Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 82 (44298)
06-26-2003 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
06-25-2003 10:15 AM


schrafinator writes:
quote:
The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood is not the same as it being intrinsically so that breasts are a sexual signal. It is completely arbitrary whether breasts are considered a sexual signal. It all depends upon the culture you are in.
OK, I'm going to quibble.
Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.
Now, how much significance we place on those signs is where the culture comes in. We don't place nearly as much signficance on the appearance of hair as we do on breasts.
These culturally significant indicators of sexuality change over time, too. I took a class in Costume, Movement, and Manners where we were specifically looking at the sexual displays put in throughout the ages as signified by clothing. What you cover up and what you leave exposed, what you emphasize and what you hide tells you a lot about what you think is sexy.
Take a look at Victorian period. Women's breasts were front and center (covered, yes, but prominently supported and displayed), but they were not considered the most ribald. That was for the limbs. There was a reason the skirts were so long, the sleeves shaped so, the wearing of gloves, etc. They were all in order to control the sexual display.
So I'm saying your both right: Breasts are a sexual display, but culture defines just how much significance to attach to them.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 06-26-2003 6:15 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 82 (44398)
06-26-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
06-26-2003 6:15 PM


schrafinator responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.
A sign of "sexual maturity" is not the same as a "sexual signal".
Yes it is...for precisely the reason you stated. It is evidence that the person is sexually mature and thus is available for sexual interaction.
Again, the significance of this sign depends upon culture.
quote:
According to this logic, beards would be universally erotic to women,
Not really. It would depend upon the men, too. Facial hair on men has always been manipulated by the culture in sexual ways and that is something that is connected to the entire culture.
However, appearance of the beard is another sign that the person is sexually mature and thus available for sexual interaction.
Thus, that is a sexual signal. After all, a person doesn't shave unless he needs to so even a clean-shaven appearance is connected to the appearance of the beard.
quote:
and menstrual blood would be universally erotic to men.
No, sexual signals are not necessarily erotic. Have you heard of the hanky code? It originated in gay male culture but has since extended out to the kink world. It consists of wearing a colored handkerchief, the color determining the type of sex desired and the location determining top/bottom (left for top, right for bottom).
Now, the person wearing the hanky is definitely sending out a sexual signal, but that does not mean that everyone is going to be attracted. But, all those in the culture understand the signal, even those who don't put much stock in the hanky code...and even people who don't know it would come to think that something was up were they to walk into a room filled with people flagging.
quote:
A "sexual signal" is something that turns you on.
No, that's an erotic reaction. A sexual signal is a sign of sex. The most basic of such signs is the physical ability to engage in the process which comes at sexual maturity.
quote:
A sign of "sexual maturity" is simply perceivable evidence that the person is sexually mature.
And thus is available for sex.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 06-26-2003 6:15 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 12:11 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 45 by Autocatalysis, posted 06-27-2003 12:29 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 82 (44411)
06-27-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
06-27-2003 12:11 AM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And thus is available for sex.
No offense, but the way you put this makes it sound like rapist's logic.
Only because you're going there.
I had thought about putting in a caveat about consent, but I didn't think I would need to since if there is no consent, it's rape, not sex, and that would seem to be obvious.
And since I didn't want to have a digression into things like rape, I decided to simply trust the integrity of the board to know that we weren't going there. Was that trust misplaced?
quote:
I mean, surely it's possible to have a sexually mature body and yet not be avaliable for sex?
Only if you equivocate on the word "available."
There is a difference between socially available and physically available. That was my entire point: Social and physical signals are different. Society puts different amounts of emphasis on physical signals and even creates some of their own.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 12:11 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 4:09 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 82 (44522)
06-28-2003 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
06-27-2003 4:09 AM


crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
Honestly I'm sure you're not a rapist, but it would have behooved you to be a little clearer, I think.
How often does the question of "Is this guy a rapist" come up with you?
I seriously did not think I had to be wary of being considered a rapist or that my statements could be taken as advocating rape.
And now, we've done exactly what I didn't want to have happen: Digressed to something completely inappropriate and irrelevant to the question at hand.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 4:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 82 (44524)
06-28-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-28-2003 2:39 AM


crashfrog responds to John:
quote:
I don't see that physical avaliablilty has anything to do with behaviors that suggest a willingness for copulation with a particular male
You're jumping ahead way too far.
When people put out sexual signals, unless the person is in some committed relationship or is looking for a specific subject, then the display is there for everyone. It is designed to attract potential partners which will then be selected among.
It is absolutely true that a person who wears provocative clothing is not asking to have sex with every person who might happen to respond, but it is indicative that the person is considering having sex with somebody or at the very least is interested in arousing the interest of other people. When you say hello to people, you should expect to have them respond. That doesn't mean you are obligated to have a deep conversation with them, but some sort of response is not unexpected.
quote:
On the other hand, rape, in terms of violent, forced intercourse, is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, especially in the primates, as I understand.
Indeed, it is. It is one of the many indicators showing that humans are just another kind of animal. There isn't anything that humans do that some other animal doesn't also do. We may be better at it, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2003 2:39 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2003 7:20 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 82 (44915)
07-03-2003 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by DBlevins
07-01-2003 7:20 AM


DBlevins responds to me:
quote:
quote:
It is absolutely true that a person who wears provocative clothing is not asking to have sex with every person who might happen to respond, but it is indicative that the person is considering having sex with somebody or at the very least is interested in arousing the interest of other people.
I think you need to think about that a bit. Proscribing provocative clothing is a subjective idea.
Of course. I already said that. Did you miss my comment about Victorian era clothing and how one can tell what a culture considers sexual just by looking at the fashions of the time? What is revealed and what is kept hidden?
quote:
Though to YOU it might indicate that the person is considering having sex with someone or is trying to arouse interest that person may just be wearing what he or she is comfortable with.
Oh, please. You're acting as if you walk around seeing women in bridal gowns as everyday wear. I never said that there is a universal dress code. Of course what is considered provocative is controlled by culture, but people live in that culture and they all know what the culture considers to be provocative.
When Li'l Kim showed up to that awards ceremony wearing a Spandex cat suit that only covered one side, leaving her other breast exposed completely except for a pasty, she knew what she was doing. When Jennifer Lopez showed up to two different awards ceremonies wearing gauze, she knew what she was doing.
quote:
It used to be that women who wore skirts higher than the ankle or showed their shoulder were being provocative, but would you hold that to be true today?
Yes. We still have rumblings of that in our culture and you can see it in certain styles of dress...the way the slits are cut down the sides such that the legs are usually covered except every now and again you can catch a glimpse. Certainly our culture doesn't have a problem showing quite a bit more than that, but we still understand the value of holding back and providing only peeks.
Remember the shower scene in Psycho? Did you notice that you never saw Marion Crane actually getting stabbed? Oh, she screamed, Norman was pumping his arm, but the only time you ever saw that knife and Crane's body in the same shot is in a single, half-second shot where a hand holding the knife which is pointed at the ground and has absolutely no blood on it comes into the frame from the right in front of Crane's torso.
And yet, that is considered one of the scariest scenes in cinema. Hitchcock was a master at withholding and using your own imagination against you. He knew what buttons to press and was content to let you fill in the rest. We can still do that today and it still works. Our culture has expanded on the options, but the old ones are still around.
quote:
Or how about some muslim countries where women without a veil or Hajhib?(sp) are considered acting immorally.
And they know that. You're forgetting that these people live in a culture where that is the accepted standard. The signals sent out by things like clothing are culturally defined and of course you wouldn't expect someone from outside that culture to understand what they were.
But you would expect someone from that culture to know them. I don't expect someone who has never heard any English to be able to read these words. I do expect someone who has been speaking English for twenty years to be able to do so.
Clothing is another form of non-verbal communication. In American culture, we tend to keep a fair amount of space between people when we're talking, even among close friends. Being closer than that implies a deeper relationship. Anyone who grew up in the USA knows what that distance is without even having to think about it consciously. Other cultures, however, don't share that concept.
quote:
There are tribes in many parts of the world where they wear a minimum of clothing and go naked part of the time. Is that in any way provocative?
Depends on how they do it. They have a culture that they're living in and thus, their methods of being provocative will be known by everyone in the culture and they'll use it to send the signals they wish to send.
quote:
quote:
There isn't anything that humans do that some other animal doesn't also do.
Trying not to quibble over semantics or whatever and I am sure you recognize this mistake, but I don't think you can say that animals do anything humans do. Ie. Make clothing, dig and refine metals, propose theories on their origins.
It's not a mistake. I notice you hacked my comment to shreds. Here is what I said immediately afterward:
We may be better at it, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality.
Now tell me: Why did you remove this part considering that it addresses your comment directly?
Some animals do make clothing. Some animals do dig and refine materials. And some animals do think about things.
We may be much better at it than other animals are, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality.
Question: Is Dick and Jane a book? Oh, it's not a very deep book and it has a limited vocabulary and it isn't very long, but does that make it any less a book? On what fundamental basis does War and Peace qualify as a book while Dick and Jane doesn't?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2003 7:20 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024