The Subjection of the Female Body to the Male Ego

[Leonardo17]

This is something that can work both ways actually.
 
On one end you have cultures in which wear very uncomfortable clothes and accessories like East-Asian women of the 19th century and the Geisha culture that still lives on today, just to please the “man” who is simply seen as superior to the woman and thus must be satisfied by the woman in every way because it is just her duty to do so.
 
One other extreme in this spectrum is the extreme sexualization of the young female teenager’s body. In which parents feel the need to use phrases like “you can’t go out unless you put some clothes one” to their daughters. That is also seen as a worrisome situation because while sexuality is a huge part of any teenagers life it certainly should not be the only or even the number one priority in the life of any young adult in this world.
 
So you have some (or most religions) intervening in this area of our lives, trying to put limits to such approaches in both younger and older individuals, Islam is currently showing us how easy it is to end up in a new type of extreme, becoming fanatical about everything and once again subjecting the female body to the wishes and whims of (mostly) some elderly male individuals:
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/iran...45981.html
 
The scientific reality is actually showing us the futility of all of these approaches. Technically, these bodies are our tools. There are male and female bodies that are there so that we keep having bodies after the death of individuals (Nature love species, not individuals). Sex is a feature of these bodies but it’s not the reason for the existence nor the primary goal of the existence of these bodies. So it doesn’t matter which kind of body you have. It’s there to serve a purpose, with that body you can go to places, you can climb the Everest, find a cure to leprosy, study ancient civilization, Join NASA’s astronaut program… It’s mainly here as a vehicle. We have bodies so we can live in this world. That’s nature’s intention.
 
So I think everybody needs to rethink some of the more “traditional” approaches, try to see what purpose they served some 50, 100 or 2000 years ago and decide whether it is worth to sow social divisions and gender discrimination in a way that is based on these approaches.
 
By the way: I don’t believe that anybody who is unable to do this type of self-reflection can still claim to be part of any religious or spiritual system in our age. I think that this type of narrow mindedness does not belong to this century (not even in a religious setting of any kind).

[awty]

What is the point of this? Is there one?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sex is indeed the reason for the existence of our bodies, biologically speaking. Everything you do is in furtherance of reproduction. That's natures invention, that's our bodies' and our sexes purpose. Not scaling everest, not nasa, not studying ancient civilization, not finding cures for leprosy. Nature doesn't give a shit about modesty, immodesty, or tradition.

[Angrboda]

[Paleophyte]

Hard to know what he's babbling about. He thinks that what Islam is doing is anything new? Ok...?

[Belacqua]

So I think everybody needs to rethink some of the more “traditional” approaches, try to see what purpose they served some 50, 100 or 2000 years ago and decide whether it is worth to sow social divisions and gender discrimination in a way that is based on these approaches.
 
By the way: I don’t believe that anybody who is unable to do this type of self-reflection can still claim to be part of any religious or spiritual system in our age. I think that this type of narrow mindedness does not belong to this century (not even in a religious setting of any kind).

I think what you're talking about here, basically, is the ongoing negotiation we have between nature and culture. This is something that we can never settle once and for all.

So we don't want to commit the "naturalistic fallacy," (as G.E. Moore defined it in his Principia Ethica) and say that because something is natural therefore it's good. 

There are lots of natural things that we agree should be controlled or channelled. And like it or not religion has been one of the main methods that people have used to do this. But even if we reject the idea that a religion's traditions come from God, there are (or were) cultural reasons why people held to those rules. 

You're right that all these things need to be rethought, pretty much continuously. And this happens whether we like it or not, since there will always be people who challenge the status quo, or wish to redefine what "natural" behavior consists of, and whether or not it is desirable. Within religions these things change continuously, as we see different people apply their religious directives differently. There are real Muslims who have more modern ideas about clothes, for example. And plenty of Christians who think that divorce is OK, despite this being about the only thing that Jesus specifically speaks against in the New Testament.

I agree that narrow-mindedness is, by definition, a bad thing. But some people have their reasons for rejecting cultural change, and if they're thinking people they can articulate why that is. As I say, it's an on-going negotiation, now and forever.

We all have boundaries of what we consider to be acceptable behavior, and it's normal for us to want some kind of enforcement -- either from government or just social disapproval -- that works against transgressions.

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with a religious approach is that there are shibboleths. There cannot be a religion without them. Whenever our thoughtfully considered revisions encounter said shibboleths, thought and revision must yield to shibboleth, or, alternatively, the religion must be shitcanned for some other, with other shibboleths. Literally defined as and recognized by their specific and particular narrow mindednesses. Still, if religion, as the religious so often say, keeps them from doing and thinking the other boneheaded shit their expressed ideas and patterns of behavior would imply, better they keep it.

If organizing against egalitarianism keeps some islamist fuck too busy to murder children, for example - good.

[Mr Greene]

Sex is indeed the reason for the existence of our bodies, biologically speaking.  Everything you do is in furtherance of reproduction.  That's natures invention, that's our bodies' and our sexes purpose.  Not scaling everest, not nasa, not studying ancient civilization, not finding cures for leprosy.  Nature doesn't give a shit about modesty, immodesty, or tradition.

From a male perspective, yes. Sex would be the act of reproduction and thus the focus of an extremely strong biological compulsion as described by Dawkins in the Selfish Gene.
For females this is more complex as it represents a greater investment of resources and thus female choice is the principle selection factor across most species.

Monotheism coopts the strength of the biological compulsion, frequently twisting it's interpretation to induce emotions such as guilt and shame making those subject to such easier to manipulate or extort.

[Leonardo17]

Awty:
 
No. I want to know what you think too
 
Nudger:
 
Absolutely
 
Bel:
 
- The Catholic Church is gradually moving away from its views on divorce and other issues like Gay marriage. My favorite is their holding on to the geo-centric view of the world until the 1980’s.
 
The problem with scriptures is this: there is 100 ways to translate them + 100 ways to interpret them.
 
And on divorce: You can’t stay with that man or that woman if it doesn’t work well for you. It’s as simple as that. So I do think that the church needs to evolve more on issues like that
 
But I think you made a good point.
 
Still: I really believe that atheism is one of the best approaches if your goal is to live a fulfilling life based on logical approaches.
 
I’m only saying that “religious” people too need some basic amount of rationality:
 
There are Jeffrey Epstein – like people in this world who simply see the body of other persons as some sort of commodity. So how does a spiritually inclined person have even a remotely similar attitude on these things?
 
- As I said: It doesn’t work that way
 
Nudger 2:
 
That’s another huge issue too. Religious identity is also a form of ego. A Muslim could say for instance something like “My religions allows divorce while yours doesn’t” or stuff like that.
 
And two days ago, we had ISIL terrorists here who murdered 3 of our cops while using kids as living shields. SO I agree with that “keep them busy” approach too.
 
Still: There are more beneficent approaches to spiritual teachings than any of this. That approach is very individualistic and self-motivated. Like I don’t need anything like the scientology approach or anything like that.  Because it’s based on something that’s already present within me and in many ways is me.
 
So all that I want to do is to say that everything else is basically dogma and rituals which are both very simplistic ways of approaching the whole issue.
 
We in 2026 are more sophisticated than that. So if a chick doesn’t like to show some skin, Whats the problem with it?
 
… If you see what I mean
 
Greene:
 
I think that there is still more to that. As I have said 1000 times here, political Islam is just “Muslimized” fascism that is designed to keep oil-rich countries in a state of submission to the more secularized societies of this world.
 
So in these places the female body (and the female individual) needs to be in a state of constant submission. Sexuality has to be mixed with feeling of guilt, shame and low self-worth.
 
In all narcissistic system the dominated individual has to be in a state of low self-worth. And what better way of creating individuals with low self-worth than creating all these myths and strict rules on sexuality (which happens to be a basic part of our very existence)?
 
So that’s the most “The Walking Dead” Negan-based method of generating social submission even in a time when people aspire to more personal freedom and individual choices.
 
But that’s the most extreme situation that we are currently observing. In a day to day approach, the body of the other is simply the body of the other. Full stop.
 
What I am saying is that there has to be some sort of correlation between the Jeffrey Epstein type of behavior and other forms of behaviors or opinions on what it is that a woman should wear and not wear.
 
This seems like a basic thing to most of us. But as I have said, there are still people in this world who believe in dressing women (to the min-limiter) and undressing them (to the millimeter

[The Grand Nudger]

And two days ago, we had ISIL terrorists here who murdered 3 of our cops while using kids as living shields. SO I agree with that “keep them busy” approach too.

Yep, and it sucks...because in those instances you're pretty much negotiating over what kinds of harms and who it is permissible to allow harm be done to, in order to avoid some conceptually or practically greater harm.  The mere presence of people like this ensure that no good outcome can follow.  You can't even get rid of them without doing one of those greater evils you're trying to avoid by letting them be douches to somebody.