Why is it we attack a woman's physical looks and sexuality?

[Guest]

Same concept as the codpiece.... Different esthetic.

[_zeezrom]

Alternatively to dressing up for survival, reproduction, power, etc....

People might simple enjoy dressing up. It is like art in 4 dimensions. Fashion really can be art. Men are deprived of much of this art in today's society.

[_madeleine]

Alternatively to dressing up for survival, reproduction, power, etc....

People might simple enjoy dressing up. It is like art in 4 dimensions. Fashion really can be art. Men are deprived of much of this art in today's society.

I surmise, from experience, that most men aren't interested in fashion as art. Most I know just want a pair of pants and a shirt to put on in the morning. Those who are interested shouldn't be afraid to art it up. I'm all for it, but I work in the art world. Artists, or the artist soul if you will, cannot be suppressed.

[_zeezrom]

Alternatively to dressing up for survival, reproduction, power, etc....

People might simple enjoy dressing up. It is like art in 4 dimensions. Fashion really can be art. Men are deprived of much of this art in today's society.

I surmise, from experience, that most men aren't interested in fashion as art. Most I know just want a pair of pants and a shirt to put on in the morning. Those who are interested shouldn't be afraid to art it up. I'm all for it, but I work in the art world. Artists, or the artist soul if you will, cannot be suppressed.

I agree this is the case, for similar reasons to women feeling uncomfortable about wearing pants to church. We all need to feel validated and comfortable. Living in the engineering world, I can say it is difficult to art it up.

[_Ceeboo]

The answer to the OP question is........... evolution?

Awesome!



Peace,
Ceeboo

[_DrW]

The answer to the OP question is........... evolution?

Awesome!



Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo,

Evolution can solve all kinds of otherwise intractable problems.

[_just me]

It's all about attracting a mate, landing and keeping a good job (survival).

So back to the original point. At what point does natural behavior become sexist?

Sexism begins when you discriminate or devalue someone based on their sex or based on gender roles/stereotypes.

It doesn't really matter if it is "natural" to do so.

[_Juggler Vain]

I've noticed over the past several days that it is extremely common for people to attack a woman's physical looks or sexual desirability.

I don't see this happen against men in the same way. I do see their sexuality questioned, but not their physical looks or sexual desirability. (that can be a different thread)

The following (emphasis added) was posted in this thread 3 minutes before the OP was posted:

lol @ members of a faith concerned about a "feminist movement" in this day and age. I can just see bcspace stuffing his unathletic fat-face on a foyer couch attempting to spot someone wearing purple or a lady wearing a pant-suit in an attempt to win over the loyalty of the local leadership.

So it does happen against men in the same way sometimes.

-JV

[_moksha]

French nobility, ca. 1600's

(This is a man)

Yes, but he is French.

[_honorentheos]

So I guess my answer to the OP is this: because they haven't learned that doing this is a bad idea, or else they don't have much self-control, or else they just don't care.

I finished reading Cloud Atlas about the same time we finished reading Jack London's The Sea Wolf as the bedtime story we chose not so long ago. I say that because reading both together may have highlighted the theme of being civilized vs. being yeasty ferment yielding to desire - to paraphrase Wolf Larsen's sentiment.

I like your thoughts in that context, Sethbag, because I think you hit the big three: ignorance, lack of self-control, and apathy. I think we find those three behind almost every form of “savagery” to some degree or other.

On the theme, I particularly liked this exchange from Cloud Atlas between a remnant member of technologically advanced humanity and a primative, civilized, human whose tribe was being wiped out by a thuggish, brutish tribe:

“So is it better to be savage’n to be Civ’lized?”

“What’s the naked meanin’ behind them two words?”

“Savages ain’t got no laws”, I said, “ but Civ’lizeds got laws.”

“Deeper’n that it’s this. The savage sat’fies his needs now. He’s hungry, he’ll eat. He’s angry, he’ll knuckly. He’s swellin’, he’ll shoot up a woman. His master is his will, an’ if his will say-soes ‘Kill’ he’ll kill. Like fangy animals.

“Now, the Civ’lized got the same needs too, but he sees further. He’ll eat half his food now, yay, but plant half so he won’t go hungry ‘morrow. He’s angry, he’ll stop’n’think why so he won’t get angry next time. He’s swellin’, well, he’s got sisses an’ daughters what need respectin’ so he’ll respect his bros’ sisses an’ daughters. His will is his slave, an’ if his will say-soes, ‘Don’t!’, he won’t, nay.”

So I asked ‘gain, “Is it better to be savage’n be Civ’lized?”

“List’n, savages an Civ’lized ain’t divided by tribes or b’liefs or mountain ranges, nay every human is both, yay.”

It seems that on any particular issue we stradle the line between and choose or fail to choose. The OP asks about one manifestation. There are plenty of others, and I doubt any one of us doesn't lean to the side of the savage in certain cases...because of ignorance, intolerance, apathy, lack of self control...or perhaps our sense of self-worth isn't up to the opportunity a particular circumstance affords and is over-powered by the base Will.

My opinion is that your evolution comment is also worth keeping in the discussion. Our emotional selves exert a strong pull on us. (see this link for example) It isn't the lack of this pull, or will, that makes us "Civ'lized" - it's training the will that does this. In that sense I fully agree with Blixa that it isn't hardwired. But it's wired.