The Danes really have it going for them

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blake
As I said in this case I don't care. Because bikinis are basically designed to make women look MORE attractive, they are designed to make the woman look naked without actually being naked. So what's the difference between bikini and no bikini? Not a whole lot.

I agree that slightly-clad or excitingly-clad is often more interesting than naked. I actually think that glamour is something of a leveller. Those women without perfect looks and bodies have a chance of closing the gap on the more naturally blessed who might not need to 'decorate' themselves. It should also be noted that in many cases women want to look good in front of other women, and not necessarily in front of men. Men sometimes do the same with their physiques.

I figure feminists are probably worse offenders than most in that regard, not because they want to be but just because of their pride. Feminists don't just want freedom from men having power over them, they also want power over men. They hate the idea of a man whom they have no power over whatsoever - they think that is wrong, they deserve to have power over men, the feminist ideology is fundamentally about power play.

Some feminists just want equality - which is how it should be. For others, they are seeking power over men, which I don't agree with.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I wonder if religious or political motives for women's modesty are often a cover-up for something else. Either sexual frustration caused by abstinence, or jealousy that others are enjoying themselves in a way the objector can't.

A fair point. And it's true, that Buddhist Monasteries are never found in the red light district for a reason.

A BIG challenge for a Buddhist, the greatest challenge according to the Buddha himself, is overcoming lust.

Imagine a smoker, drinker and gambler who wants to quit his addiction.
Would you say it would be a good idea for him to try and quit his addiction by hanging out at the pub every night, surrounded by smokers, drinkers and pokie machines?

OR would you say, it would be easier for him to overcome his addiction if he emptied his house of all alcohol and smokes and resisted the urge to visit the pub?

It is certainly easier to overcome any form of addiction or obsession while NOT in it clutches. Take again the smoker, drinker and gambler. After he has been free of these addictions for two years, he could visit the pub and probably wont be overcome by desire, he'd just wonder what he ever saw in those vices....


So there IS much merit to having distance from that which the mind enjoys obsessing over.

But regarding rules, I have this to say about rules, you could say it is my final word on rules:

Rules are fine if there is no punishment for breaking them.

The only problematic rules, are ones you only follow because you'll get punished if you don't. That is not a good kind of rule, it's fraught with peril and open to abuse.

But when there is no punishment for breaking a rule, most of the potential danger is eliminated. The rule has to stand on it's own merit, it has to appeal to sense.

There is of course always SOME form of "punishment", usually this form is "If you aren't willing to follow our rules, you can't come over and play with us, sorry". That's more a natural consequence than a punishment though, along the lines of - if you act in a way which causes people to not like you, people wont like you and wont play with you.

[Wezil]

Blake - Women aren't smokes or drinks. We can't just banish them.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Wezil
Blake - Women aren't smokes or drinks. We can't just banish them.

Which is why the buddhists, being the sensible religion, banish themselves to the forests .


But for the rest of society; the form a woman, makes the minds of men go stupid, this is like a law of nature.
Women who show off their form, must be willing to accept some of the consequences of that.
To put all of the burden of overcoming lust on men, is not fair. That's as hard as asking people not to eat or go to the toilet. There are natural urges at work which are impossible to just overcome without many years of training...

Some of the burden goes on women and/or they accept some of the consequences of displaying their form. It is wrong - not the middle way - to put all of the burden on women. It is wrong - not the middle way - to put all of the burden on men.
The middle way can be hard to find since it's not located at some convenient extreme point.
I say that society in general goes for a bit too much promiscuity, particularly in advertising, marketing, media and stuff. The form of a woman is displayed too often and men have little chance to weaken that obsession.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Blake
Sure a woman should be ALLOWED to do that if for some perverse reason she feels the need to, she shouldn't be punished for forsaking good sense, but when she gets assaulted she can't put all the blame on her attacker - with a little bit of good sense on her part the whole thing would have been avoided, that's undeniable.

Dear heavens, I'm actually thinking you're serious.

Could you please consider the scenario where my hypothetical Mercedes gets its shiny star torn off, or some jackass takes his keys and scratches the door or whatever -

Would you reasonably say I can't put all the blame on the person who assaulted it just because I happened to park it in a place that's less used to shiny new cars than the country club?

How about the Jewish dude walking down a predominantly Muslim neighborhood with a kippah and getting beat up because of his headgear - are you going to tell him he's partly to blame because he could have avoided it 'with a little bit of good sense'?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Blake


Which is why the buddhists, being the sensible religion, banish themselves to the forests .

Okay, you got me there.

But for the rest of society; the form a woman, makes the minds of men go stupid, this is like a law of nature.
Women who show off their form, must be willing to accept some of the consequences of that.
To put all of the burden of overcoming lust on men, is not fair. That's as hard as asking people not to eat or go to the toilet. There are natural urges at work which are impossible to just overcome without many years of training...

Some of the burden goes on women and/or they accept some of the consequences of displaying their form.

So to return to your alcoholic analogy from earlier - Our guy could go to a bar so long as all they sold was beer and not hard liquor?

[Blake]

How about the Jewish dude walking down a predominantly Muslim neighborhood with a kippah and getting beat up because of his headgear - are you going to tell him with a little bit of good sense he's partly to blame because he could have avoided it 'with a little bit of good sense'?

Is it true that he could have avoided this scenario by not walking through that neighborhood?

Well? Forget about blame. Is it true or is it not true?

There is your answer.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Wezil

So to return to your alcoholic analogy from earlier - Our guy could go to a bar so long as all they sold was beer and not hard liquor?

He can do anything he wants. It depends entirely on how much he wants freedom from his addictions.

If he doesn't want freedom that badly, he can certainly visit a bar which serves beer.

Likewise a woman who doesn't want freedom from lust, can certainly go around showing off her curves. She's NOT going to get freedom from lust that way! And she shouldn't expect to.

If she wants freedom from lust, she should cover her curves.

But she doesn't have to want freedom from lust.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blake
To put all of the burden of overcoming lust on men, is not fair. That's as hard as asking people not to eat or go to the toilet. There are natural urges at work which are impossible to just overcome without many years of training...

Eating and pissing are rather more important and necessary than sexual assault.

How am I, and I hope and expect, every hetro male here able to avoid raping women without years of Buddhist training?

Sexual desire is strong, but there are mechanical methods available to relieve any unfullfilled urges. Only the prohibition of such techniques can lead to problems in this regard.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Blake
Women who show off their form, must be willing to accept some of the consequences of that. To put all of the burden of overcoming lust on men, is not fair. That's as hard as asking people not to eat or go to the toilet. There are natural urges at work which are impossible to just overcome without many years of training...

You can't compare those things with sex. Going to the toilet or eating are fundamental in order for you to exist, sex with the passing-by hottie in scarce clothing is not.

Natural urges are impossible to just overcome, you say - well, do you believe me if I claim I haven't had spent any years of Buddhist training and still is quite able to not harass in any way somebody because she's pretty and wearing provocative clothes? I suppose you don't - hence the use of the word 'impossible'?

Nope, if I approach and she says she doesn't want me, I'll just accept that. I'll find somebody else or, if necessary, resort to self-service - the situation is not entirely unlike going to the toilet or eating, both of which I'll postpone if I'm in a situation where's it's inappropriate for whatever reason.

[Wezil]

edit - x-post (to Blake of course)

I'm sharing the concerns of others here. Your attitude is worrisome on this issue. I think you need to talk with budha some more.

We are not dogs trying to avoid having a piece of meat placed in front of us. We are human beings with the ability to consider actions and consequences. It makes no difference what a woman wears. To say they have to "accept some of the consequences of displaying their form" is absurd. I am responsible for my own actions.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Monk


You can't compare those things with sex. Going to the toilet or eating are fundamental in order for you to exist, sex with the passing-by hottie in scarce clothing is not.

Did you seriously just try to claim that sex is not fundamental to your existence? .

Natural urges are impossible to just overcome, you say - well, do you believe me if I claim I haven't had spent any years of Buddhist training and still is quite able to not harass in any way somebody because she's pretty and wearing provocative clothes? I suppose you don't - hence the use of the word 'impossible'?

Are you all men?

Nope, if I approach and she says she doesn't want me, I'll just accept that. I'll find somebody else or, if necessary, resort to self-service - the situation is not entirely unlike going to the toilet or eating, both of which I'll postpone if I'm in a situation where's it's inappropriate for whatever reason.

Are you all men?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Blake


Is it true that he could have avoided this scenario by not walking through that neighborhood?

Well? Forget about blame. Is it true or is it not true?

There is your answer.

It's true, sure. I don't think I can forget about 'blame' though, because what you're implying is essentially that the assaulter is not entirely at fault for beating up a man who meant no harm to anybody. It's also true all blacks in the South who were lynched could have avoided that by moving to a state with fewer Klansmen, but I'm not sure if that's the right trend of thought?

Or to put it differently, if somebody with an intense hate of Buddhism went out and hurt you for what you say here (and don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating that - quite the opposite) would you actually say you were part of the problem?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Blake
Did you seriously just try to claim that sex is not fundamental to your existence? .

Sure!

I like sex as much as anybody, but obviously you agree that while it's possible to live a good life for months or even years without sex (and sadly, a lot of us had to take that challenge!) it's not possible to exist without eating.

I don't get the 'Are you all men?' question though - surely you don't mean any real man would rape a girl who didn't want him.

[Blake]

Now we should look at the full range of consequences.

The extreme form of consequences is to be promiscuous in a shady area. That is extreme danger.

A less extreme form of consequences, is like being promiscuous in an office and getting hit on.

And the least extreme, is perhaps just being oogled.

Some women have the idea that they should be able to wear anything they want, and then they get offended when men hit on them, I mean women can get offended when they are oogled. They think it's entirely the fault of the men and nothing to do with their own conduct - but OF COURSE it's something to do with their own conduct, that's just obvious. Just as it's something to do with the mens conduct.

These things are so freaking simple if you forget about what is right, wrong, what should be, what shouldn't be, forget about all that rubbish, and just look at what is true and isn't true.


A woman who shows off her curves attracts sexual attention. True.

A woman will avoid a wide range of sexual attention if she covers her curves. True.

So now the question is, how badly does a woman want freedom from sexual attention? Maybe she doesn't want that freedom at all in reality - maybe she enjoys the attention.
Or maybe she does want freedom, but she doesn't want it enough to actually DO something about it at the level of her own conduct - she wants the freedom, but she wants other people (in this case men) to do all the work. She wants the freedom but wont make any sacrifice to have it.

A lot of things in life are easy, if you look at what is true and think about what you want.

The problem is, most people are very confused about what they want and are very bad at seeing what is true...

I suspect that in this story, the women want freedom from wearing clothes, and freedom from sexual attention. But they can't have both, they have to choose one or the other.