Our Shared Shelf discussion

Has anyone read and COMMENDED Plato's The Republic for addressing women as equals of men and how he even discussed women being laughed at if or when they go topless?

Angelie wrote: "Has anyone read and COMMENDED Plato's The Republic for addressing women as equals of men and how he even discussed women being laughed at if or when they go topless?"

Nope, it is on my TBR though!

Jessica wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feeding a child. Why should you have t..."

Read the following statement.
"You shouldn't breastfeed in public places"

Not oppressive? Ok. Replace "breastfeed" with "black" and read again.
"You shouldn't be black in public places"

Still not oppressive? Think again.

Here's a different point of view, for which I'm bound to be criticized. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I NEVER nursed my babies in public, nor did I have any desire to. Now those babies are teenage boys, and two of them are quite religious. As religious boys, they are not supposed to look at scantily clad women. I have seen one of them turn his head so not to look at women in shorts and halter tops in the city. So if some woman is going to bare all in my sons' presence, I would be angry about it. I am trying to raise gentlemen, and I don't want any interference with that!

Kressel wrote: "Here's a different point of view, for which I'm bound to be criticized. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I NEVER nursed my babies in public, nor did I have any desire to. Now those babies are teenage boys, and..."

Well, I'm sorry, but gentlemen do not judge women just for what they wear. Also, if you actually want them to be the kind of gentlemen you describe and women dress scantily clad near them, you should be happy if nothing else. It tests your sons' ability to actually remain "gentlemen". I probably do not condone what you've taught your sons and I certainly do not condone how you treat women who wear what they want, but what's the point of teaching them to avoid something if they never see it? What would be the point of telling them alcohol is bad if it weren't available anywhere? No offense intended, but could the point just be... repression, for the sake of parental authority?

This isn't coming from someone with hippy nudist parents. My mother is a muslim (though I swear you'd never notice; she doesn't wear any kind of religious gear) and she's not fond of gays, nor does she like sexual freedom too much, women's in particular (not that I'd go so far as to say she's a victim blamer).

I respect your right to your own beliefs, but leave your sons the same choice (as my mother did, despite her flaws), and leave women who wear what they want alone. They have nothing to do with you or your sons, nor do any of the babies these women choose to breastfeed for that matter.

Wow, that post is full of judgment! I should have known. . .

"you should be happy if nothing else. It tests your sons' ability to actually remain "gentlemen"."

Actually, they did behave as gentlemen, and I'm proud of them, but I don't think they should be tested more than necessary. This is one of the ways Judaism is consistent. Both boys and girls are expected to be virgins on their wedding night.

Kressel wrote: "Wow, that post is full of judgment! I should have known. . .

"you should be happy if nothing else. It tests your sons' ability to actually remain "gentlemen"."

Actually, they did behave as gentle..."

I don't know much of Judaism and I should say now that I've no interest in discussing it or religion in general; you believe or you don't. Your post, however, was full of judgement as well and it was for really nothing other than making your sons a little uncomfortable. If yours is justified, exactly why would mine not be?

You said many more insulting things than that, but for the sake of peace, I'll skip over them. This is what I'm trying to say, though. A boy who is raised NOT to look at women in various states of undress is a boy who is much more likely to stay away from that exploitative medium, pornography. Along with women's modesty comes the value of men's purity. That kind of equality is what makes this approach feminist. There is no double standard.

I don't see the point of women walking in the streets topless. I don't really see men walking topless, besides on beaches or swimmingpools and where I come from a lot of women nowadays are also topless in this places mentioned above.
To the breastfeeding point: that is so ridiculous to prohibit a woman to nurse her child! I f the woman is feeding her baby it doesn't mean she has to flap her whole breast out, but in a decent way unbutton her shirt and nurse the child. I really don't understand why people have to go always extreme and complain if they can't.

Jing Wen wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feeding a child. Why s..."
Breastfeeding and being black can not accurately be compared. Breastfeeding is an action and thus can be changed, being black is not an action- it cannot be changed. Regardless, going with your example. No, a random person saying an opinion is not oppression.. The lack of 100% social acceptance of breastfeeding is not oppression. People are going to have different opinions. Opinions that will hold no power, except that which we give it. When we lose that ability to speak freely, except for speech already prohibited by law, that is what I consider oppressive.

Kressel wrote: "You said many more insulting things than that, but for the sake of peace, I'll skip over them. This is what I'm trying to say, though. A boy who is raised NOT to look at women in various states of ..."

I can definitely see where you're coming from and yes, I agree it is consistent at least. However, it's still sexually repressive in my opinion and from a historical perspective, attempts at sexual repression of both genders have not worked, at least not in a feminist way. Pretty much every culture that did it (such as Ancient Rome and christian/muslim theocracies throughout the Middle Ages) have always proven to be patriarchal and even with sexual repression, women were still raped and objectified. As for pornography, it's a place for debate among feminists, so I'll grant you that position and yes, with pornography being so privatised, the people who work in it (especially the women) are being exploited to one extent or another. I personally think pornography and other sex work are not inherently exploitative, but in our current society, it is for the most part.

Still, I don't think sexual repression, regardless of whether or not one thinks it's justified, only remains consistent for a short amount of time; it always tends to elevate men just that wee bit more eventually, in my opinion.

Tim wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Here's a different point of view, for which I'm bound to be criticized. I'm an Orthodox Jew. I NEVER nursed my babies in public, nor did I have any desire to. Now those babies are t..."
Funny you mention hippie nudist parents. My mom was that. Because of her, I learned that having the right to do something doesn't always mean I get to do it. What this means is that we all share a public space. That public space should be set up in a way that is respectful to all people from the nudist to the non-nudist and from the religious to the non-religious.

Tim wrote: "from a historical perspective, attempts at sexual repression of both genders have not worked, at least not in a feminist way."

Since the personal is political, I might as well say that I chose the Orthodox Jewish lifestyle after having been raised in the secular world, going to college, and discovering the drug and alcohol-soaked meat market that was my college campus. I wouldn't call THAT liberation.

Jessica wrote: "That public space should be set up in a way that is respectful to all people from the nudist to the non-nudist and from the religious to the non-religious. "

Well said!

Kressel wrote: "Tim wrote: "from a historical perspective, attempts at sexual repression of both genders have not worked, at least not in a feminist way."

Since the personal is political, I might as well say that..."

I think it is, to an extent. You choose what you choose from your surroundings. No shame in that. As for alcohol or any other drugs, I refer you to a quote by Charles Bukowski:

"Find what you love and let it kill you."

Now, that's not to say self-destruction works for everyone, but on a general level, it can work. People should be aware of their being self-destructive when it's the case and I honestly believe that recovering from a self-destructive way of living has the potential of being one of the best achievements a human being can have in their own life. I've not done so, I've never been self-destructive, so I could just be being naive.

Jessica, I agree with your general statement, but I feel like it can be interpreted in any way. Person A can tell person B they should cover themselves more to be "respectful" to person A. Person B could just as easily say that person A is not being respectful for asking this. I don't think the two can always overlap; in this case, I think it's disrespectful to suggest scantily clad women are somehow an "interferance" with teenage boys growing into decent people, by sole virtue of being santily clad.

Also, I'm sorry if me saying "hippie nudist" came off as offensive to you; I was only saying it to prevent any wrongful assumptions about my upbringing.

Charles Bukowski, who is famed for his misogyny, doesn't seem like an appropriate person to quote in this group.

Re: "I think it's disrespectful to suggest scantily clad women are somehow an "interferance" with teenage boys growing into decent people

They'll grow up into decent people, G-d willing, but why should they be forced to see what they're being trained to think of as something private to be enjoyed only after marriage and then only to one woman?

Tim wrote: "Kressel wrote: "Tim wrote: "from a historical perspective, attempts at sexual repression of both genders have not worked, at least not in a feminist way."

Since the personal is political, I might ..."

I didn't think of the comment as offensive. I made more of comment on it because I found it amusing- so need to apologize. Save those words for when you really need them.
I do think there is some miscommunication in what I said versus what was understood. It was directed to society as a whole, not the individual. We have always had some sort of social etiquette as to how to behave in public. And many of the times it was about reciprocal behaviors. Nowadays, those rules are being rewritten. And its not about reciprocal behaviors- but more about from a more, I don't know, a social justice perspective where who deserves respect is determined by who hasn't held power in the past.

Kressel wrote: "Charles Bukowski, who is famed for his misogyny, doesn't seem like an appropriate person to quote in this group.

Re: "I think it's disrespectful to suggest scantily clad women are s..."

A better question would be, why are you making this out to be a porblem to them? I find it kind of a problem that you're suggesting that women's bodies are a thing to be enjoyed only after a marriage that only after some ceremony. If that's how you want to do things, that's absolutely fine, but that does not mean all surrounding women have to conform to it. And as I said, in regards to some beliefs, how can you ever actually know for sure if they're really your beliefs, when they're never being challenged? I also feel like you're retracting the statement I quoted and making the point a bit softer, making it look like I'm just being mean. Besides, if something is private, it's still the person's own private possesion to do with as they see fit. So as I see it, you're kind of suggesting it somehow belongs to men as well. Now if you use the same reasoning on men's bodies, good on you for being consistent, but I still disagree; a body is yours and you should not be subjected to the ideas of people you don't even know and/or don't intend to marry anyway. You can put it any way you like, you're still placing your right to exercise your religion before others' rights over their own bodies to an extent, and I can't agree with that.

As for Bukowski, I don't know that much about him, but his quote was on what you do to yourself as a person and it was more of a focus on his nihilistic side. Still, your criticism was valid and I apologise for not being able to find a better person to quote.

Oh my... This thread took an interesting turn. Well, if boys destined to be gentlemen aren't supposed to be looking at women in not much clothing, then I suppose those future gentlemen should just look away.

The funny (or actually rather sad) thing is evident on this very page. Clothing is moral. Little clothing is loose morals. A lot of clothing is on the way to God's green pastures one day. Whatever. This type of nonsense is why the world as a whole Cannot.Have.Nice.Things. There's always at least one high and mighty who lets everyone else know that their chosen lifestyle is the correct one, and all other ones should adjust, or at least be prepared to be judged.

What the fucking fuck??? Seriously people. I'm beginning to so utterly pissed off by the judgement from so-called religious people that I can't even. And the most ridiculous part is that they don't even see when they get going on the high horse again, acting holier than thou.

Do your religious thing. By all means, believe in your god and follow your holy manual. Seriously. Do. Be good. Be kind. But for the love of everything that is good still in this world, stop connecting clothing with what kind of heart a person has. If you judge a person on the clothes they wear, you are judgemental. Yes, judgemental. Whether you see it or not. And trying to impose your rule book on everyone else simply will not happen, because there's a zillion other similar rule books out there, and then we didn't even talk about those of us, who just follow our hearts without any official rules.

So how do you holy people propose we fix this world, glue it together, when all you people are so fucking busy claiming that your choice is better than everyone else's. And FYI, I associate with a huge number of gentlemen, but clearly my definition is different. Because they might look from time to time, but they sure as hell are good boys men, too. It's okay, because I look from time to time as well. God forbid I should have hormones. Good grief.

The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else shares them - or should share them either. There should be room for all. This means that the only thing we can do is keep doing our own thing, whilst adjusting to the fact that the human population isn't one horde of brainwashed individuals. If you want Utopia of your own kind, you will need to brainwash non-believers, sorry to say, since we started out scattered all over the place, with different religions, different moral codes, different cultures, and different individuals - in a time that keeps changing. You (general you) may want everyone else to behave like you do, but news flash, ain't gonna happen. So how do we make everyone feel comfortable in their own skin? We adapt, and we keep doing our own thing, whilst living and letting live.

Good point.

I was lying earlier. I do have at least one rule in my Aglaea's Book of Agnostic Love. It goes like this: Include, don't exclude. I find exclusion as presented earlier in this thread pure black evil and no heart.

Concetta wrote: "I don't see the point of women walking in the streets topless. I don't really see men walking topless, besides on beaches or swimmingpools and where I come from a lot of women nowadays are also top..."

What if women want to go to beaches and swimming pools topless?

Jesus for some reason people think that advocating for equal rights to go topless equals stripping at places like the courtroom.

Jessica wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me because you are feedi..."

Breastfeeding and being black can not accurately be compared. Breastfeeding is an action and thus can be changed, being black is not an action- it cannot be changed.

Regardless of whether it is an action that can be changed or not, people will form opinions. So some opinions are justified while others are not? What a contradiction.

Opinions that will hold no power, except that which we give it.

Pffft. No power huh? Read below.

http://nationalreport.net/nyc-police-...

Kressel wrote: "Charles Bukowski, who is famed for his misogyny, doesn't seem like an appropriate person to quote in this group.

Re: "I think it's disrespectful to suggest scantily clad women are s..."

They'll grow up into decent people, G-d willing, but why should they be forced to see what they're being trained to think of as something private to be enjoyed only after marriage and then only to one woman?

^Exibit A. The sexualization of the female breast.

Aglaea wrote: "Oh my... This thread took an interesting turn. Well, if boys destined to be gentlemen aren't supposed to be looking at women in not much clothing, then I suppose those future gentlemen should just ..."

^ Great read!

Aglaea wrote: "The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else shares them - or should share them either. Th..."

You're right. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to respect each other boundaries

Jing Wen wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Jing Wen wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lindsey wrote: "I think that breast feeding in public should be 100% accepted. The fact that it isn't has always confused me becau..."

Using the word justified implies that the opinion is a good or legitimate. No, not all opinions are good. Some are bad. Doesn't mean that we do not treat that person with respect, be polite. Some opinions are definitely hateful, but as long as they don't cross the line to hateful speech or discriminatory acts- then there is no illegitimacy.

Most of the issues that come up with police officers and public breastfeeding has more to do with individuals who are providing complaints to them. And that will probably continue until we find a way to do so in a way that respects all citizens. Word of note- the nationalreport is satire.

http://realorsatire.com/nationalrepor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...

Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else shares them - or should share ..."

Of course not. But coddling sensitive people forever and ever, when there are other lifestyles out there is forcing the other lifestyles not to exist and flourish, but to be suffocated to protect those, who want to impose their own ideas on everyone.

Aglaea wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else shares them - ..."
Having some sort of social etiquette that everyone follows doesn't prevent other lifestyles from taking place. Take reading for example. It's not polite to read at the dinner table or during conversations with others or during school or work. Does it mean I can never read, privately or publicly? No, it doesn't. Because I'm not always eating, talking, working, or going to school. There are also places I can go where reading is supported.

I think this is a pretty good article to read for this particular topic.

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-yo...

XD haha we will see, I thought the article brought up some valid points honestly

I hope so as well ^-^ I found it online and after reading it figured it would be a good idea to post it here for others to read.

Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Aglaea wrote: "The reason for my madness in the earlier comment is this. Just because you have a set of beliefs or convictions or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else..."

How do you define "scantily clad" or "too revealing clothing" or "dress modestly", because we're not even talking topless anymore. I was reacting to the scantily clad.

It's so beyond ridiculous to want to tell others how to dress that the only example I can think of is a muslim society where Westerners who refuse to dress in burkha or whatever they have locally are basically arrested. Is that what we want in the free world, too? Some sort of uniform for all?

Or if I don't happen to like tattoos, I'd order everyone to cover them up, or have them removed even? Because they insult me and I find them disgusting and the person wearing them is of low morals and not proper and modest enough to my taste and can't possibly do good each day, but they are going straight to hell and it is my task on this earth to prevent them from inking themselves, and in the process I also get to judge them openly and vocally?
Because that's exactly what is going on with people, who comment on clothing choices made by others.
(for the record, if you want to ink yourself, be my guest, it's a free world. right?)

Message 227: Aglaea wrote: "The funny (or actually rather sad) thing is evident on this very page. Clothing is moral. Little clothing is loose morals. A lot of clothing is on the way to God's green pastures one day. Whatever. This type of nonsense is why the world as a whole Cannot.Have.Nice.Things. There's always at least one high and mighty who lets everyone else know that their chosen lifestyle is the correct one, and all other ones should adjust, or at least be prepared to be judged..."

"But for the love of everything that is good still in this world, stop connecting clothing with what kind of heart a person has. If you judge a person on the clothes they wear, you are judgemental. Yes, judgemental. Whether you see it or not. And trying to impose your rule book on everyone else simply will not happen, because there's a zillion other similar rule books out there, and then we didn't even talk about those of us, who just follow our hearts without any official rules..."

This was brilliant. I love it. I heartily agree with you that clothing has been linked to morality here in this world. How much of it, how little, what kinds of clothing, all conspire to apparently broadcast to the judging world exactly your moral character... Last time I checked there were some amazing people with tattoos and beards, who went shirtless, who dressed up in revealing and scanty clothing, who covered up, who wore pants, who wore dresses, who did makeup, who went au natural, etc. These people are my friends and family. They are amazing and wonderful loving and tolerant nonjudgmental people. Their stories could make you laugh and their insights are profound. If I judged them based on the "morality system of clothing," then they would never ever make that cut and I would've deprived myself of the wonderful opportunity to get to know them.

If only uptight and closed-minded people get into "heaven" then that makes me kinda glad to be apparently going into "hell" with the rest of us interesting and awesome folk. Mark Twain once said, "Go to Heaven for the climate, and Hell for the company."

Now can we PLEASE stop judging people's morality based on their clothing? It's rather exhausting here y'all.

Tim wrote: "So as I see it, you're kind of suggesting it somehow belongs to men as well."

No, that's not what I'm saying. Their eyes and minds belong to them, and they like keeping them pure. Her breasts belong to her, and it is her choice to do what she wants with them, but to some guys, it's an imposition, rather in the same way that a catcall to a woman is an imposition.

Just to be clear, the thing you said that offended me most was that I'm an over-controlling parent because in fact, each of my sons, all past bar mitzvah age, has made his own decision on these matters. The younger ones like keeping the Torah, and the oldest has rebelled. And guess what? I'm close to all of them. You weren't here with us on Shabbos. You don't know what philosophical and religious issues we discussed. But I am a religious person, therefore you think you can judge my behavior according to all your preconceived notions about religious people. You have shown far more prejudice toward me than I have toward you, and that's a real shame. I have been an active member of Goodreads since 2007. This is the first time I have ever run across such a negative argument. It's very unpleasant.

Aglaea wrote: "Of course not. But coddling sensitive people forever and ever, when there are other lifestyles out there is forcing the other lifestyles not to exist and flourish, but to be suffocated to protect those, who want to impose their own ideas on everyone."

How about those women who bared their breasts under the protest cited above? (http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-yo...) Isn't that an imposition of their values on everyone in the park?

I don't know if this has being said before, but as I see it, I'm with women on this (like always obviously) but, my point is we shouldn't be judge for how much or how less clothing we use. We live in a society that sees this kind of stuff as awkward and unthinkable. As I see it society will always be unfair.

Like two weeks ago, I read on this same threat, that people didn't like to see women breast feeding there babies, and I think is kind of funny for two things: First because even my mother, who I'm sure had to do it when I was a baby, was judging and laughing at a girl who was breast feeding her baby on a mall. I got mad at her that day but I preferred to keep quite because she would see me as a weird animal if I told her how much I disagreed. As you can see in this example SOCIETY again.

And second: If you think about it, when you see a cat, dog, cow, or whatever animal you like breast feeding their "child" everyone will think its cute, but someone sees a human and thinks its gross.

Plus, I think if women don't have the "right" to go topless men shouldn't either. The worst of all is that I've seen men with more breasts than some women going topless and just because they have short hair its correct for them to go topless.

Talking about equal rights to go topless... This is one topic that I find special for me, somehow personal, because I'm a woman. Recently I felt offended by my guy friends who were talking about women going topeless on magazine covers or whenever, or only have bikinis or bras on. They found the subject so sensitive. I spoke up after a few minutes of the conversation, I told them, "if it were you to go topless, would it be fine or would it be all the same?" And they said, "of course it'd be different. We are guys. It's normal for us."

I mean, why can't it be normal for women? I asked them that, and they said it was just a sensitive thing if women did that. It just felt different somehow. Women's bodies are somehow different, the subject of all sensitive matters..

I'm just sharing my experience about this:(

Kressel wrote: "Tim wrote: "So as I see it, you're kind of suggesting it somehow belongs to men as well."

No, that's not what I'm saying. Their eyes and minds belong to them, and they like keeping them pure. Her ..."

You're right. I had assumed the two you mentioned were your only sons and I was quite sceptical that they really chose their religious conducts considering you said they're teenagers. Also, I had assumed that if they chose these conducts, they'd be much more comfortable around scantily clad women, but again, I suppose I was wrong. I sincerely apologise for being so rude earlier, but when you described said women as "interferences" I thought that may have been somewhat telling; turns out it wasn't.

Nonetheless, and I don't think your intentions are bad, I still think what you're advocating inherently sends the message that a woman's body partly belongs to the people (particularly the men) who see it. Even though you don't allege that position, and even though you may apply the same reasoning to men, it's still the practical implication of it and I don't think that implication can be taken out. You can justify it with whatever reasons you see fit, but me personally, I won't be convinced. I understand you just want to make the world a better environment for your children, but I'm afraid that this is simply a matter of one group's comfort against the other's freedom and I opt for the latter.

Eddline wrote: "Talking about equal rights to go topless... This is one topic that I find special for me, somehow personal, because I'm a woman. Recently I felt offended by my guy friends who were talking about wo..."

Because we are cattle still, objects, not allowed to define ourselves, not allowed to decide what is sexual to us personally and what isn't. We must accept blatant ogling and loud cat-calling, and must be of service.

Our uteruses must be open 24/7, and childfree (by choice, childless is involuntary) is a curse word. We are allowed to ask intrusive questions about our neighbour's uterine status, why she isn't pregnant yet, or when she will have her next child, or Why She Isn't Procreating Like The Sex-Giving Slash Baby-Making Machine she was destined to be. Because god forbid if she chooses to remain childfree, IT'S NOT NORMAL, a normal woman wants normal children and plenty of them, yet she does.not.remind the public that she's fulfilling her maternal duty, but must feed her child tucked away in a dirty room somewhere with room for one mother only. Because feeding your child is sexual and shameful. And those around you are allowed to walk up to you to ogle even more and be so utterly offended that the half-naked model next to you, who simply has a nice pair of breasts barely contained in a low-cut top, is doing a better job of being a woman - she's being the cattle she's supposed to be, we know what her job is and we don't even see that we have reduced her to an object, but oh my god the baby that covers her mother's nipple the same way as fabric is covering the other breast, it's OFFENSIVE. And we get to make the mother, who barely gets any sleep, feel like complete shit.

There are so many rules, I can't keep up with them all. Is it so bad to want to define me? I watched both "The Duchess" and "The Scandalous Lady W" last week, and nothing has changed, we're still the same cattle at men's disposal. This topless by choice thing is an attempt to define our own sexuality, but we aren't allowed to.

To me, breasts are functional in reproduction, I've stated I won't show them in public due to several reasons, but if another woman wants to define her sexuality not via breasts, by all means. I don't want to participate in patriarchy anymore by letting men define on my behalf that breasts are primarily sexual. Thanks but no thanks, to me they are primarily for feeding kids. Sorry if you don't agree with that, it's not my problem.

Aglaea, let me give you 3 conditions and one question:

First: for men breasts are sexuality desire and this sense from their puberty on.

Second: Men values are the same from the beginning of the world and they will not change, meaning they think with men values - which means more hard to get, more hiding, more attractive is one situation to them.

Third: The values that prevail in nowaday society, goes easy together with men values. Because men values are patriarchical, they glorify the same thinking as themselves. They easy create authority, which women values even do not have motive for.

Question: So tell me, if we have in today society hard idealised men values, which women "do not get why", and see only as reproduction function, how and why would you change men, to believe that? Here on this forum is majority of women, and all I am reading is women opinions. But men think different and this cannot be changed no matter how much we will try to find a solutions.

The solutions is not that we change men perception, but that we make equally available and please men values, then women values and also values which prevail today in society. Then we get a fair society ;)

Tadej wrote: "Aglaea, let me give you 3 conditions and one question:

First: for men breasts are sexuality desire and this sense from their puberty on.

Second: Men values are the same from the beginning of the ..."

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "men values". I thought a value is something like honesty, kindness, focus, family orientation, individualism, grace,... All those driving forces that humans have. We usually have a small set of core values, and if we don't align our actions accordingly, we can feel unease because something is "off". I had no idea men and women have stereotypically very different values. Maybe you can specify?

As for feeling aroused, by all means, react with a hard-on. Do. What happens next is what defines you. If you see a beautiful (your subjective idea of that) woman walking down the street, and you start cat-calling, you think you are her salvation in that moment. You think you're doing her a service by letting her know your approval. You give her a thumbs up on being the right kind of woman. What if I told you all women who are sick of being cat-called, never asked for that approval. They/we don't need it to validate our existence. The same way, if we receive "compliments" from strangers, usually the giver thinks it's a huge gift. But can we return without opening, return to sender? We can validate ourselves. We can define ourselves. We can and we may. We don't have to ask for permission from anyone how to define ourselves as women (or or men or non-cis for that matter - I include everyone).

I don't objectify men in public by walking next to them, harassing them for their phone number, telling them what a fine piece of ass they have and how their jeans hug the hot sexy juicy meat just so, so much that he should have a fine day and he should be so grateful that I took time out of my day to make him feel soooo gooooooood about himself. Because YUM. Because DROOOOL. Because oh my, he's God's gift to women and he should know each day on his way to work. If I'm really horny I might slap his ass even or grab that hot piece of strong, huuuuuge biceps, or ask him to wrap his arms all around me so I can hold on to those humongously masculine deltoids that he's working So Hard to achieve. Can you hear me moan and gasp yet? See the flush on my skin? Pupils dilate? Can you see how close I am to inviting him upstairs to that hotel we walked by? Because I'm so close, can't contain myself now, he's too hot, way too hot to handle.

Are you tired yet? I am. He never asked to hear all that, he was minding his own business on his way to work that morning, he didn't ask for that particular body but got what god gave him, and my strategy is to perhaps glance, keep on walking, in my mind plaster a grin on my internal face, send good karma into the world, and yeah, just keep on keeping on. I do have hormones, you know, but I can keep them to myself, even when a man migh have intended for me to admire him from a distance.

So if you see a topless or "scantily clad" woman, you can watch or turn away, and according to those values you mentioned either neutrally observe, become all hot and bothered, or judge her as a whore who should be sent straight to hell. Just don't tell her, she didn't ask for your opinion. She's minding her own business, and doesn't ask for validation or advice or feedback from the public audience.

It's not like she's telling all the buttoned-up people to lose some clothing, because she wants to enjoy everyone half-naked on a daily basis, but since they choose "modest" (ugh how I hate that concept) clothing, they are full of sin and should change for her pleasure. Everyone should wear microshorts and a tiny top at the most, just to please me. My word is law and if you don't do as I say, I'll start judging you vocally and telling you what a horribly questionable set of morals you have.

No, she's just minding her own business they way she sees fit. It's not her fault so many around her can't seem to be able to keep their noses out of it. Imagine this world if everyone, who keeps such close track on what the neighbour is doing, would put those efforts to doing good and trusting that their personal god creature would handle the judgment. Just imagine.

Aglaea, what I mean with men or women values is as follows. Actually it is hard to describe, because I work a lot of time with the knowledge and I see it at every step in my life. But I will try.

So I work with the knowledge, better said, theory which first time in history explains how human brains work. Before you said this is not possible, I will give you one reason, that it is. However with the theory it was completely remove dyslexia, first time in human history and first time in history of psychology. However there is also a lot more proofs that theory works, and it will take too long to describe them all. So for now I will only describe the definition and background of the theory.

There is 12+1 different type of human thinking. Any of humans, even if it's women or men, can be any of them. But those 13 characters consist out of 3 group of values, behaviours, skills and so on. All of those three centres in our mind are having their specially attributes, which other centre cannot have, and all of them three are opposite one against others. So if we now know the attributes of those centres, we can compose 13 different ways of thinking. This means that every human have all three processors which process the input data (from the smallest smell, to any situation that human can be in). BUT! Not every human thinks with the same centre. This makes us different. So there is one centre which mainly women think with. Only in majority, because there are also men who think with that centre. And there is centre which mainly men think with and minority of women. And there is the third centre which uses men and women. And with those three centres, we can develop any situation, if we understand enough good the work of all three of them and we know what type of human character is in front of us.

This is why I always use men "values", which is actually a group of attributes, which I know, and women values, a group of women centre attributes. Because psychology should not be targeting, but rather solving problems, with those theory, we can explain any of the human-relations situations. We just have to know, what type of character (centre) it is those human thinking with.

The values are however widely known as you have describe them above, but still I take this word to explain that every centre, prefer his own values, and is opposite to another centre of values in his own mind. If the centres are hard opposing, I say that people are dissatisfied with themselves, and if the centres permit themselves more objectivity, those people are satisfied people.

I can explain you more if you wish, but in separated topic or on PM because this is post for topless men ;))

Tim wrote: "I still think what you're advocating inherently sends the message that a woman's body partly belongs to the people (particularly the men) who see it. ."

My gosh, that is the very opposite of the Jewish view of the matter. Everybody's body is his or her own and it is our right to keep it covered up.

FYI, re Charles Bukowski, he really was famous for his misogynist writings, but he also had a terrible childhood. According to the film he wrote about his life, "Crazy Love," he had disfiguring acne as a teenager and so was shunned by both girls and boys. That and being regularly beaten by his father made him a bitter alcoholic as an adult. In keeping with Emma's #HeforShe campaign, I think my devoutly religious sons have more of a chance of being that for their wives and daughters than a man like Charles Bukowski.

Aglaea wrote: "Oh my... This thread took an interesting turn. Well, if boys destined to be gentlemen aren't supposed to be looking at women in not much clothing, then I suppose those future gentlemen should just look away."

For the record, that is exactly what they do, but if you'd ask them, they'd tell you that was something they wished they hadn't seen, just like a woman receiving a catcall wishes she hadn't heard it. And to tell a man not to catcall would suppress his freedom or speech, wouldn't it? Or are "freedoms" more nuanced than that.

Yes, breasts can be de-sexualized, but do we really want them to be? I think there are plenty of men and women who like breasts to be sexy in the privacy of their own homes.

All this talk of desensitization and de-sexualization has made me wonder about what it's like for Emma and other actors to kiss each other actors in romantic scenes on screen? Does it change how a real kiss feels in private?

I seem to be the only one on this thread right now, but I guess the rest of you will come back to it. In looking over the posts, particularly the ones addressed to me for expressing the religious point of you, I find my opponents in this argument to be taking a much preachier tone than I, the religious person, am taking. Never did I talk about Heaven or Hell, and never did I claim to be "holier than thou." Please don't put words in my mouth. Don't think that because you have taken the more liberal position that you are immune from dogmatism.

And now I'd like to quote my favorite section of I Am Malala:

The only thing I had with me from Pakistan was a beige shawl which Colonel Junaid had given to Dr Fiona as a present for me so they went clothes shopping to buy me things. They had no idea how conservative I was or what a teenage girl from the Swat Valley would wear. They went to Next and British Home Stores and came back with bags of T-shirts, pyjamas, socks and even bras. Yma asked me if I would like shalwar kamiz and I nodded. 'What's your favourite colour?' she asked. Pink was, of course, my reply. . .

They were worried I wasn't eating. But I didn't like the hospital food and I was worried it was not halal. The only things I'd eat there were the nutritional milkshakes. Nurse Julie discovered I liked Cheesy Wotsits so brought me those. 'What do you like?' they asked me. 'Fried chicken,' I replied. Yma discovered there was a halal Kentucky Fried Chicken at Small Heath so would go there every afternoon to buy me chicken and chips. One day she even cooked me a curry.

To keep me occupied they brought me a DVD player. One of the first movies they got me was Bend it Like Beckham, thinking the story of a Sikh girl challenging her cultural norms and playing football would appeal to me. I was shocked when the girls took off their shirts to practise in sports bras and I made the nurses switch it off. After that they brought cartoons and Disney movies. I watched all three Shrek movies and A Shark 's Tale."

Now here is a girl who literally risked her life for the feminist cause of women's education, but she has not changed her clothing style or her observance of halal. She is still scandalized at the sight of other women keeping the much looser Western standard. And I think she's got her priorities straight. Women's education is much more important than the freedom to "let it all hang out."

Kressel wrote: "Tim wrote: "I still think what you're advocating inherently sends the message that a woman's body partly belongs to the people (particularly the men) who see it. ."

My gosh, that is the very oppos..."

Well, again, that's valid enough criticism, but I wasn't quoting him on feminism or anything gender related for that matter, but instead on self-destruction, alcohol in particular (even though I myself have in recent months decided to quit drinking altogether, which I didn't want to talk about but thanks for inadvertently pushinig me there). I failed to admit, I don't know much about Bukowski, only that he was a misogynistic type and that at least one of his books touched on nihilism, which I thought might be interesting (even if it's written by a misogynist). I'm currently just curious after his writing because even if it's misogynistic, I may actually find them decently written works. In my country, we seem to have a specific writer who makes exaggerated misogynistic remarks when he's on a TV show (exaggerated in the sense that no one takes them seriously and occasionally laughs about them, because sometimes they're funny, even if they would be awful statements) and I am quite curious as to the kind of writing such authors do. Anyway, I already knew Bukowski was certainly not known for supporting feminism, so I hoped it would just come off as slightly ironic that I would quote him (on something not gender related) in a feminist discussion, without too much backlash. My apologies for not knowing what I was talking about.

And, again, I'm very sorry, but you don't get to say someone's body is completely and utterly 100% theirs, right before/after you chastise other people who put the right over their own bodies into practice, people you have nothing to do with and/or do not even share your convictions on things like marriage.

And I should mention that none of what I'm saying is aimed at your religion (as I noticed you brought it up in your latest comment). I'm not involving judaism as a whole; all jews can have different ways of expressing their religion to themselves or others and I don't mind that. As fr any personal experience, I've only seen hasidic jews on the street but never spoken to or known one, nor do I find myself being bothered by them or their way of dressing. If, however, I should perchance criticise your views and they turn out to be ineherently linked to your personal religious convictions (not necessarily the convictions of all jews), then I think it's only right for me to criticise your personal religious convictions as well, if they tell you to chastise others; I'm not just going to stop criticising just because we're not both jewish. If your personal religious views tell you to do certain things, fine, but if you harm others or tell others to conform to your views in any way (which you did), then that's just a wee bit less fine.

If you do not like seeing people in scantily clad clothing and/or if your sons find themselves "wishing they hadn't seen it" (which I'm pretty sure applies more to women), then I'm sorry to be that guy, but put up with it. They're not bothered by you making it a point to wear certain clothing, so show them the same respect. For the record, I'd not be very comfortable either if overnight all women in my environment would just be topless at all times, and that is not the goal most (or even any) people in this thread are striving towards per se (becasue, you know, it can be cold outside too, so we've heard); it is merely about everyone having a choice without judgement.

And forgive me, but I feel like you're actually comparing yourself to Malala, and that just feels very pretentious; she risked her well-being in a region notorious for armed conflict and destain towards women's basic liberties, to send the message that women have a choice over their own lives, and she proceeded to make her own choices in terms of what she eats/weas, everyone is fine with that. Neither you nor me have fought for feminism on anywhere near the level she has, so let's not compare our experiences to hers.

Back to my main point though: If you want people to agree with your conducts, I think the best you can do is to convince them of your religion first, then convince them as to why being jewish entails (avoiding) certain types of clothing. If you cannot convince them of said beliefs, then you've no further say over what they ought to wear or not wear, open and shut.

If my being an atheist means I can't wear what I want, then why should I criticise non-atheists for wearing them? They don't need to follow that rule; they're not atheists. The same goes for your judaism; if you think it inherently implies specific clothing, then you should only apply and discuss that rule with other jewish people, because that would just be a matter of consistency (although bear in mind there can be jewish deists who don't believe in any scripture and merely believe in creation, so I reckon the rule wouldn't necessarily apply to them either).

Tim wrote: "And, again, I'm very sorry, but you don't get to say someone's body is completely and utterly 100% theirs, right before/after you chastise other people who put the right over their own bodies into practice, people you have nothing to do with and/or do not even share your convictions on things like marriage."

Yes, I do get to say that everyone's body is 100% theirs. You say I cannot censor or limit someone else, so who are you to censor me?

A body includes eyes, ears, a brain, and a bunch of things that get covered, and those things indeed vary culture to culture. There is also such a thing as public space, which we all share. In the case at hand, a woman revealing her breasts in public space might impinge on someone else's enjoyment of that public space. Can you say one person's rights are greater than another's? Really, they are equal, but there's no real compromise here. One gets to do what he or she wants, and the other just has to live with it.

Also, I wasn't comparing myself to Malala. Like everyone else, I draw inspiration from her, and to me, she's the perfect example of the kind of conservative feminism I strive for.

Kressel, you were the one to bring up your religion and it sounded not just a bit judgmental in regards to scantily clad and all that.

If it is still challenging for someone to get what I mean, I'll use tattoos as an example. I've never heard of an inked person having problems with non-inked individuals to such an extent that said person would harshly judge others for not having tattoos.

Non-tattooed people, however, have the most colourful descriptions of people with tattoos, to express just how much disgust and judgment they happen to harbour in some cases. See, tattoos are the work of the devil himself. Or tattoos make the person wearing them very questionable, and they aren't to be trusted. They are less loyal workers and their work ethics in general suck. They surround themselves with equally questionable characters and it wouldn't surprise me if people with tattoos are frequently mixed up in crime either, that is how awfully different, not normal, that sort of human trash is.

Yeah, that whole paragraph is full of stereotypes, and like all stereotypes, there is at least one person on the planet to fit that whole description. But then there is also the matter of discrimination. Ever heard of it? Ever heard of fear of the unknown? Ever heard of living and let live?

Like I said earlier, hardly any tattooed person is as full of judgment against non-tattooed people, as is true for the opposite. Now switch out tattoos for very little clothing on a body.

The whole point here is that we need to adapt. Since we don't have one rule book to rule the world, we will have to figure out how to live side by side with people, who think differently on various topics. I can only speak for myself when stating that I welcome both burkha and bikini, everything in between, as long as nobody tries to force feed to others their own chosen path. Are you as generous in your world view?

If you must judge, keep it to yourself, because spoken out loud it paints a very ugly picture of you. Or do judge, but claim the ownership/responsibility of causing splits in society rather than being part of something that builds up and unifies. Wouldn't you rather be part of a movement of acceptance if not respect, than of one of destruction? (Because not everyone believes in what you do.)

I didn't want to comment on this portion at first, but it is bugging me bad right now.

Kressel on Malala:
"Now here is a girl who literally risked her life for the feminist cause of women's education, but she has not changed her clothing style or her observance of halal. She is still scandalized at the sight of other women keeping the much looser Western standard. And I think she's got her priorities straight. Women's education is much more important than the freedom to "let it all hang out.""

Why either or? If a woman chooses Malala's type of clothing and an education, great news!
If a woman chooses less clothing and an education, great news!

Is the brain in the scantily clad woman's skull less clever, less worthy of respect, less capable of doing great discoveries in science, medicine, technology, etc.? Or doing outstanding work within law, humanities, the arts, you name it?

And is her heart in the wrong place, if she chooses less textile to cover her body? Is she a shitty partner, mother, daughter, friend? Is her volunteer work less worth? Is her standing up to give her seat to the elderly or pregnant less noble? Is her calling out injustices less worth, too?

Does clothing determine what kind of heart a person has? How smart they are? How much they contribute to society?