Sexily-dressed women

[Walker]

First the funny then the sad.

VT, the principle is attention flowing in from everywhere, not particulars.

Yeah, peace-of-mind replaces the uncontrollable, sooner or later.

[Greta]

Following on from Nick's post about failure of male impulse control, I have a story about a similar kind of fellow. I dressed pretty well for a while in my corporate days before retirement delivered me back to the joys t-shirts and shorts. I had a short train trip to the CBD and there was one vacant seat next to a little older fellow in a black suit and a suitcase on his lap ...

So dopey me sits next to him. After a while I felt something on my thigh. I looked down and saw his little thumb rubbing the side of my thigh through my dress from under his suitcase. I looked up and he was looking straight ahead, playing innocent. I looked back to his little wiggly thumb to make sure because I had one of those weird moments where you wonder if it's actually real. I looked back up at him - still looking straight ahead.

I just cracked up - it was like a scene out of a comedy. This silly man and his silly, dirty thumb. He immediately stopped and withdrew Mr Wiggly. He alighted the stop before me and said, "Sorry, but I couldn't resist" and that got me laughing even more. Silly frickin apes without impulse control - like mindless randy dogs trying to hump your leg.

That case was less odd than some. In the 70s a mother of a friend was on a train and the man next to her lifted his newspaper to reveal his John Thomas. She apparently said, "Put it away before it catches cold or I'll hit it with a big stick"

Society has got a lot darker though. Especially revolting are men in their fifties. It's actually not safe for attractive young females to go anywhere these days. I didn't realise how bad it was until I started spending a lot of time with my daughter, who has a young baby. She gets vicious nastiness from women, and openly disgusting leering from middle-aged males. It has been a real eye-opener.

Not pleasant. I think the leering might be resentment against women and/or feminism. It's obviously not meant to attract, rather to "put them in their place". To disquiet, an exertion of male power (even if thoroughly dickheaded).

As for the young 'uns, it seems more feral, less bound by the old rules of chivalry and honour, which are today are seemingly shorthand for "vulnerable". Perhaps we have reached a point where traditions and ideals are losing their power and people will now morally either sink or swim according to their own conscience. Obviously, in that regard it's early days for a work in progress - for people to grow up enough to find their own morality through reason rather than via diktat.

[Walker]

What I've noticed is that the media has stopped gushing over the beauty of the FLOTUS,

now that there's a gorgeous, sexily-dressed FLOTUS.

That's an easily explainable paradox.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Following on from Nick's post about failure of male impulse control, I have a story about a similar kind of fellow. I dressed pretty well for a while in my corporate days before retirement delivered me back to the joys t-shirts and shorts. I had a short train trip to the CBD and there was one vacant seat next to a little older fellow in a black suit and a suitcase on his lap ...

So dopey me sits next to him. After a while I felt something on my thigh. I looked down and saw his little thumb rubbing the side of my thigh through my dress from under his suitcase. I looked up and he was looking straight ahead, playing innocent. I looked back to his little wiggly thumb to make sure because I had one of those weird moments where you wonder if it's actually real. I looked back up at him - still looking straight ahead.

I just cracked up - it was like a scene out of a comedy. This silly man and his silly, dirty thumb. He immediately stopped and withdrew Mr Wiggly. He alighted the stop before me and said, "Sorry, but I couldn't resist" and that got me laughing even more. Silly frickin apes without impulse control - like mindless randy dogs trying to hump your leg.

That case was less odd than some. In the 70s a mother of a friend was on a train and the man next to her lifted his newspaper to reveal his John Thomas. She apparently said, "Put it away before it catches cold or I'll hit it with a big stick"

Society has got a lot darker though. Especially revolting are men in their fifties. It's actually not safe for attractive young females to go anywhere these days. I didn't realise how bad it was until I started spending a lot of time with my daughter, who has a young baby. She gets vicious nastiness from women, and openly disgusting leering from middle-aged males. It has been a real eye-opener.

Not pleasant. I think the leering might be resentment against women and/or feminism. It's obviously not meant to attract, rather to "put them in their place". To disquiet, an exertion of male power (even if thoroughly dickheaded).

As for the young 'uns, it seems more feral, less bound by the old rules of chivalry and honour, which are today are seemingly shorthand for "vulnerable". Perhaps we have reached a point where traditions and ideals are losing their power and people will now morally either sink or swim according to their own conscience. Obviously, in that regard it's early days for a work in progress - for people to grow up enough to find their own morality through reason rather than via diktat.

It doesn't look that way to me. It's a bestial kind of look, with no shame or embarrassment. Never from young guys though. They are entirely more wholesome and will just smile or act normally.

[Walker]

It doesn't look that way to me. It's a bestial kind of look, with no shame or embarrassment. Never from young guys though. They are entirely more wholesome and will just smile or act normally.

Your preference indicates a natural preference of the species in terms of natural selection for propagation that leads to a synergetic protection of the next generation.

Hormones doing the talking ... not so much will.

And I'm done walking on your dialogue with Greta, mansplaining as they say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It doesn't look that way to me. It's a bestial kind of look, with no shame or embarrassment. Never from young guys though. They are entirely more wholesome and will just smile or act normally.

Your preference indicates a natural preference of the species in terms of natural selection for propagation that leads to a synergetic protection of the next generation.

Hormones doing the talking ... not so much will.

And I'm done walking on your dialogue with Greta, mansplaining as they say.

What do you mean 'my preference'. I'm just reporting what I observed. You seem awfully defensive.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

First the funny then the sad.

VT, the principle is attention flowing in from everywhere, not particulars.

Yeah, peace-of-mind replaces the uncontrollable, sooner or later.

Where's your original comment? This incoherent crap doesn't even resemble it.

[Walker]

What do you mean 'my preference'. I'm just reporting what I observed. You seem awfully defensive.

Ah, so that’s what you’re up to.

No ... no, I simple admire beauty.
Beauty surrounds me.
To leer at beauty is to demean what one is.

And after I was being so sincere and all.




Well, anyway ...

Women naturally find young men more attractive.
The older men you describe will repulse fertile women.

The woman is naturally repulsed because the older man could croak and leave her high and dry to raise a kid.
See? She doesn't even have to think about the chain of causality.
Repulsion has it covered.

The younger man will live long enough to provide protection, support, life, and to help raise the child.

So, the old guys who leer and molest are less likely to be selected for the species, by the female.
Natural female preference.
Your preference.

I assume you're female.
But that's just a probability, based on what I know.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Bollocks.

[Walker]

That's what you're up to all right, Ms. Awfully Defensive.

[Walker]

First the funny then the sad.

VT, the principle is attention flowing in from everywhere, not particulars.

Yeah, peace-of-mind replaces the uncontrollable, sooner or later.

Where's your original comment? This incoherent crap doesn't even resemble it.

Oh, so sorry. I shall reply to your gracious request.

First the funny refers to what Greta wrote.
First the sad refers to what you wrote.
It flows in sequence.

Particulars? Oh yes. I wondered if a woman is biologically prone to receiving attention, and you said not from certain types, which you then described in a way characteristic of you.

And then, the peace of mind references Greta's reference to being relieved of the whole species dynamic, although she didn't call it that.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

First the funny then the sad.

VT, the principle is attention flowing in from everywhere, not particulars.

Yeah, peace-of-mind replaces the uncontrollable, sooner or later.

Where's your original comment? This incoherent crap doesn't even resemble it.

Oh, so sorry. I shall reply to your gracious request.

First the funny refers to what Greta wrote.
First the sad refers to what you wrote.
It flows in sequence.

Particulars? Oh yes. I wondered if a woman is biologically prone to receiving attention, and you said not from certain types, which you then described in a way characteristic of you.

And then, the peace of mind references Greta's reference to being relieved of the whole species dynamic, although she didn't call it that.

Wonder all you want. It has nothing to do with anything.

[Walker]

OK

[Beauty]

I think what bothers is putting oneself up on show because it's like, are you trying to attract my guy towards you? We should not put up a show and we'll all be okay no matter if scantily clad or not. On the beach you know it is not a show of being scantily clad in a bikini for it is normal, and so it does not bother. In whatever we are dressed, it should be appropriate for the occasion and we should feel good and ourselves. What I am saying is that when we dress to not put up a show of some kind, then any other will not be bothered, no matter if we are dressed in this way or that way. For example: guys think it is okay to go without vest and some will even be in their upper and bottom underwear or just bottom underwear at home and think it is okay. Women hate guys showing their upper torso or vest or walking in their bottom underwear around the house. If Justice says it is okay because guys' upper torso is not a sexual symbol then justice is wrong because the bottom line is that women do not appreciate guys in naked upper torsos or with vest or with just bottom underwear, so a sexual symbol or not is not the issue here, the issue here is that there's some things about guys that women just hate, but guys will still do that because most justice is guys and women cannot change guys' behaviour, and guys will do wrong things because justice makes wrong laws. If I was to make a law regarding clothing then I would say that guys cannot roam in naked upper torsos, nor in vests nor in just bottom underwear, just like women. Issue being not what is a sexual symbol or not, but issue being what is liked and what is not liked. But women are not given due respect, appropriate laws are not made, and guys lose respect in women's eyes and so forth. Also, the more in naked upper torso, the more in vest, the more in just bottom underwear - that is how nude - crude the guy is and it shows. Truth is self evident, we all know.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I think what bothers is putting oneself up on show because it's like, are you trying to attract my guy towards you? We should not put up a show and we'll all be okay no matter if scantily clad or not. On the beach you know it is not a show of being scantily clad in a bikini for it is normal, and so it does not bother. In whatever we are dressed, it should be appropriate for the occasion and we should feel good and ourselves. What I am saying is that when we dress to not put up a show of some kind, then any other will not be bothered, no matter if we are dressed in this way or that way. For example: guys think it is okay to go without vest and some will even be in their upper and bottom underwear or just bottom underwear at home and think it is okay. Women hate guys showing their upper torso or vest or walking in their bottom underwear around the house. If Justice says it is okay because guys' upper torso is not a sexual symbol then justice is wrong because the bottom line is that women do not appreciate guys in naked upper torsos or with vest or with just bottom underwear, so a sexual symbol or not is not the issue here, the issue here is that there's some things about guys that women just hate, but guys will still do that because most justice is guys and women cannot change guys' behaviour, and guys will do wrong things because justice makes wrong laws. If I was to make a law regarding clothing then I would say that guys cannot roam in naked upper torsos, nor in vests nor in just bottom underwear, just like women. Issue being not what is a sexual symbol or not, but issue being what is liked and what is not liked. But women are not given due respect, appropriate laws are not made, and guys lose respect in women's eyes and so forth. Also, the more in naked upper torso, the more in vest, the more in just bottom underwear - that is how nude - crude the guy is and it shows. Truth is self evident, we all know.

Would you say a nude beach is normal?

PhilX