The Bikini: Gentlemen, get out your tools.

[_asbestosman]

Now you're back to denying that sexual attraction does not exist.

I hereby deny that sexual attraction does not exist.
double negatives are confusing though.

[_asbestosman]

So a bikini, for example, does not enhance sexual attraction?

Of course it does.--so does a healthy diet and a good exercise regimen.

We should probably discourage the latter two as well just to make sure nobody gets too turned on. Don't want anyone to have to put out an eye or chop off a hand so as to avoid adultery in one's heart.

More seriously, I think this is where the argument comes in. As I understand bcspace's position it's not that sexual attraction is wrong but rather sexual attraction to someone who is not your spouse nor potential spouse. Therefore a women who knows that her provocative clothing will make a man sin will bear some responsibility for this dangerous situation just as an adult who leaves his swimming pool unattended will bear responsibility for anyone who drowns in it.

Am I close?

ETA: I probably need to add some language about how even if you dismiss lusting after a non (potential) spouse as bad, you still should via secular ethics be appalled at viewing people as objects--something supported by the study in the OP.

[_asbestosman]

Thinking more about this study. It occurs to me that the brain responses to images of bikinis may be largely cultural. In some sense we may be taught to view bikini-clad women as objects (or at least as extra sexually attractive) by our culture. In the culture of Japanese Anime, they seem to have a thing for school swimsuits which cover the navel.

[_Dr. Shades]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzIcz7MOkc&sns=Facebook

I generally agree. Ladies, yes we can and do control our thoughts and actions, but why make it more difficult for us and why send the wrong signals about yourselves?

Then the solution is simple. Ladies should be nude at the beach and at swimming pools instead of wearing bikinis.

[_keithb]

For some reason, bcspace reminds me of this guy:

http://youtu.be/4lq5yMS5wKw

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wonder if even this would be good enough for men like Mr. BCSpace:



Or how about we go back to this:



Methinks a woman's modesty is more about a man's insecurity, than it is about a their morality.

- VRDRC

[_Runtu]

ETA: I probably need to add some language about how even if you dismiss lusting after a non (potential) spouse as bad, you still should via secular ethics be appalled at viewing people as objects--something supported by the study in the OP.

I agree. Objectifying others can lead to some very bad things.

[_Blixa]

The study referred to sounds ideologically driven to me. It seems to support every cliché possible about how men think about sex. I call misandristic BS.

Actually, it sounds somewhat plausible to me based on the Science of Lust series of videos that were discussed here a couple months ago. It seems likely to me that male brains do tend to turn off in the presence of a sexually attractive person. Lust makes men do stupid things--men like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Clinton, and many more. This makes evolutionary sense for men.

That doesn't mean they view the woman as a mere object--it just means the judgment center is greatly diminished. But then if judgment is down, how is one really evaluating the sexy person? Most likely at a simplistic, unrealistic or at best emotional level. That doesn't make it bad as such. I just think it's inferior to using more of the rational part to have a better understanding.

In any case, even when lust does appear, most men still have enough control over themselves not to break too many social taboos--at least in the open. You might not live a very long, prosperous life if you're hitting on someone else's object of affection in front of his face.

If I see a woman scantily clad I don't think of her as an object. Mere objects are not sexy!!!

True. That's why most of us aren't into inflatables--or imbeciles (at least when we don't have our beer goggles on). However, many people can be turned on by erotic drawings or erotic literature--all without the use of actual people as the target of lust.

I'm not really sure about the dehumanizing aspect of it. It does seem a bit off in some regards. For one thing, an infinitely more satisfying and powerful emotion is when the target of your lust actually likes you too. Lust, infatuation, and love are all related and none are in and of themselves bad. These emotions can actually get us to take a greater interest in the target as a person instead of another tree in a forest. On the other hand, lusting over pornography doesn't seem to have much of an interest in the participants as people. Perhaps, though, the same is true of other entertainers--or maybe not as some are very interested in the life of the Stars.

All good points, Abman, but has someone yet pointed out that rape is not about lust? That's why babies and women in their 80's and 90's get raped, too. BC's completely ignorant view that rapists find something sexually "attractive" about their victims isn't born out by demographics or the history of the crime (i.e. it's use as a terroristic weapon in war, not to mention its equally terroristic use as racist propaganda in the Jim Crow era American south).

[Guest]

Thank you just me. This is the FIRST cogent post (not complaining about the humorous ones) in response to the OP. And thank you for defending male sexuality, something that was even being attacked by other men in this thread.

Hmmmm.... the "FIRST cogent post in response to the OP"?

I'm curious why you never answered this one, of mine. I'd really be interested in a serious response:

I knew [the potential hypocrisy of my position] from the get go.

Do you now feel the need to advocate with equal zeal that men should never take off their shirts in public, given the burden it could cause to women

Strangely no.

Why not? Again: as topless males, why would you (to use your words) "make it more difficult for [women] and why send the wrong signals about yourselves?"

Especially given your position that:

If [women] lust after a man, I believe they are under the same condemnation men are, when they lust after a woman.

Why would you advocate a "avoid bikinis" standard for women (to make the lives of men easier), but feel no need to advocate a "avoid complete uncoveredness" for men (to make the lives of women easier)...?

As for your other comment:

and gay men?

I think they should solve their original problem before worrying about that. But perhaps it could be effective treatment for their disorder/aberration.

I'm not sure what you mean, here. What is gay men's "original problem" that they "should solve" before "worrying about" being exposed to topless men?

And how do you propose that gay men "solve" this "original problem" that you're referring to?

Daniel2

[_Buffalo]

bcspace sees no problem with the following attire: