[bestcigsnick]

Topless women

[Toivaluadiora]

[Heacechig]

Originally posted by BlackCat


QFT I'm not sure I dare to go for a swim anymore. Where would you swim anyway? It is known that waters around Denmark are too cold to swim in and that last human spotted to do so did it in 1870 and that his last words were "buttfrezzeeeaaaaargh"

[fapourfasiark]

That law needs modifying. Can they outlaw topless women over the age of say... 35? Young breasts = good but old druppy breasts = bad.

[yxn2dC07]

One of their leaders, 22-year-old Ragnhild Karlsson, said: "We want our breasts to be as normal and desexualised as men's Lots of infants would die or become dangerously ill without their mother's breast milk. If they want to kill babies for their self esteem, then they really do belong locked up in the kitchen.

[Kitdowstyhodo]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
I didn't really get the comment about the bastion of Victorian values.
Did they mean Vancouver or Canada as a whole?
Didn't really make sense to me, either way. Didn't make sense to me either. If they meant Vancouver, I'm assuming they meant the values actually practiced by people in the Victorian era, ie excessive drug consumption and sexual depravity.

I, for one, approve of a woman's right to publicly swim topless, provided she is of a sufficient caliber of attractiveness and perkiness and lacking in stretch marks or excessively dark areolae (I really don't like that, except on dark skinned women) . Hell, the chick in the photo could walk around buck naked and I certainly wouldn't be offended.

[Abedgebeefs]

Originally posted by Blake
The Buddha initially founded only the Monk's monastic order. Some time later he was convinced by a female disciple to found the Nun's monastic order. He gave the Nun's additional rules to follow, more rules than the monks had to follow.
These rules were for the Nun's own protection.

In short, Nun's who followed the rules they would be less likely to get raped. Because the Buddha understood lust in men, how it works. And he gave his Nun's rules to help "desexualize" them and thus keep them safe from lust. Ah right, the ole "we're protecting you by putting more onerous burdens on you" argument.

Heaven forbid we just hold men to the standard that they shouldn't be guided by their ****** rather than put more and more burdens on women.

This sort of crappy arguments end justifying the burka for some Mid Eastern women (after all, it's to protect the women from men's lusts!!!1!)

[Emedgella]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Women in Copenhagen can now swim and walk around in public pools without their bikini tops Good start... but why only Copenhagen?

[Jeaxatoem]

One of their leaders, 22-year-old Ragnhild Karlsson, said: "We want our breasts to be as normal and desexualised as men's, so that we too can pull off our shirts at football matches." oh yeah, that will be so unsexual

[skupaemauto]

double post, move along

[MoreEndotte]

Originally posted by Blake
The basic problem is, that Men ARE BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN WOMEN. A man can grab a woman, overpower her, and rape her. Not only is this argument used in favour of burkas and other covering-up, but ultimately can be deployed in favour of keeping women out of sight altogether. It panders to the notion that men are uncontrollable fiends who have no ability to physically control themselves.

A strong gay man can also grab and overcome a less powerful man if the weak man-slut-whore dares to bare any flesh in public, or even have an attractive face to the assailant.

Maybe expensive watches should be banned as well for encouraging lustful envy. On reflection though, perhaps buddhist fundamentalism demands all wealth be banned. :shrug:

[kasandrasikl]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Not only is this argument used in favour of burkas and other covering-up, but ultimately can be deployed in favour of keeping women out of sight altogether. It panders to the notion that men are uncontrollable fiends who have no ability to physically control themselves.

A strong gay man can also grab and overcome a less powerful man if the weak man-slut-whore dares to bare any flesh in public, or even have an attractive face to the assailant.

Maybe expensive watches should be banned as well for encouraging lustful envy. On reflection though, perhaps buddhist fundamentalism demands all wealth be banned. :shrug: The Buddhist path is also called "The Middle Way" because it encourages moderation and avoidance of extremes.

The reality is that men have SOME ability to control themselves, but it's not a total ability. Young Monks break minor rules all the time, and they really want to be following the rules! They are even quite easy rules to follow. So why do they break them?
Humans have genuine difficulty with self control. It takes much training to gain total self control.

It would be nice to give all men 10 years of Buddhist Monastic training so they have that kind of self control. But the reality is, that's not going to happen.

So there has to be some give and some take. I don't think anyone should punish women for being foolishly promiscuous. But only a fool would say that pretty young women should be encouraged to walk alone at night in shadowy places where it is relatively safe for men to do so, just in the name of equality. 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.


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.

If they WANT to be desexualized, they should cover their curves. It's not possible to desexualize the female body in the eyes of men except through extremely significant training and deep meditative absorption (where the "lust" signal can be disconnected entirely)

And I love what my monk Ajahn Brahm said - sometimes when pretty young women talk to him, they get angry that he ISN'T under their spell. They don't want to be pissed off by that, but at a subconscious level the ability to put men under their spell is a part of their self-worth and when a man is "oblivious" to their charm, it challenges that.

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.

[Soypopetype]

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.

[AffipgyncDync]

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

[choollaBard]

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?

[ptolerezort]

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.

[EsAllCams]

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.

[CoiI8XIj]

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.

[poispanna]

Originally posted by Monk

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? YES! If I hadn't said anything about Buddhism he wouldn't have known to come beat me up.

God, is it that hard to understand?

In this case, it would be a worthy sacrifice. It's more important to talk about Buddhism than to avoid getting beaten up.

When I talk about Buddhism, I willingly and knowingly make myself open to both respect and hate. I don't just want the respect without the hate, you always get hate for being different. Why deny it when I can just acknowledge it and not let it bother me?

[BCVB9SOc]

It would be wonderful to dream all day, of a world where I can talk about buddhism and no-one will hate me for it. Wouldn't it be nice to get lost in such a fantasy?


The truth is, people hate those who are different to them. That's human nature. The way to change this is not by insisting "It's wrong to hate those who are different from you!", but simply by leading by example and not hating those who are different. People learn quickly by example, especially when they see how nice and peaceful it is to not make conflict over differences.


The problem is making something a problem.

It's not a problem to me if I get beaten up, because it's just my body, It's not that important, not as important as what I have to say.
It is a problem for the person who does the beating, because it's a very bad thing to beat up someone, he (or she) will suffer terrible consequences. I will thus do everything I can in my power to discourage them from beating me simply out of compassion. But it's still not a problem for me because there wont be any bad consequences for me. I mean I'll get lots of sympathy and stuff and that'll make people even more receptive to my words, that's good stuff.
So the thing is, it's not a problem. You're just making it a problem. That's the problem.