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

[Debora123]

:slapfight:

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

:slapfight:

I’m a teenager in High School… Most people are older than me. What’s wrong with being old?

 

[Nate13]

I’m going to make this short and to the point. Valuing a woman for her innocence and purity is still valuing her only for her sexuality, just in a different way. It disgusts me to hear men talk about how innocence and virginity is so important to them, and how they look at virgins differently than non virgins. Women are people and they deserved to be judged based on who they are, not on their sexuality. Women are much more than their sexual behavior and sexual past (or lack thereof), and its time to shift the focus away from that.

Your post here is right on except you miss the point of valuing innocence and purity. Its not the innocence and purity that is sought after, but rather the qualities of the woman who values innocence and purity. Those qualities usually tell you something about the inner workings, personality, and faith of that woman. The personality of faith of that woman is what men really find attractive.

 

[bmullins]

I’m a teenager in High School… Most people are older than me. What’s wrong with being old?

Nothing wrong with being old. My mother is older than me. I would never call her ‘older’. Most of the women and men I work with at the church are at least a decade older than myself. Most of them would glare at me if I called them old or even referred to them by age. Maybe it’s my southern upbringing, we just never talk about age.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I wear daisy dukes, but they do not show booty, nor do they end at crotch length.

Can’t please everyone, but I think they look nice…

There’s a reason the actress needed to wear flesh coloured panties…

booty shorts are daisy dukes just a little further

 

[carguy]

Yea it is sad and speaking from a guys point of view the women I tend to go for fall into the pretty and or cute more towards cute it is shame how women want to be seen now.

 

[Nate13]

I’m a teenager in High School… Most people are older than me. What’s wrong with being old?

Come on Debora catch up with the times!

 

[bmullins]

Your post here is right on except you miss the point of valuing innocence and purity. Its not the innocence and purity that is sought after, but rather the qualities of the woman who values innocence and purity. Those qualities usually tell you something about the inner workings, personality, and faith of that woman. The personality of faith of that woman is what men really find attractive.

See I agree with this 100%. It’s not about a woman being a virgin. It’s not about her being demure, innocent, or even meek. It’s about a woman who has values. To me a woman is much more beautiful, yes I would even describe her as having an attractive innocent and pure quality, when she is not sexual active outside of marriage. Does that mean she has never been sexual active? No. But having the quality of a person who know, regardless of past, values sexual fidelity to the marriage bed. A woman who has been regenerated, and has that quality of a pure heart.

 

[Debora123]

I think the problem a lot of people are having is the type of vibe they got from the article. Innocence as you describe above is important for everyone, and everyone should strive to be that type of innocent (free of sin, close to God, etc etc…).

However, to some people (myself included), the article makes it seem that by “innocence,” the author actually means virginal, quiet, delicate, submissive, and maybe having a pretty/innocent “doll like” appearance. Maybe that’s not what he meant at all, and maybe he actually did mean what you were suggesting. But the tone of the article, and the fact that it was aimed at women only (no mention of men being “innocent”) gave off a bad impression to some of us. Not to mention one that seems very focused on appearances.

I for example, by nature, simply do not have the type of look the author seems to idealize. I’m South American and have dark eyes, dark hair, strong facial features, and a darker skin tone. I don’t think I’d fit this author’s ideal of a pretty/innocent look… regardless of what I’m wearing.

I’d also like to mention particularly that towards the end of the article, the author makes a comment about Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan, and Miley Cirus, to point out that Swift is the one with the more ideal look over the other 3.

I honestly think they are all beautiful in their own unique, God given way. Having used their full names like that, and judging their looks was very objectifying and disrespectful, IMHO.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Nothing wrong with being old. My mother is older than me. I would never call her ‘older’. Most of the women and men I work with at the church are at least a decade older than myself. Most of them would glare at me if I called them old or even referred to them by age. Maybe it’s my southern upbringing, we just never talk about age.

I’m trying to mark basically a generational difference

PS girls can now buy shorts with a zipper down the back…

 

[bmullins]

I’d also like to mention particularly that towards the end of the article, the author makes a comment about Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan, and Miley Cirus, to point out that Swift is the one with the more ideal look over the other 3.

I honestly think they are all beautiful in their own unique, God given way. Having used their full names like that, and judging their looks was very objectifying and disrespectful, IMHO.

See as a man, I agree 100% with the authors assessment that Taylor Swift has the more ideal look. I find her dress to be attractive but not over the top. She has a much more innocent look to her, and I find that very attractive. Where as Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan, and Miley are all pretty in their own unique way, I still find the way they dress and behave to be a detractor to their beauty.

 

[Debora123]

Yea it is sad and speaking from a guys point of view the women I tend to go for fall into the pretty and or cute more towards cute it is shame how women want to be seen now.

Some women simply don’t have the “cute” look. Some women, by nature, have the athletic look, or the exotic look… etc etc.

 

[Debora123]

See I agree with this 100%. It’s not about a woman being a virgin. It’s not about her being demure, innocent, or even meek. It’s about a woman who has values. To me a woman is much more beautiful, yes I would even describe her as having an attractive innocent and pure quality, when she is not sexual active outside of marriage. Does that mean she has never been sexual active? No. But having the quality of a person who know, regardless of past, values sexual fidelity to the marriage bed. A woman who has been regenerated, and has that quality of a pure heart.

I agree with this 100%.

However, this is not the type of message I got from that article…

 

[Nate13]

I’d also like to mention particularly that towards the end of the article, the author makes a comment about Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan, and Miley Cirus, to point out that Swift is the one with the more ideal look over the other 3.

I honestly think they are all beautiful in their own unique, God given way. Having used their full names like that, and judging their looks was very objectifying and disrespectful, IMHO.

Haha if women don’t want to be judged by their looks why do they worry about what they wear? On the one-hand women argue that clothes are a method of self-expression, but then they get mad when we take the way they dress into account when evaluating them? You just told me the way you dress is an expression of yourself, and now I’m told not to take anything from the way you express yourself? Especially for an actress 99% of people are going to have nothing more than their looks to evaluate an opinion of them.

 

[bmullins]

Some women simply don’t have the “cute” look. Some women, by nature, have the athletic look, or the exotic look… etc etc.

You can have an exotic look and still have the innocence that I see portrayed in the article. You can be athletic and still have it. It’s not about the shape of the body, or the lips or eyes. It’s not about skin color, or ethnicity. It’s about the way someone purports themselves to others. It’s about how one carries themselves in public. There is a big difference in a sexually attractive, exotic woman who speaks eloquently and with high moral standards; and the same exact sexually attractive, exotic woman who is crude and vulgar. (And in our society, we tend to mask crude and vulgar with innuendo, suggestion, etc, but it’s still crude and vulgar.)

 

[chevalier]

Well I hope you’re saying you wouldn’t be offended if your wife said she thought you were sexy.

Well, I think I’ve pretty much covered it. Wouldn’t like to bore you with descriptions of how I’d feel in some situations.

My husband calls me sexy and hot, but he calls me beautiful, gorgeous, and pretty as well. They are not all mutually exclusive. He is attracted to me in multiple ways, and once again, there is nothing wrong with that.

No, there’s not. But I have a problem with the idea that we need to be sexy or that we are sexy, even. That is, strangers or friends or anything other than spouses have no business exploring the sexual angle and therefore shouldn’t go there. As I’ve been saying, we have no business attracting random strangers sexually or awakening desires in them.

But we need to be sexually attracted to the person we marry, meaning the sexual attraction is there BEFORE we marry them.

Yes, I agree with that, but we still don’t need to be regarded as sexy by random strangers, with whom we really don’t need to share even a shallow aspect of our sexuality. If they think we’re attractive, fine. Smothering? Sure, that’s flattering? Sexy? That’s really a marriage thing.

There is nothing wrong with sexual attraction, the wrong is in how we choose to deal with that attraction. Yes, we ACT on it only when married, but that doesn’t mean we don’t FEEL it before hand.

Which doesn’t mean we have any business causing random strangers or the general public to appreciate our sexual parameters, especially when it gets close to the physiological level (e.g. stuff like huge cleavages).

I never said we need or should make people lust after us, all I said it that sexual attraction is good, that everyone is “sexy” in their own way (because we are sexual beings), and that there is nothing wrong with that. Of course, sex should be acted out only in marriage, and I never said otherwise.

But modern fashion lines say otherwise. I wish people respected themselves more than wearing that.

Reread what I said. I specifically mentioned “intent”… along with how someone carries themselves and the nature of the whole thing. Why can’t I use examples? You obviously don’t quite grasp what I’m trying to say anyway.

I have a similar impression of being totally misunderstood in our exchange.

 

[Debora123]

See as a man, I agree 100% with the authors assessment that Taylor Swift has the more ideal look. I find her dress to be attractive but not over the top. She has a much more innocent look to her, and I find that very attractive. Where as Megan Fox, Lyndsey Lohan, and Miley are all pretty in their own unique way, I still find the way they dress and behave to be a detractor to their beauty.

Swift definitely has an angel face/doll face. But we don’t all have that. I most certainly don’t.

While it is perfectly ok to have preferences on appearance, I don’t think it was right for the author to publicly name those ladies in a critical way as he did. I don’t think it was gentlemanly nor was it respectful. They are still daughters of God.

 

[Debora123]

Well, I think I’ve pretty much covered it. Wouldn’t like to bore you with descriptions of how I’d feel in some situations.

No, there’s not. But I have a problem with the idea that we need to be sexy or that we are sexy, even. That is, strangers or friends or anything other than spouses have no business exploring the sexual angle and therefore shouldn’t go there. As I’ve been saying, we have no business attracting random strangers sexually or awakening desires in them.

Yes, I agree with that, but we still don’t need to be regarded as sexy by random strangers, with whom we really don’t need to share even a shallow aspect of our sexuality. If they think we’re attractive, fine. Smothering? Sure, that’s flattering? Sexy? That’s really a marriage thing.

Which doesn’t mean we have any business causing random strangers or the general public to appreciate our sexual parameters, especially when it gets close to the physiological level (e.g. stuff like huge cleavages).

But modern fashion lines say otherwise. I wish people respected themselves more than wearing that.

I have a similar impression of being totally misunderstood in our exchange.

You seem to think I endorse purposely making people lust, which I thought I’ve made clear is not what I mean at all.

Oh well, no need to go on.

It seems we agree on some points and disagree on others. Can’t please everyone.

 

[Debora123]

You can have an exotic look and still have the innocence that I see portrayed in the article. You can be athletic and still have it. It’s not about the shape of the body, or the lips or eyes. It’s not about skin color, or ethnicity. It’s about the way someone purports themselves to others. It’s about how one carries themselves in public. There is a big difference in a sexually attractive, exotic woman who speaks eloquently and with high moral standards; and the same exact sexually attractive, exotic woman who is crude and vulgar. (And in our society, we tend to mask crude and vulgar with innuendo, suggestion, etc, but it’s still crude and vulgar.)

Put that way, I agree.

I guess I get confused sometimes on whether some posters are referring strictly to physical appearances, or to morals/values.

 

[chevalier]

And his whole notion of physical beauty and innocence… I dunno… It creeped me out,
frankly.

You’re not the only one. I see it very frequently that women take offence at or are creeped out by anything that remotely alludes to innocence or even chastity, while they feel much more comfortable around the manifestations of the moral decay of our culture, including lack of sexual restraint or the idea that everybody must have a past or must appear somewhat tarnished, somewhat akin to being a dark hero in literary terms. Secular women will go as far as being offended when you say something about their good character, whereafter they will manifest they right to cheat, have one night stands and whatever else they might want, if they so choose. I fail to understand that and, to be honest, it sometimes tests my patience a lot. Especially with regard to Catholics, other Christians, self-appointed moral conservatives, I’d rather they projected a more consistent image and if they believe in chastity and want to practice it, they shouldn’t be ashamed of it. Plus, Catholics have no business manifesting some kind of sexual openness that isn’t there.

This is actually my primary beef with “sexy” clothing and behaviours (the “come-hither” style). It manifests sexual openness, (said openness being wrong in itself) which isn’t there.

Also is it just me or does anyone else kind of see a transition from beautiful to pretty to hot that is based in how a woman dresses and how scantily clad she is? A good looking woman is a good looking woman no matter how she dresses but I some times feel the terms above are used in conjunction to what she is wearing and whether a person is looking at the person as a whole or as a collection of assets. Thus the word “hot” = “you have a nice collection of assets” for some people.

I associate “hot” or “sexy” with “assets” or with some kind of sexual prowess estimation or some other allusion to actual sex. I don’t associate “pretty” or “attractive” this way.