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

[Debora123]

Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble.

Who says we should do things to make our brothers/sisters stumble? I certainly did not.

 

[passer_by]

Honey, I’m not ignorant.

I am not your “honey”

Funny thing. Having been a nursing major, I actually have taken an entire course on Human Sexuality. And I did pass with a B+, if I remember correctly.

Was this high school or a first year course?

I am not here to hire you, so I am not going to analyze your credentials. All I have to say is that you stated something scientifically false i.e. that only the genitalia causes sexual arousal on a normal human being. So its possible that you missed A or A+ because you missed that little detail too

I do dress modestly.

Well if by modestly you mean according to a the standards of dress of a GOOD culture, then bravo! If not, do take the time to read and understand which parts are sexually arousing and therefore what else you might need to cover up.

 

[passer_by]

Who says we should do things to make our brothers/sisters stumble? I certainly did not.

I just made clear because the other person Walking Home seem to believe that since sin is not transferable, there is no such thing as “causing others to stumble”. So dressing provocatively according to him/her is not a sin because the sin is committed only by the person lusting. I was merely pointing out that the woman in this case is also sinning by dressing provocatively and becoming a stumbling block for that man.

 

[Debora123]

What I know, I simply state as I know. What I don’t know, I would say as well.

Sometimes, we think we know something when we really don’t. As has been evident here.

Congratulations on your marriage and for being blessed with a good spouse!

Thanks. The fact that I present myself well to the world, and that I RESPECT MYSELF and others around me led me to catch quite a good one - the best.

But as I said before, marriage doesn’t get rid of ignorance or fill the missing knowledge. So there is no way around it but to study the subject.

Well good thing I’m not ignorant then!

I never said you misunderstood morality. I was merely saying that you lacked knowledge on the scientific understanding of something that is essential for the moral practice you know about. You are trying pretty hard to put yourself down here using things I never said.

I do not lack knowledge.

 

[Walking_Home]

Ok let me try to state it slowly.

1. Man who commits a lustful act is totally responsible for his lustful act
2. But the woman who dressed provocatively** is totally responsible for leading others to sin**

So as you can see above, there is no transfer of responsibility or sin. They both commit two different sins for which both of them are the sole people responsible for them.

---

By saying the woman is responsible for “leading” — you are transferring responsibility to the woman for the man’s sin. Whatever circles you make – it comes down to that.

 

[chevalier]

Yes…

…oooofff course.

You have been on this thread with me long enough to know that I’ve been over this and understand it. We’ve been over it together.

You’re starting to do the same thing you were doing earlier, and as I said, it is very difficult to have a discussion when certain members are being biased and purposely argumentative with one particular side.

Please stop accusing me of being biased and it’s not like I’m adjudicating any dispute here, I’m expressing an opinion like everybody else, I don’t need to be in the centre or in a judge’s position. I start arguing (with a position, not with a person, this is not personal) when I need to because of the merits and the merits of why I would add one more thing is that I didn’t want that “one more thing” to pass understated. You underline what seems important to you, I underline what seems important to me. When we reach agreement, we need to mention both of the sides (yours and mine) to avoid losing the one that is omitted (by losing focus from it). This is why I sometimes won’t agree unreservedly with a statement that’s rather vague in some aspects or could be misinterpreted.

---

By saying the woman is responsible for “leading” — you are transferring responsibility to the woman for the man’s sin. Whatever circles you make – it comes down to that.

Actively trying to get someone to commit a sin or getting someone to commit a sin by being reckless about exposing him to temptation is sinful and remains sinful even if the person we’re trying to induce to sin does not commit the sin in the end.

Suppose A is a man that wants woman B to lust after him (e.g. to imagine herself having sex with him or to consent to having sex or just to become aroused, thus paying tribute to his ego or proving his power over her but even “to make her day better”). A puts his plan in action, using means X for the purpose. It is actually irrelevant what exactly means X used (and no means are specifically excluded from being sinful, not clothes, not words, not any possible method of accomplishing his action makes that action okay), what is relevant is that A intended B to sin. Even if woman B did not actually sin (e.g. resisted temptation or man A was just too unattractive for this to work no matter how he tried). If woman B did actually sin, she’s responsible for her lust to the extent of her knowledge and consent to the lustful action (thought or other).

 

[Debora123]

I am not your “honey”

Oh yes you are. :yup:

Was this high school or a first year course?

I am not here to hire you, so I am not going to analyze your credentials. All I have to say is that you stated something scientifically false i.e. that only the genitalia causes sexual arousal on a normal human being. So its possible that you missed A or A+ because you missed that little detail too

Good! In that case I don’t really see the need to answer your question.

And I did not state that “only genitalia causes sexual arousal.” In fact, I stated that any part can, and it sometimes it can depend on the person. Some men like legs, some like bellies, some like the shoulders (and of course, there are weird fetishes)… but the MOST sexually exciting parts for the majority of men ARE the “private parts” - the breasts, the buttocks, and the genitalia.

Well if by modestly you mean according to a the standards of dress of a GOOD culture, then bravo! If not, do take the time to read and understand which parts are sexually arousing and therefore what else you might need to cover up.

Well then I guess I’m good to go… just as I knew I was!

 

[passer_by]

Sometimes, we think we know something when we really don’t. As has been evident here.

Very true. Until today, you seem to have been under the belief that genitalia are the only sexually arousing parts of a woman or a man.

Thanks. The fact that I present myself well to the world, and that I RESPECT MYSELF and others around me led me to catch quite a good one - the best.

Once again, my Congratulations and my best wishes!

Well good thing I’m not ignorant then!

Alright, I can see when someone is upset. I think you understand perfectly what I am saying but it might be a matter of pride now.

I do not lack knowledge.

I understand. I guess you know everything then?

 

[Debora123]

I just made clear because the other person Walking Home seem to believe that since sin is not transferable, there is no such thing as “causing others to stumble”. So dressing provocatively according to him/her is not a sin because the sin is committed only by the person lusting. I was merely pointing out that the woman in this case is also sinning by dressing provocatively and becoming a stumbling block for that man.

Walking home said this:

Unless someone has irrevocably made it known – and/or you are in a “red light” area – a “strip” place, viewing “certain type” of mags – porn – we cannot at make an assumption that someone is “inviting/fishing” lust/sin.

If you need to hear it in other words, Walking Home is saying that we have no way of knowing whether or not the girl with the tank top on is purposely wearing it in order to purposely incite lust, or if she’s wearing it for another reason… such as to keep cool on a hot day. To put it simply, we don’t know what her intentions are. And that’s all WH is saying in this particular post I responded to.

If you somehow got that “there is no such thing as causing others to stumble” from reading this, then perhaps you should read it a couple times over to make sure of its actual message.

 

[passer_by]

Oh yes you are. :yup:

Oh, I don’t think so

Good! In that case I don’t really see the need to answer your question.

And yet you proceed to answer… let us see…

And I did not state that “only genitalia causes sexual arousal.” In fact, I stated that any part can, and it sometimes it can depend on the person. Some men like legs, some like bellies, some like the shoulders (and of course, there are weird fetishes)… but the MOST sexually exciting parts for the majority of men ARE the “private parts” - the breasts, the buttocks, and the genitalia.

So I am confused here. Now you are saying all parts of the body are sexually arousing but only for disordered people? For a normal person, only the genitalia are sexually arousing?

I am afraid you are still incorrect and perhaps this is the root cause of missing the A+ and ending up with a B+

Well then I guess I’m good to go… just as I knew I was!

Bravo!

 

[Debora123]

Please stop accusing me of being biased and it’s not like I’m adjudicating any dispute here, I’m expressing an opinion like everybody else, I don’t need to be in the centre or in a judge’s position. I start arguing (with a position, not with a person, this is not personal) when I need to because of the merits and the merits of why I would add one more thing is that I didn’t want that “one more thing” to pass understated. You underline what seems important to you, I underline what seems important to me. When we reach agreement, we need to mention both of the sides (yours and mine) to avoid losing the one that is omitted (by losing focus from it). This is why I sometimes won’t agree unreservedly with a statement that’s rather vague in some aspects or could be misinterpreted.

Ah I see.

It just seems like you are being biased, because recently there’s been posters here who have said things that contradict what you’ve expressed you believed earlier, but instead of saying something to them, you seem to nit pick at small details of what I say. But perhaps not.

Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[passer_by]

If you need to hear it in other words, Walking Home is saying that we have no way of knowing whether or not the girl with the tank top on is purposely wearing it in order to purposely incite lust, or if she’s wearing it for another reason… such as to keep cool on a hot day. To put it simply, we don’t know what her intentions are. And that’s all WH is saying in this particular post I responded to.

As I replied to WH before, from her dress, while we cannot be clear of the woman’s intent, it is clear that she is not taught properly on how to dress. She is merely behaving like an animal in dressing whatever she can depending on the situation called for by nature.

If you somehow got that “there is no such thing as causing others to stumble” from reading this, then perhaps you should read it a couple times over to make sure of its actual message.

Oh sorry, maybe I was not clear. I did not get that from that very post. I got that from her posts before. You are welcome to read through if you like. You don’t have to go far, just scroll up to the first post by WH on this page.

 

[Debora123]

Very true. Until today, you seem to have been under the belief that genitalia are the only sexually arousing parts of a woman or a man.

Nope! I never do not nor did I ever believe that. So see? Sometimes you think you are right when you are indeed quite wrong.

 

[passer_by]

---

By saying the woman is responsible for “leading” — you are transferring responsibility to the woman for the man’s sin. Whatever circles you make – it comes down to that.

No one is transferring responsibility. They are both guilty of two different sins. You are making this overly complicated by bringing in a concept of “transfer”.

There is no transfer Man committed lust, Woman lead man to sin. Two different sins, end of story.

 

[passer_by]

Nope! I never do not nor did I ever believe that. So see? Sometimes you think you are right when you are indeed quite wrong.

Aww, my apologies For some reason I got the impression that you always believe that genitalia were the only cause of sexual arousal for majority of men. Well I am glad that you are not one of these ignorant person’s who think that way!

Bravo once again!

 

[Debora123]

Alright, I can see when someone is upset. I think you understand perfectly what I am saying but it might be a matter of pride now.

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that I disagree with you on me being ignorant, has everything to do with actuality and nothing to do with pride.

I understand. I guess you know everything then?

I don’t know about EVERYTHING. Everything is quite a lot. I DO know that the clothes I wear are perfectly fine.

 

[passer_by]

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that I disagree with you on me being ignorant, has everything to do with actuality and nothing to do with pride.

Well if you disagree, then you have to give rational arguments to disagree, right?

You can’t just say I disagree because I grew up there or it looks normal to me etc, right?

I don’t know about EVERYTHING. Everything is quite a lot.

Well, you did say you did not lack knowledge

I DO know that the clothes I wear are perfectly fine.

Well, I have never seen you in person so I obviously can’t agree or disagree with that.

 

[Walking_Home]

As I replied to WH before, from her dress, while we cannot be clear of the woman’s intent, it is clear that she is not taught properly on how to dress.** She is merely behaving like an animal **in dressing whatever she can depending on the situation called for by nature.

Oh sorry, maybe I was not clear. I did not get that from that very post. I got that from her posts before. You are welcome to read through if you like. You don’t have to go far, just scroll up to the first post by WH on this page.

---

You want a stumbling block —it is right there in your words. You have de-humanized a person-- for what the person wears. Now there will be others – who will read what you have said – and view a woman as an animal --for that is the image you have planted in their head.

 

[Debora123]

So I am confused here. Now you are saying all parts of the body are sexually arousing but only for disordered people? For a normal person, only the genitalia are sexually arousing?

No, that is NOT what I am saying. Oh how important it is to ask questions when you don’t understand something rather than immediately making false assumptions.

Let me spell it out to you:

The MAIN parts of the body that are arousing to most men are the private parts - the genitalia, the breasts, and the buttocks.

But all men like other parts too, besides those. Those are simply the main ones (usually). Other parts that can be arousing to the average Joe are legs, bellies, shoulders, faces, waistline shape, hips, hair, etc etc… Normally each man is more fixated on one of these parts above the others… for example, one man can be more of a leg guy than a belly guy. Another man can be really fixated on the face - lips, hair, eyes… Another man can find the collar bone/shoulder area to be especially sensual. Each guy is a little different.

And then you get the weirder stuff, like the foot fetishes. Those are more rare but they do exist, even though they are far from the norm.

I am afraid you are still incorrect and perhaps this is the root cause of missing the A+ and ending up with a B+

Right, right. Because you would know, of course.

Bravo!

 

[LilyM]

---

By saying the woman is responsible for “leading” — you are transferring responsibility to the woman for the man’s sin. Whatever circles you make – it comes down to that.

Uh, no. Look, imagine that I decide to commit an armed robbery.

Imagine that my mate knows that I am thinking of doing this, and decides to buy a gun for me, knowing that that gun will most likely be used in the robbery. Say my mate decides to drive me in a car to the nearest bank, knowing that there’s a good chance I will choose to rob that bank.

Does any of this mean if caught and punished I will get a lighter sentence? That I will say ‘my mate helped me, so go easy on me your honour, because they bear part of the responsibility’ and the judge will do so?

No. On the contrary, in my jurisdiction the fact that you ‘acted in company’ (ie not alone) will make your sentence even heavier.

But - does it mean that person who helped you will not be guilty of ANYTHING? Depending on the circumstances and their level of knowlege they will almost certainly get tried and punished appropriately for their own recklessness - perhaps as an accessory to your crime, perhaps on some other charge.

The fact that they weren’t 100% certain that I would use THAT gun, or rob THAT bank, likely won’t matter that much.

In the same way, someone driving drunk won’t get lenient treatment because they didn’t think they would hit THAT power pole or THAT child who was crossing the road.

Drunk drivers rarely if ever intend to hit anyone or anything. However, they know that it is a real risk which accompanies the driving of a vehicle whilst intoxicated, and as long as they intend to drive whilst drunk, the chips fall where they may and their lack of positive intent will not save them from guilt.

In short: two different levels and types of culpability. Neither participant detracts or transfers a single blessed thing from the other. And no, lack of positive intent to sin does not (or not completely) remove culpability, if one is reckless or negligent.