Modesty, self-esteem and body confidence?

[chachamaru]

You're correct and yes I do. Of course, I love it when anyone goes out of their way to get my attention but most especially women. I admit though to feeling a little guilty as I wonder how many ladies feel like they need to put in that extra effort just to grab my attention.

Do you ever wish to see their natural beauty?

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Can't we all just be less stupid?

 

[tinker683]

Do you ever wish to see their natural beauty?

Absolutely! You ladies have a lot more going for you than you think

 

[Lady_X]

i think it's awesome idea...putting yourself in the hands of a capable photographer can really allow you to see yourself as others do...or can if you drop all the insecurities.

 

[Stanton Moore]

What is this thread about anyway?

 

[violaine]

Right I'm watching at TV programme about how a photo studio has opened specialising in taking nude photos of regular women in an effort to assist them in overcoming self-esteem problems and develop body confidence.

I dont know if they are photoshopped or just clever photographic posing, one of the women talked about being annorexic when they where younger as a result of body image.
My question is whether or not it is a kind of collusion with the greater problem of objectification, people are getting in on the act themselves and objectifying themselves in their own sight, wouldnt it be a better idea to see ideas about modesty revived?

I'm not being a killjoy in suggesting this or suggesting that people ought to adopt burkas or anything ridiculous like that, it just seems sometimes that a lot of the solutions people come up with resemble the problem in the first place in some way.

As long as people have sexual urges and vision, someone's going to be getting ogled. It's not realistic to think modesty, as in covering up one's nakedness, would put a stop to that. Nor could covering up ever really return. And even if a woman does choose to show less of her body, there will always be times when one is sans clothing or not wearing a lot, e.g. at the beach.

I think body confidence is a wonderful thing and I'm all for anything that encourages that, especially for women. This is a great idea. Doing the things that scare a person can bring self-confidence and not feeling comfortable in one's own skin is a prison of one's own making. And unnecessary and a great shame. What I would like to see, as a way to combat feeling bombarded with a beauty ideal, is a standard disclaimer on all pics that appear in any popular media that indicate the pic has been photoshopped and possibly the degree to which it has been. I think those pictures would then be regarded more as art than a realistic portrayal. I suspect that that would do wonders for the self-esteem of women.

I think porn is a rather insidious vehicle with regard to popularizing strange standards a woman might be held to. Whenever I start dancing around someone with a view to dating, I try to figure out how much porn they watch and how much deprogramming I'm going to have to do if it gets there. (And I like my body and am body confident). It's definitely a bummer when some guy has filled his head with porn. (And wonderful when a guy doesn't watch porn, yes, they are out there and yes, you can tell).

 

[Qlip]

I've read a lot of Heinlien in my life and his opinion was something along the lines that the most lacivious thing you could do is to clothe someone, it implies that there is something naughty to hide. Rings true to me.

 

[Arthur Schopenhauer]

Perhaps.

 

[erm]

erm, what do you suppose motivates this 'human bias' in relation to attractiveness if not biology?

If I had to guess, they'd be a little bit of biology at birth, and the rest would be environmental (socialisation, enculturation etc.). Probably entirely overriding biological influence given time.

Baring in mind environmental influence is not fickle, it starts at birth (womb influences are half and half really) and deeply roots itself in people's psyche, especially at young ages. They haven't been able to reverse the environment's influence on feral children, and they are the most extreme example we have. The other thing worth noting is that the vast majority of humans live in a very similar culture and environment (the differences are emphasised more than the similarities usually). Feral children, and people brought up in total isolation, are the only significant anomalies we have. I guess some of the new-found tribes are a good example too.

It's far too inhumane to repeat such scenarios, or to perform tests on those tribes, and the knowledge gained doesn't have nearly enough value to justify such a means.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've read a lot of Heinlien in my life and his opinion was something along the lines that the most lacivious thing you could do is to clothe someone, it implies that there is something naughty to hide. Rings true to me.

Heinlein was just a dirty old man. (Ever read "I Will Fear No Evil"?)

Can't we all just be less stupid?

That seems to be the challenge here, doesn't it? lol

Ok, I'm done. I hate having to move posts from threads.

me too. Laziness apparently IS what makes the world go 'round.

Well the only bit I see you differing with me on is insecurity being universal. I assume you don't mean universal literally? I'd need to know more detail before I can respond.

I was speaking out of my butt intuition, on that one.

I think I had just noticed in different bits of literature (even in ancient texts like The Old Testament, for example) than women habitually are reinforcing for themselves what a 'true woman' actually is, and specifically having to say it's not about physical beauty/attractiveness. I tend to infer from that need to even mention it, that there's some sort of common struggle going on between women and society where women feel tempted to win approval/attention for themselves through their physical beauty by that culture's standards. i.e., women are insecure about themselves and grow strong by not succumbing to society's attempt to attribute worth to them merely by their looks.

That's probably what I meant.

 

[Qlip]

Heinlein was just a dirty old man. (Ever read "I Will Fear No Evil"?)

I was going to mention that in my original post.. I decided to not detract from the issue.

 

[Coriolis]

Beauty is entirely subjective, intelligence is not. Intelligence has direct benefits over its absence. Thinking beauty is important has no direct benefits over thinking it's unimportant.

Intelligence is not nearly as objective as you suggest, while beauty is not entirely subjective, as others have already pointed out. A life without beauty has a significant downside relative to a life where it is present. In bleak surroundings, the human spirit learns to appreciate beauty in more diverse, varied, and unexpected forms. My point is that it is possible for each of us to see beauty in ourselves, if only we stop using limited and restricting standards.

 

[erm]

My point is that it is possible for each of us to see beauty in ourselves, if only we stop using limited and restricting standards.

Yes, because it is subjective.

I don't know why this is so hard to get. An objective trait is in the object, so a stone statue is objectively made of stone. No one can observe it and think it is not made of stone, without being wrong.

A subjective trait is in the the subject, so a beautiful stone statue doesn't actually have beauty as a part of it. The beauty is in the mind of the person seeing the statue. You can change their mind to find it ugly, yet the statue (object) hasn't changed, only the person's mind (subject).

Intelligence is not in the mind of the observer, it is actually in the object. Whether something is intelligent is decided by the traits of that thing, not the person observing it. You can do whatever you like to the observer, but the object will stay just as intelligent.

It doesn't matter if every human being, animal and alien that's ever existed found the exact same thing attractive, the attractiveness is still only in their minds.

 

[Orangey]

It doesn't matter if every human being, animal and alien that's ever existed found the exact same thing attractive, the attractiveness is still only in their minds.

This leaves no possibility for intersubjectivity. How do I know, for instance, that Jessica Alba is attractive, despite my own personal distaste for her looks? The attractiveness does not exist in my mind (since I don't find her attractive), nor does it exist in any particular person's mind that I can identify (that is, I'd still know she is thought of as attractive whether or not Johnny down the street finds her so.) Yet I know that she is considered an attractive person.

 

[Lark]

Why are women not allowed to become priests, Lark?

Why dont women have penises Nicodemus? Why dont men have a uterous? Why cant everyone be exactly the same?

 

[Lark]

See? What's up with the negativity lately?

Why place the blame with me?

Blame the victim much.

 

[Lark]

Servitude existed prior to Christian religion. Christian religion like any other expansionist corporation would use the same tools to "herd their sheep". The "God...exists" conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

True. But then, you're not much challenge.

Women shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies and if taking nude pics helps them in a "hair of the dog" way, good for them. Same goes for any men who suffer something similar. This is under the assumption that these pics are kept private. If they choose to share the pics with others, there might be negative consequences to their actions since people can be critical, provide insufficient validation or worse yet, share them with others.

Yeah, pretty standard unsophisticated liberal fare there. Repeating your prejudices doesnt win you anything.

 

[Totenkindly]

Why dont women have penises Nicodemus? Why dont men have a uterous? Why cant everyone be exactly the same?

So are you saying that, to be a priest, you have to have a penis?
I think that was kinda his point.

(Btw, it's "uterus". It's a noun, not an adjective.)

 

[Lark]

There has been some very sharp tacks who held religious views. I also think, back in 500 B.C. all the way to the 1600s and beyond, religious answers to everyday questions were more plausible, because logical scientific answers weren't available to compete with the supernatural theories. We haven't quite gotten a grip on how the world and universe actually works, until very recently. And even now, what we know, is probably so little compared to what's out there. And where science and technology will take us 50, 100, 500 years from now.

So perhaps a great mind would be more inclined in the past to hold strong religious views, than they are in the present, is what I think. Is that terribly arrogant and untrue, do you think?

I think yes it is. Science is this age's orthodoxy, if its eventual rejection is as severe as religion's it may not bode well for humanity. The problem is that too many people conflate superstition and ignorance with religion or tradition, while at the same time behaving with the fatal conceit of the present for the past. It makes me heart sick to witness it and see it repeated over and over as bold insight when it's anything but. Sometimes it feels like ground hog day.

Although mind you years ago I might have said the same thing, not just as you here but as Metaphor. Perhaps I have as much myopia and defensiveness for my present perspectives as I did once acknowledgely have for the other but there doesnt appear to be anyone else voicing doubts or defending it.

 

[Lark]

Lark didn't always have that mean side, that we see today. Before the insanity got him.

Now I question everything he's ever said!

I dont know were you're going with this "mean side" business, it looks like just another way of behaving dismissive.