrisy in it and possibly even sexual perversion (innocence/coyness/passivity fetish) or a question of catering to men’s egos (make them feel like a lord and master by being as submissive as only perverts can imagine).

I think honesty trumps looking a particular way to satisfy some kind of archaic standard which has nothing to do with Christianity.

I agree. And we should be very careful not to confuse Christian modesty with catering to perversion.

Not referring to you or anyone in particular but it would appear that some prefer a woman with the characteristics of a cow, dumb, docile and doe eyed. My apologies to cows.

Well, I suppose for all the bad things that may be said about the approach that you are rightly protesting against, it may be an overreaction to a misguided feminist (or pseudofeminist) vision of female empowerment and lack of need for men.

Nobody wants to feel unneeded in a relationship. Women too take it hard (possibly harder than men but I don’t know) when they are made to feel unneeded. Also, people who insist on appearing self-sufficient and so complete in themselves (as if they didn’t need community), aren’t really great at making friends (because this is not really about sexuality). A lot of people’s appearances of self-sufficiency are gamed. They are brave facades that they put up to look tough. Admitting the need for others is a step towards normalcy and sanity and humility.

 

[chevalier]

What particular popular article of clothing from “today’s fashion” do you find “raunchy?”

I ask, because it blows my mind how so many people here complain so much about today’s fashion… and yet I look around and don’t seem to see all the scandelousness being talked about so profusely on here.

I find it hard to name a single article or design because it’s more of a matter of a general impression and even the way the person moves may change a lot. Whatever is vulgar and encourages a base, unrestrained appetite is raunchy, although I suspect the word “raunchy” is already clearer than this definition.

An example could be clothing that makes a point of exposing underwear. Things that are made to appeal to people’s base sexuality rather than their more aesthetic sense, including the very clingy and glossy designs. Things that are TMI. Zippers and buttons that have no functional purpose other than attracting imagination. Provocative captions. Basically, whatever is intended on getting the viewer’s mind on sex, preferably here and now. This is often the matter of sexually charged inscriptions and drawings on the clothing rather than the way it was cut. Or something that’s cut so small and in such a way that it’s obvious there isn’t any functional purpose, it’s supposed to “spice it up”.

And yes, I realise there’s no absolute standard for the above and cultural differences may also apply. I will also agree that many people are clueless. Still, the fashion is lamentable.

Please enlighten me as to what articles of clothing you are referring to so I can once and for all understand what all the fuss is about.

Whatever looks kinky or sexually inviting, basically, or even appeals to imagination (but especially when it leaves nothing to imagination) or especially attempts to compel imagination (basically making reducing other people to sources of affirmation we seek) or focuses on “assets” (sorry, I don’t normally use this type of vocabulary but I have to for the sake of illustration here) so much that it forgets the whole person. This is not necessarily associated with “sexually attractive” because it will be repulsive to many people (including a “yuck!” feel at some point). Much like the difference between Greek art and Playboy, you know it when you see it but it’s harder to come up with proper definitions. Also things we may tolerate on strangers but wouldn’t like our children to be wearing come to mind as another probing aid.

 

[Debora123]

I find it hard to name a single article or design because it’s more of a matter of a general impression and even the way the person moves may change a lot. Whatever is vulgar and encourages a base, unrestrained appetite is raunchy, although I suspect the word “raunchy” is already clearer than this definition.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t notice all this raunchiness you speak of as a general impression and the way people move. Not when I went to the mall yesterday, and not even at the beach. Every once in a while, sure, but not all the time as seems to be noted by some ppl here.

An example could be clothing that makes a point of exposing underwear. Things that are made to appeal to people’s base sexuality rather than their more aesthetic sense, including the very clingy and glossy designs. Things that are TMI. Zippers and buttons that have no functional purpose other than attracting imagination. Provocative captions. Basically, whatever is intended on getting the viewer’s mind on sex, preferably here and now. This is often the matter of inscriptions and drawings on the clothing rather than the way it was cut.

I honestly cannot think of anything popular/common that exposes underwear. As for immodest zippers and buttons… well, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about lol. I DO see t shirts sometimes that say things like “sexy” or “foxy” on them, and you are right… those are on style and they are fairly common, but I guess they don’t bother me, and neither do they make me think of sex. I don’t really think anything of them, other than they seem silly, childish and narcissistic, but it’s not like I get bothered by them or anything.

And yes, I realise there’s no absolute standard for the above and cultural differences may also apply. I will also agree that many people are clueless. Still, the fashion is lamentable.

**Whatever looks kinky or sexually inviting, basically, or even appeals to imagination (but especially when it leaves nothing to imagination) or especially attempts to compel imagination (basically making reducing other people to sources of affirmation we seek). **This is not necessarily associated with “sexually attractive” because it will be repulsive to many people. Much like the difference between Greek art and Playboy, you know it when you see it but it’s harder to come up with proper definitions.

That’s the problem, I don’t SEE much of that at all…

I guess I was hoping you’d give me some more specific examples of things that actually ARE common… such as mini skirts, or spaghetti straps, etc etc. Not that I think those things are raunchy (I don’t), but I thought maybe you would, and that way I’d actually know what you were referring to when you talk about all the raunchiness in today’s fashions. A raunchiness, that I cannot say I see much of at all when I walk down the street.

 

[Debora123]

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t notice all this raunchiness you speak of as a general impression and the way people move. Not when I went to the mall yesterday, and not even at the beach. Every once in a while, sure, but not all the time as seems to be noted by some ppl here.

I honestly cannot think of anything popular/common that exposes underwear. As for immodest zippers and buttons… well, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about lol. I DO see t shirts sometimes that say things like “sexy” or “foxy” on them, and you are right… those are on style and they are fairly common, but I guess they don’t bother me, and neither do they make me think of sex. I don’t really think anything of them, other than they seem silly, childish and narcissistic, but it’s not like I get bothered by them or anything.

That’s the problem, I don’t SEE much of that at all…

I guess I was hoping you’d give me some more specific examples of things that actually ARE common… such as mini skirts, or spaghetti straps, etc etc. Not that I think those things are raunchy (I don’t), but I thought maybe you would, and that way I’d actually know what you were referring to when you talk about all the raunchiness in today’s fashions. A raunchiness, that I cannot say I see much of at all when I walk down the street.

Let’s do this:

Below is a picture of me and 2 girlfriends. We were walking down an outdoor mall on a hot summer day in Florida. What we are wearing is probably the minimum of what is common/popular - usually, people cover up more than that, but given our time and place, and the temperature, this is pretty much the minimum. Do you think we look raunchy?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1146&pictureid=11518

 

[chevalier]

I honestly cannot think of anything popular/common that exposes underwear. As for immodest zippers and buttons… well, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about lol. I DO see t shirts sometimes that say things like “sexy” or “foxy” on them, and you are right… those are on style and they are fairly common, but I guess they don’t bother me, and neither do they make me think of sex.

At least we have some start.

I don’t really think anything of them, other than they seem silly, childish and narcissistic, but it’s not like I get bothered by them or anything.

Again, getting close to the point.

I guess I was hoping you’d give me some more specific examples of things that actually ARE common… such as mini skirts, or spaghetti straps, etc etc.

Nope, alas. I don’t see an inherent, general problem of that kind with mini skirts (supposing they don’t include nano skirts) or spaghetti straps, although some people do insist on wearing very short very light clothing even in a colder season. I’d be hard pressed to come up with anything specific. Surely glossy clingy leather, low riders or deep cleavage that intentionally exposes underwear, whatever looks like a jumpsuit with strategic openings in places that are supposed to be sexually interesting to the opposite sex. But this is what looks raunchy to me, not what I would steadfastly claim to be objectively immoral.

A raunchiness, that I cannot say I see much of at all when I walk down the street.

A bar or night club would be a likelier place but it does happen in the street, though again, hardly in winter. Summer season more like.

Let’s do this:

Below is a picture of me and 2 girlfriends. We were walking down an outdoor mall on a hot summer day in Florida. What we are wearing is probably the minimum of what is common/popular - usually, people cover up more than that, but given our time and place, and the temperature, this is pretty much the minimum. Do you think we look raunchy?

I’d rather talk about something that hangs on a mannequin or is at least is being shown by a model who’s meant to be presenting it, if we need to talk about a specific example. Otherwise it makes me feel like I’m judging a person, which I wouldn’t like to do. I wouldn’t like to offend anyone, either, without a good reason.

 

[Debora123]

Surely glossy clingy leather, low riders or deep cleavage that intentionally exposes underwear, whatever looks like a jumpsuit with strategic openings in places that are supposed to be sexually interesting to the opposite sex.

Haha, I know what you are referring to now, but I wouldn’t say those things are either common or on style. I see those things on pretty rare occasions, and when I do, they always look funny to me because they’re not common.

I don’t go out much to night clubs or bars late at night, so perhaps you are right in them being more prevalent there, lol.

Overall, I don’t see a problem with popular fashions of the 21st century.

 

[chevalier]

Haha, I know what you are referring to now, but I wouldn’t say those things are either common or on style. I see those things on pretty rare occasions, and when I do, they always look funny to me because they’re not common.

Well, neither can I imagine the intricacies of temptation if I see a man dressed like a whatever is the appropriate derogatory term.

I don’t go out much to night clubs or bars late at night, so perhaps you are right in them being more prevalent there, lol.

I don’t really either, any more, in a large part due to the clothes and behaviours. Well. I see some in seaside cities and sometimes other cities in or near the summer season. I see some at parties. I mostly have a minor gripe because indeed this cleavage looks big or those shorts look clingy (and many really could be smaller or less clingy, which I do tend to associate with a pressure to be “sexy”, although contained within some limits), which may or may not have anything to do with “sexy” (where “sexy” is a universally bad motivator in filling one’s wardrobe). Truly bad stuff is rare and generally confined to members of the younger populace who are competing with each other in trying to be “adult”. This said, I do wish most shorts were less clingy, I’d be happy if skinny jeans went out of fashion and the available tops in general showed less cleavage.

 

[GraceDK]

Grace, firstly, there are threads here by males asking about how to keep their thoughts chaste. Some of the “modesty threads” are started by ladies. You can’t say it really is just men talking about standards for women all the time, although you might feel that way.

Yea, threads on the anonomous internet maybe, but not articles about what men should do and not do in order to appear and look virginal and innocent… such I don’t see much. And as I said, that a scolar can get away with such horrible statements that Peter Kreft could and still be taken seriously by Catholics in America makes me really wonder…

Secondly, from the perspective of a man, European and not particularly hot-blooded, while I see a lot of opinions that appear rather excessive, fundamentalist (and some from women), it feels that if a male dare as much as criticise raunchy fashion, there will be outrage and backlash and talk about objectification (by him, not by fashion designers), and he will be accused (and instantly convicted) of being an immodest person that can’t guard his own eyes. Several pages ago in this thread, it happened to me, and I was criticising the come-hither sexualised aspects of fashion, not the “failure” to wear an all-covering garb.

**Look Clevalier… I am not sure what you are talking about. I haven’t been on here for a looong time. Many months actually. You should try it. Its great. I plan to dissapear from here again after a few days because frankly this takes all your time away from real communication with real people…
So back on topic, I wanna say, I haven’t taken offence by anything that you have said here or on any thread on CAF … We have never been much at odds here I think. But I think you might somewhere realise why my fellow sisters and I sometimes get fed up when eg. a man refers to a woman as someone’s concubine because they live together before marriage. Why must it always be women who are called concubines which is another word for prostitute… why not the guy? Its this kind of nonsense from modern Catholic men that makes women like me distrustful of Catholic men, and really, this also makes us rebel against the command that we should be led by men… In this discussion about modesty, you have been very vague about what you actually talking about… what is immodest?.. **

Thirdly, there’s a difference between nitpicking about inches, centimetres etc, and having a problem with attention-enhancing designs, so to call them. When the purpose is functional or even artistic (even though personally I’m not a fan of that kind of art), the other sex can easily be told to mind its own business and that argument has a lot of merit, on the other hand, in the case of what is meant to draw the looks of the other sex and invoke base sexual associations, the same claim does not work.

I honesty think many women are not at all aware what effect they have on men. They are trying precisely to be pretty, beautiful or hot in the non-objectified way… when sometimes they go over the line. I won’t be afraid to say it. I think most bikinis are immodest. I furthermore don’t think its only uncharitable to men, but also to other women who cannot walk with their husbands or boyfriends on a beach or even through a city sometimes without being faced with images or real people with their breasts coming out. And yes, breasts are, in modern western culture the nr. 1 sexsymbol.

Please tell me what those are. I’m not being cheeky, I just would like to hear. It is important to get perspective.

** what is what? I think I have made my point, which wasn’t directed at you. And as I said, I am all for modesty in women and men, but the way its said and what is actually the intention - is it charity or something else? - in an article, is very important. Now I have given my five cents. I am not afraid to say what I find poor taste in swimwear. But I think we need to realise we cannot change other people. Only people of very, very high personal integrity can, with sincere love, tell one young women to dress differently… all else is not credible and will only cause her to rebel and hold men to be the hypocrites they all too often are…**

 

[Debora123]

I don’t really either, any more, in a large part due to the clothes and behaviours. Well. I see some in seaside cities and sometimes other cities in or near the summer season. I see some at parties. I mostly have a minor gripe because indeed this cleavage looks big or those shorts look clingy (and many really could be smaller or less clingy, which I do tend to associate with a pressure to be “sexy”, although contained within some limits), which may or may not have anything to do with “sexy” (where “sexy” is a universally bad motivator in filling one’s wardrobe). Truly bad stuff is rare and generally confined to members of the younger populace who are competing with each other in trying to be “adult”. This said, I do wish most shorts were less clingy, I’d be happy if skinny jeans went out of fashion and the available tops in general showed less cleavage.

Ah, skinny jeans. Now you’re talking in a language I can understand lol. Yes, those are in style and very common, so if they are part of the “raunchy fashion” you refer to, that helps me see what you mean exactly. Although I will disagree that they are immodest and will say that I own a pair, but at least you are willing to admit that they are a matter of opinion, and not something that can be pegged as officially immoral (like some people).

What do you think of my post 270 on the last page?

 

[Young_Thinker]

Not to derail this thread, but I am so tempted to turn it into a fetish about innocent-looking (and acting) girls. Just kidding (well, kind of)!

 

[severus68]

That’s a valid point. I’m not saying that was a general trend but wherever and whenever things really looked like that (and they often did), there was hypocrisy in it and possibly even sexual perversion (innocence/coyness/passivity fetish) or a question of catering to men’s egos (make them feel like a lord and master by being as submissive as only perverts can imagine).

I agree. And we should be very careful not to confuse Christian modesty with catering to perversion.

Well, I suppose for all the bad things that may be said about the approach that you are rightly protesting against, it may be an overreaction to a misguided feminist (or pseudofeminist) vision of female empowerment and lack of need for men.

Nobody wants to feel unneeded in a relationship. Women too take it hard (possibly harder than men but I don’t know) when they are made to feel unneeded. Also, people who insist on appearing self-sufficient and so complete in themselves (as if they didn’t need community), aren’t really great at making friends (because this is not really about sexuality). A lot of people’s appearances of self-sufficiency are gamed. They are brave facades that they put up to look tough. Admitting the need for others is a step towards normalcy and sanity and humility.

I am just commenting on your last para.
I agree that everyone wants to be felt needed in a relationship or rather wanted. I also agree about facades but they are really about self protection. However, self worth is important while neediness attracts only the most controlling and insecure of people.