Belaqua:
“It's been considered too sexy to show ankles in different times and places. How much of the body we can show, and which parts, is a cultural thing that varies according to place and time. If your whole culture says that showing elbows is provocative, then it's not fetishism.”
- I am not that far away from Iran and I’ve also travelled to some middle-eastern countries and I can tell you that most of us do not care about ankles or arms or elbow
I still think one needs professional helps if he feels aroused by the sight of ankles
- Yes. I don’t have a problem with that. I’ve even heard of men going off on classical paintings. That’s another issue. But banning the sight of ankles in public? All I am saying is that the person who is making these laws has a sexual related psychological disorder.
- All I am saying is that if you have sources about women showing their breasts in the ancient Japanese culture, you should maybe share it.
- I understand your idea of cultural relativism. The Minoan civilization (A bronze Age civilization on the Greek island of Crete) depicted women with their breast being entirely uncovered. But still, I believe this was only to make women more attractive. This hasn’t got to do with culture. In our evolution, both men and women have certain body parts upon which they will be more attentive in their selection of a potential mate. For men for instance I thin it is hands, butts, shoulders and overall physical good shape. For women it’s face, breasts, legs, butt, overall physical shape and hair of course. These are like elements that are indicators of physical health and readiness to bear children. But it’s all in the subconscious mind so we don’t even notice it. That’s why I automatically believe that someone must have some sort of problem if I see him staring at the arm of a woman. This is simply not normal.
- Sorry about that. I recently made the debate with another person. We were talking about the murder of a young woman (who was actually an adolescent actually) by a 28 year old men. It’s unfortunate but these are not so rare events in my country. And My argument was that this “killing because of love” was the result of an act of sublimation in Freudian terms.
Explanation: My argument was this: This man (of 28 years of age) did murder that child and then committed suicide. The newspapers called it “murder because of love”. I said that this was not “love” as we understood it. I said this was a case of sexual obsession or a case of sublimation to use a more precise terminology. Sublimation is when you take something ordinary (like sexual impulses that are present in the body of every healthy adult male individual) and turn into something almost sacred (like a love story that is similar to the love story between Lancelot and Guinevere or between Romeo and Juliet). So long story made short, I said that this event was no different than the sex scandal of Harvey Weinstein or the sex scandal of Prince Andrew. The only difference was that our guy pretended to “love” that adolescent girl. And that’s what I call “sublimation”. You may check the definition and correct me if I am wrong. I saw that guy as a man who was unable to find a mean of expression for his sexual urges and ended up chasing high schools girls because he sublimated his sexual urges into something that was more widely accepted by our traditional society and called it “love to the end”. I also said that I don’t believe in this sort of love either. I don’t really believe in “love to the end”. I think this is a myth that belongs to romantic medieval stories. Not to the reality of the 21st century.
So again: Sexual obsession based on repressed sexual impulses. That’s my diagnosis.
- I’m talking about climate most of all. We have to wear clothes even if we have no moral value in us. The issue with ankles has more to do with sexual obsession (or that’s my point of view).
- My culture is not that different from yours. This is the 21st century. The world is globalized. And I am not so far away from Iran. When I am hiking in rural areas for instance, I will try not to reveal my upper body to the locals for instance. It’s a matter of respecting the culture of the other person. What I am saying is that not even in remote rural areas, no one will look at somebody’s ankles.
Second comment: Yes. That’s what I am also pointing to in an ironical manner if you like. Of course they are not mentally ill. They are evil persons who are using religion as a tool of oppression against the most vulnerable layers of society. That’s what they truly are. I am acting out here. I act as if I was taking these claims seriously and I am creating a debate on how these measures would affect society. But you are right. It’s nothing but a show of force and the headscarf has been reduced (it wasn’t so in the past) to a political symbol that is one of the strongest messages of this oppressive government.
- If that’s the argument I totally disagree with it. Today they even have hijab Barbie’s, black Barbie’s, brown Barbie’s Asiatic Barbie’s etc. All the girls I knew had a Barbie doll. I played with Barbie dolls. Sometimes I wonder if you really mean the things you are saying.
- I don’t. None of us do actually. But (what the heck) I see a psychiatrist in a regular manner and I know other people who see a psychiatrist in a regular manner. So I know some of the basics. When I read this article, that’s what I am thinking of. If that guy is serious with that, I think he should get some medical attention. There isn’t anything wrong with that. And this includes hair too. I think he should just try it. The sooner he gets a diagnosis the easier it will be for him
“It's been considered too sexy to show ankles in different times and places. How much of the body we can show, and which parts, is a cultural thing that varies according to place and time. If your whole culture says that showing elbows is provocative, then it's not fetishism.”
- I am not that far away from Iran and I’ve also travelled to some middle-eastern countries and I can tell you that most of us do not care about ankles or arms or elbow
I still think one needs professional helps if he feels aroused by the sight of ankles Quote: “Fetishism is a specific kind of thing. It isn't necessarily an illness or an obsession. It just means that you displace the "main event," so to speak, on to something else. There are men who get off on women's shoes, for example. Freud said this is because, for whatever reason, they were uncomfortable with full-on sex and displace the attraction onto something which is, for them, safer. These days, in keeping with a more tolerant age, this is considered less of an illness and more of an alternative lifestyle.
But remember for Freud, the only "real" sex is the kind that makes babies. Everything else is substitution. Probably for people today, Freud's view on this seems unhealthy. “
- Yes. I don’t have a problem with that. I’ve even heard of men going off on classical paintings. That’s another issue. But banning the sight of ankles in public? All I am saying is that the person who is making these laws has a sexual related psychological disorder.
Quote:“Probably best to remember that "Memoirs of a Geisha" was a Hollywood movie starring a Chinese actress based on a book by an American. No doubt it's a titillating movie, but I wouldn't go there for historical accuracy.
For example, the Chinese actress is beautiful according to our own standards, but would have been too skinny to Japanese people of the time, and her face not of the preferred type. They liked a rounder face with artificially high eyebrows.
If the movie seemed similar to Muslim obsessions with the body, that tells us about American movie companies. And I think we all know that no one is more obsessed with female bodies than Hollywood. “
- All I am saying is that if you have sources about women showing their breasts in the ancient Japanese culture, you should maybe share it.
- I understand your idea of cultural relativism. The Minoan civilization (A bronze Age civilization on the Greek island of Crete) depicted women with their breast being entirely uncovered. But still, I believe this was only to make women more attractive. This hasn’t got to do with culture. In our evolution, both men and women have certain body parts upon which they will be more attentive in their selection of a potential mate. For men for instance I thin it is hands, butts, shoulders and overall physical good shape. For women it’s face, breasts, legs, butt, overall physical shape and hair of course. These are like elements that are indicators of physical health and readiness to bear children. But it’s all in the subconscious mind so we don’t even notice it. That’s why I automatically believe that someone must have some sort of problem if I see him staring at the arm of a woman. This is simply not normal.
Quote:“ Not sure how it relates to sublimation. Freud (following the Greek philosophers he studied in school) thinks that Eros is the driving force in just about all human ambition. Sublimation is a GOOD thing. It's how we get civilization. “
- Sorry about that. I recently made the debate with another person. We were talking about the murder of a young woman (who was actually an adolescent actually) by a 28 year old men. It’s unfortunate but these are not so rare events in my country. And My argument was that this “killing because of love” was the result of an act of sublimation in Freudian terms.
Explanation: My argument was this: This man (of 28 years of age) did murder that child and then committed suicide. The newspapers called it “murder because of love”. I said that this was not “love” as we understood it. I said this was a case of sexual obsession or a case of sublimation to use a more precise terminology. Sublimation is when you take something ordinary (like sexual impulses that are present in the body of every healthy adult male individual) and turn into something almost sacred (like a love story that is similar to the love story between Lancelot and Guinevere or between Romeo and Juliet). So long story made short, I said that this event was no different than the sex scandal of Harvey Weinstein or the sex scandal of Prince Andrew. The only difference was that our guy pretended to “love” that adolescent girl. And that’s what I call “sublimation”. You may check the definition and correct me if I am wrong. I saw that guy as a man who was unable to find a mean of expression for his sexual urges and ended up chasing high schools girls because he sublimated his sexual urges into something that was more widely accepted by our traditional society and called it “love to the end”. I also said that I don’t believe in this sort of love either. I don’t really believe in “love to the end”. I think this is a myth that belongs to romantic medieval stories. Not to the reality of the 21st century.
So again: Sexual obsession based on repressed sexual impulses. That’s my diagnosis.
Quote:“I think you're correct to say that it all depends on what we're used to. “
- I’m talking about climate most of all. We have to wear clothes even if we have no moral value in us. The issue with ankles has more to do with sexual obsession (or that’s my point of view).
Quote:“It seems unhealthy to me and to you because we are from different cultures.
Can we really diagnose different cultures as mentally ill based on these differences?
Not to get all Foucault on you here, but the history of how we diagnose mental illness is a history of who has power in society. It is often a way for a powerful group to impose its will on another group. “
- My culture is not that different from yours. This is the 21st century. The world is globalized. And I am not so far away from Iran. When I am hiking in rural areas for instance, I will try not to reveal my upper body to the locals for instance. It’s a matter of respecting the culture of the other person. What I am saying is that not even in remote rural areas, no one will look at somebody’s ankles.
Second comment: Yes. That’s what I am also pointing to in an ironical manner if you like. Of course they are not mentally ill. They are evil persons who are using religion as a tool of oppression against the most vulnerable layers of society. That’s what they truly are. I am acting out here. I act as if I was taking these claims seriously and I am creating a debate on how these measures would affect society. But you are right. It’s nothing but a show of force and the headscarf has been reduced (it wasn’t so in the past) to a political symbol that is one of the strongest messages of this oppressive government.
Quote:“It sure as hell is cultural. It's all about teaching kids values. The body type, though unnatural, becomes an ideal, the goal of playing with them is to emphasize fashion, and the real goal of the toy is to get parents to buy an endless supply of new accessories. It teaches consumerism and self-worth through physical appearance. Arguably, consumerism and self-worth through physical appearance are very poor things for a child's mental health.”
- If that’s the argument I totally disagree with it. Today they even have hijab Barbie’s, black Barbie’s, brown Barbie’s Asiatic Barbie’s etc. All the girls I knew had a Barbie doll. I played with Barbie dolls. Sometimes I wonder if you really mean the things you are saying.
Quote:Well I'm glad you have a perfectly healthy brain.
- I don’t. None of us do actually. But (what the heck) I see a psychiatrist in a regular manner and I know other people who see a psychiatrist in a regular manner. So I know some of the basics. When I read this article, that’s what I am thinking of. If that guy is serious with that, I think he should get some medical attention. There isn’t anything wrong with that. And this includes hair too. I think he should just try it. The sooner he gets a diagnosis the easier it will be for him
