Should Feminists be encouraging women to be strippers?

[Shermana]

Number one, because they are my kids, and number two, you aren't a mother.

Oh, they're YOUR Kids. Okay, got it. So how do you think other parents feel? Is saying "You're not a mother" a way of saying that you would support them no matter what including the adult industry, even if it's something you didn't want? You wouldn't try to discourage them? Maybe I would discourage my daughter if I had one. Are you saying that any parent would support their child in such an endeavor?

 

[Bismillah]

I think feminists should look to push women beyond sexual objectification.

 

[Shermana]

I think feminists should look to push women beyond sexual objectification.

Are you saying that Feminism should not encourage behavior that further cements the idea in men's heads that they are there for their "pleasure"?

 

[Bismillah]

Yep, I do

 

[Shermana]

Yep, I do

Same here. And so do many, many Feminists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Shouldn't be allowed? I'm not advocating banning such professions. I believe they should be free to make the choice if they want to be exploited as a sex object or not. So not at all. What I'm saying is that not all Feminists agree on what exactly is "empowering". Many will say that this kind of thing makes women "Feel dirty" or basically just "empowers" them to become glorified sex objects to men, and if anything pushes the Feminist movement back beyond the 1800s. I'd say men today view women as even more of a sex object than they did in the 1930s. If anyone's being empowered, perhaps it's the men even more so. It can be said that it merely reinforces the idea that women are there for our sexual pleasure, and concretely.

So really it's about relative definitions and what you think truly is in their best interest.

Now if we men want to state such things, we should be honest and say whether or not we have a particular interest in women exploiting their bodies for our enjoyment. If you do, then obviously that will have a factor in how to interpret your opinion.

I think you mistakenly assert that focusing on the perceived sexual attractiveness of another person for a period of time necessarily means that you're reducing them just to that and treating them as an object. The two aren't equivalent at all. When you (general "you") discuss a subject like politics or science, etc. with someone you think is intelligent or knowledgeable, for example, it doesn't mean that you're treating them as an emotionless drone if you don't bring up how attractive you think they are during the discussion. Not touching on that aspect doesn't mean that it's not there altogether; it just means that you chose to focus on something else at that specific time.

Some men do seem to think of women as nothing more than sexual objects or "baby factories," but to generalize all men based on that and assume that this must be what they do when they find another person to be sexually attractive is inaccurate and misleading at best.

So, unless you bring up every single thing about your doctor's personality when you visit them for a medical checkup or discuss what you think of your boss' suit when you see them at work, then that kind of logic seems to imply that you also "objectify" them or treat them as one-dimensional tools.

This is also still going around the crux of the issue: That choice is what matters most here. Again, whether or not you think that what someone is doing at their own discretion "degrades" them is irrelevant to how they may perceive themselves or how other people may perceive them, and it seems pretty hasty to assume that one's opinion is the same as what other people think.

 

[Badran]

Okay, good luck. Like I said, women are by far and large the biggest **** shamers of all, so I wish you the best in convincing them however you plan on 'educating" them.

It certainly beats trying to shame and pressure them into complying with baseless notions of morality.

I'm really not sure that how any of that goes against what I said.

It goes against:

1) Your generalized notion that people go to strip clubs or watch women stripping in general to objectify them and your appeal to supposed numbers in support of that.

2) Your description of the behavior in question as "promiscuous", at least in the sense i understood to be implied with it. Which is an attempt to paint it as morally wrong to begin with.

I'm seriously at a loss here as to what you're trying to say exactly. I'm not saying that the "BOOBIES!!!" factor is somehow "negative", I'm saying that's how Feminists, MANY Feminists regard it. They are the ones you'll have to convince that they are not being sexually exploited. Try phrasing what you're trying to say differently because I'm still not sure I understand.

I'm saying that the issue here is entirely around how people view the act. There is nothing inherent about the act which is morally wrong, as you seemed to be implying. It seems that you're trying to back away from that now, but don't blame me for any fabricated confusion. You know exactly the relevancy of what i said to what you were saying.

Okay, it's an element that is the dominant element as you say. That's the main concern here. So these women are catering to these guys going to "get their rocks off".

1) Among other things.

2) It's important to clarify that by accepting the phrase "get your rocks off", i was accepting it as a general state of sexual excitement and/or satisfaction rather than strictly as an orgasm, which after a brief look up in dictionaries seems to be the main meaning of this slang term.

3) I don't see any concern in that, in any inherent sense. Which i'll clarify more about in the proper part.

Yes there are a lot, but the "negative connotations" are nonetheless a major factor of a major element of the Feminist movement's regard of Strip Clubs and X-rated media.

And?

I still don't understand what you're saying.

Despite not seeing any reason for why you would not, i hope that you do now.

Okay, so your plan is on educating people as if they must change their views to accomodate to yours based on an appeal to emotion. Good luck.

You don't wanna start doing this because it will get ugly real fast if we go down this road. That is, unless you want it to get ugly, in which case i'll be happy to oblige.

My proposed plan is to educate people about the negative effects of shaming women by associating falsely claimed inherent negative connotations regarding some actions. I'm not asking anybody to view stripping positively or to embrace it as i do, what i'm addressing and would fight is the particular attitude of shaming strippers in this case.

An example of which would be usage of loaded labels to describe their behavior, such as "promiscuous", which you chose to use.

By "other men's", I'm assuming you mean the ones you know personally, or do you have access to stats here.

Personal experience.

Okay, if we've established that it's "Pleasurable" for you, then how is what you call "Erotic art" still not a form of objectification? I'm not seeing how there's an actual difference.

According to Wiki:

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a "sex object".

Obviously this, or anything along similar lines isn't the case under the view i'm trying to share with you, since there's no exclusion of their person-hood, nor gaining of pleasure with disregard to perceived dignity. In fact, part of the pleasure i'm talking about can not be obtained without perception and interaction with personality, to one extent or the other.

Obtaining sexual pleasure from a person in itself does not come anyway near objectifying them. It is viewing them solely as an instrument of obtaining sexual pleasure that would be objectifying.

 

[Shermana]

It certainly beats trying to shame and pressure them into silly notions of morality.

But you haven't established exactly what sort of "Education" exactly this would involve and the method. Berating them until they submit to your view? Telling them to stop ****-shaming because it hurts their feelings? Donating to "****-walks?" What's the plan exactly? You've said what you want to do below, but you haven't explained what exactly it involves. You said

My proposed plan is to educate people about the negative effects of shaming women by associating falsely claimed inherent negative connotations regarding some actions.

But that's not exactly very descriptive. Elaborate please.

1) Your generalized notion that people go to strip clubs or watch women stripping in general to objectify them and your appeal to supposed numbers in support of that.

You already said that men going to the Strip club for the "BOOBIES!!!" factor is the "dominant" reason. Are you backpeddling? Did you agree these "Supposed" numbers are accurate regarding that when you said it was dominant? How does it go against it exactly?

2) Your description of the behavior in question as "promiscuous", at least in the sense i understood to be implied with it. Which is an attempt to paint it as morally wrong to begin with.

Okay, but you see, this is an issue of personal interpretation of which numerous Feminists agree, that it is immoral. No amount of "education" i.e. shaming people to stop shaming is going to make them think any differently. You're basically demanding people to change their cultural perspective but you haven't exactly established what this "education" involves.

I'm saying that the issue here is entirely around how people view the act. There is nothing inherent about the act which is morally wrong, as you seemed to be implying. It seems that you're trying to back away from that now, but don't blame me for any fabricated confusion. You know exactly the relevancy of what i said to what you were saying.

Huh? What am I backing away from exactly? What did I say that I'm backpeddling on? Fabricated confusion? I honestly didn't understand what you said completely, and this is your response?

1) Among other things.

2) It's important to clarify that by accepting the phrase "get your rocks off", i was accepting it as a general state of sexual excitement and/or satisfaction rather than strictly as an orgasm, which after a brief look up in dictionaries seems to be the main meaning of this slang term.

I guess I used the wrong term then.

3) I don't see any concern in that, in any inherent sense. Which i'll clarify more about in the proper part.

Okay.

And?

And the fact remains, there are people who associate it with negativity no matter how much you try to tell them to drop such beliefs.

Despite not seeing any reason for why you would not, i hope that you do now.

No, seriously, I really didn't understand what exactly you were implying, just like I'm not sure what exactly your method of "educating" people would entail.

You don't wanna start doing this because it will get ugly real fast if we go down this road. That is, unless you want it to get ugly, in which case i'll be happy to oblige.

Why would it get ugly exactly? Sure, make it ugly. Make it as ugly as you want. Are you implying that your method of education would involve things "getting ugly"? Sounds thuggish. Tell me more.

My proposed plan is to educate people about the negative effects of shaming women by associating falsely claimed inherent negative connotations regarding some actions. I'm not asking anybody to view stripping positively or to embrace it as i do, what i'm addressing and would fight is the particular attitude of shaming strippers in this case.

Okay, so do you realize what you're up against? You're up against classical feminists who are not only against stripping, but internet porn. I'd love to hear how exactly you plan to "educate them about the negative effects of shaming women". What kind of negative effects do you plan on teaching them about that they don't know about, and how would you do it exactly, and how would you deal with the counter arguments?

An example of which would be usage of loaded labels to describe their behavior, such as "promiscuous", which you chose to use.

Okay, so you're going to tell people not to use the word "Promiscuous" because it might hurt their feelings. What a brilliant plan. I'm sure it will work. (Sarcasm.)

Personal experience.

Okay, now that we've established that, I have my own personal experience that counters yours. So let's say things like "In my personal experience" like I usually do when we're making assertions especially in a personal, condescending manner.

According to Wiki is:

Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person merely as an instrument of sexual pleasure, making them a "sex object".

Ah, sounds just like the "Dominant" (As you said) reason why men go to Strip Clubs. But I don't think you read the rest of the article, as it goes on to explain the different views on this.

Obviously this, or anything along similar lines isn't the case under the view i'm trying to share with you, since there's no exclusion of their person-hood, nor gaining of pleasure with disregard to perceived dignity

.

Well hold on, there's a whole slew of relative understandings of how men view women, especially when it comes to porn and X-rated media, regarding their "personhood" and what that means exactly.

In fact, part of the pleasure i'm talking about can not be obtained with perception and interaction with personality, to one extent or the other.

Are you saying that sex objectification cannot result in pleasure if the person gets to know the personality of the person involved? I think you're misreading what "Without regard" means. All it's saying is that the objectification comes with or without acknowledging who they are as a person. Just because the stripper talks to them and makes them feel wanted doesn't mean they are regarding their personality and personhood. You are making assertions about a very subjective issue which I'd say the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the men who are there for the "dominant" factor of "BOOBIES!!!" are not too interested in the personhood of the possessor of said boobies.

Obtaining sexual pleasure from a person in itself does not come anyway near objectifying them. It is viewing them solely as an instrument of obtaining sexual pleasure that would be objectifying.[

Sounds like we have a different interpretation of what sexual objectification is. In this case and definition, it sounds like these classical feminists who are against Strip Clubs and Porn have no basis for the idea that women are being "sexually objectified". Apparently the first paragraph in that article should be read as "Feminists have no idea what they're talking about".

Let's go further with this article.

While the concept of sexual objectification is important within feminist theory, ideas vary widely on what constitutes sexual objectification and what are the ethical implications of such objectification. Some feminists such as Naomi Wolf find the concept of physical attractiveness itself to be problematic,[33] with some radical feminists being opposed to any evaluation of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical characteristics. John Stoltenberg goes so far as to condemn as wrongfully objectifying any sexual fantasy that involves visualization of a woman.[34] Radical feminists view objectification as playing a central role in reducing women to what they refer to as the "sex class". While some feminists view mass media in societies that they argue are patriarchal to be objectifying, they often focus on pornography as playing an egregious role in habituating men to objectify women.[35] Other feminists, particularly those identified with sex-positive feminism, take a different view of sexual objectification and see it as a problem when it is not counterbalanced by women's sense of their own sexual subjectivity.[citation needed]
Some social conservatives have taken up aspects of the feminist critique of sexual objectification. In their view however, the increase in the sexual objectification of both sexes in Western culture is one of the negative legacies of the sexual revolution.[36][37][38][39][40] These critics, notably Wendy Shalit, advocate a return to pre-sexual revolution standards of sexual morality, which Shalit refers to as a "return to modesty", as an antidote to sexual objectification.[37][41]
Other feminists contest feminist claims about the objectification of women. Camille Paglia holds that "Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species." In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.[42] Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy holds that the label "sex object" means nothing because inanimate objects are not sexual. She continues that women are their bodies as well as their minds and souls.[43]

As you can see, your idea of what constitutes "Sexual objectification" goes quite beyond the first sentence of that article. Try reading the whole thing. It's very, very subjective. But revolves around the same thing. So you may want to rethink what exactly constitutes "Sexual objectification".

 

[Shermana]

I think you mistakenly assert that focusing on the perceived sexual attractiveness of another person for a period of time necessarily means that you're reducing them just to that and treating them as an object. The two aren't equivalent at all. When you (general "you") discuss a subject like politics or science, etc. with someone you think is intelligent or knowledgeable, for example, it doesn't mean that you're treating them as an emotionless drone if you don't bring up how attractive you think they are during the discussion. Not touching on that aspect doesn't mean that it's not there altogether; it just means that you chose to focus on something else at that specific time.

Some men do seem to think of women as nothing more than sexual objects or "baby factories," but to generalize all men based on that and assume that this must be what they do when they find another person to be sexually attractive is inaccurate and misleading at best.

So, unless you bring up every single thing about your doctor's personality when you visit them for a medical checkup or discuss what you think of your boss' suit when you see them at work, then that kind of logic seems to imply that you also "objectify" them or treat them as one-dimensional tools.

This is also still going around the crux of the issue: That choice is what matters most here. Again, whether or not you think that what someone is doing at their own discretion "degrades" them is irrelevant to how they may perceive themselves or how other people may perceive them, and it seems pretty hasty to assume that one's opinion is the same as what other people think.

As you can see in the above post, there are many feminists, some of the "Radical" variety included, who have exactly this "mistaken" view, of focussing on the attractiveness of the person constituting objectifying.

I would place my bets that the majority of men worldwide, even in the West, have attitudes and feelings about women that would classify under objectification, especially when it comes to the "adult service" category, and this extends to all levels of society, so really it's an issue of trying to convince the other of who's view on situation represents the majority and who's is less significant overall.

But yes, it's about "choice". The question is, whether that choice should be encouraged, that's the point of the OP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As you can see in the above post, there are many feminists, some of the "Radical" variety included, who have exactly this "mistaken" view, of focussing on the attractiveness of the person constituting objectifying.

I would place my bets that the majority of men worldwide, even in the West, have attitudes and feelings about women that would classify under objectification, especially when it comes to the "adult service" category, and this extends to all levels of society, so really it's an issue of trying to convince the other of who's view on situation represents the majority and who's is less significant overall.

But yes, it's about "choice". The question is, whether that choice should be encouraged, that's the point of the OP.

1) So what? It doesn't mean all feminists agree with them. They have their own opinion, which is fine as long as it's not assumed to be the opinion of all or even most other feminists.

And I did say that focusing on the attractiveness of another person doesn't necessitate objectifying them, but that doesn't mean that some people don't focus on the sexuality of other people while ignoring everything else about them and treating them as mere objects of sexual satisfaction. The point is that appreciating someone's attractiveness doesn't require you to view them as objects, which is the implication I got from your posts here that seemed to draw a supposedly necessary causal relationship between stripping and being objectified.

2) While I would agree that many men worldwide have objectifying and self-entitled attitudes toward women, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that most are that way. That's an extraordinary claim, which would be pretty hard to defend without extraordinary statistics to back it up.

3) What reasons do you have against opposing or supporting someone's independent choice to pursue a career in stripping? I'm not really trying to promote one view over the other here; what I'm trying to understand is your reasoning as to why you lean one way or the other.

 

[Pegg]

i dont really care what feminists think about it... Gods view is far more important. Would he encourage a woman to strip off to become some depraved mans eye candy??

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The only thing anyone should encourage anyone else to do is think for themselves.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

i dont really care what feminists think about it... Gods view is far more important. Would he encourage a woman to strip off to become some depraved mans eye candy??

Now any man that enjoys seeing a topless woman is depraved? Quite a judgement from somebody who's supposed to love everyone as she does herself. WWJD dude...

 

[Rakhel]

Oh, they're YOUR Kids. Okay, got it. So how do you think other parents feel? Is saying "You're not a mother" a way of saying that you would support them no matter what including the adult industry, even if it's something you didn't want? You wouldn't try to discourage them? Maybe I would discourage my daughter if I had one. Are you saying that any parent would support their child in such an endeavor?

There goes Winnie the Pooh in my head again
Oh Bother....
I don't understand why you are having a problem understanding how someone can not have a problem with the sex industry yet not want to have a part in it.
I say I don't have a problem with a woman's choice to ender it, but that I would not make that choice. You have a problem with that.
I say I would support my daughter's choice to enter it, but hope they would never make that choice and you have a problem with that. I also said that I would provide the pros and cons
Then you ask how other parents feel about their own kids making choices?
Dude. You asked about I would feel if it was "my family." Not someone else's family. And now you get all bent out of shape because I tell you that I can support "My kid's" decision, while at the same time not encourage them in either direction.
If I must choose a side so must you.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Are you saying that any parent would support their child in such an endeavor?

Is your daughter's happiness less important than maintaining a facade of piety?

 

[Badran]

But you haven't established exactly what sort of "Education" exactly this would involve and the method. Berating them until they submit to your view?

Really?

Look, i know you're trying to paint this as an unaddressable cultural clash of some sort, but you should know better than to expect me to entertain dishonest questions.

I'll elaborate for the sake of those reading, but don't expect that to go on for long.

Telling them to stop ****-shaming because it hurts their feelings?

I wouldn't use that as a sole basis to address the negativity of the ****-shaming, but i would still point it out to people who care about others.

Donating to "****-walks?" What's the plan exactly? You've said what you want to do below, but you haven't explained what exactly it involves. You said

In my current position in involves engaging in discussions with others and attempting to explain how this ****-shaming puts immense pressure on these women, limits their freedom (even if not directly), and makes them suffer on an emotional level instead of addressing the perceptions they are trying to change in the first place, directly.

This would involve going directly to the root of the reason for why the act is proposed to be inherently wrong, and attempting to address it. Like i said above, i know you're trying to paint this as an unaddressable matter, which can only be approached with 'berating' others or shaming them, but that's not actually the case. Reasonable discussions can go a long way, and attempting to educate people who are merely embracing of such position due to cultural influences can work very well.

You already said that men going to the Strip club for the "BOOBIES!!!" factor is the "dominant" reason.

I said what i said, don't paraphrase it if you can't do it properly. I said that getting sexual satisfaction (as i clarified) is one among the reasons, and a dominant one, rather than 'the' dominant one.

Are you backpeddling? Did you agree these "Supposed" numbers are accurate regarding that when you said it was dominant? How does it go against it exactly?

I had offered a different perspective regarding how the act is viewed, which you tried to undermine by appealing to numbers and questioning my description of it. Both of which have been thoroughly addressed. Keep up and don't waste my time.

Okay, but you see, this is an issue of personal interpretation of which numerous Feminists agree, that it is immoral. No amount of "education" i.e. shaming people to stop shaming is going to make them think any differently. You're basically demanding people to change their cultural perspective but you haven't exactly established what this "education" involves.

Here of course is one part what i referred to above twice.

Disregarding your pathetic description of what i proposed to do, which by now you should understand (assuming you hadn't already), to elaborate more, there are multiple false assumptions being made.

It is a matter of opinion whether or not it's immoral. However, some of the bases being proposed for that opinion can be addressed and shown to be false. Such as the assumption that this act inherently requires men to objectify women. I know that you shared the perspectives of some people who view objectifying in a rather radical fashion, and i'll come to that later. Here i'm talking about people who would define objectify in the sense of viewing someone as a mere sex object. If one is able to show how this is in fact not necessarily the case (as i have), some people may change their mind (and they do already).

And it's not even needed to reach agreement with them that stripping is a good thing in any sense, just that they shouldn't shame others who choose to have a job as a stripper.

Huh? What am I backing away from exactly? What did I say that I'm backpeddling on? Fabricated confusion? I honestly didn't understand what you said completely, and this is your response?

What i was saying is that it seems like you're trying to hide behind proposing the disagreement and attempting to paint it in the fashion i described rather than coming forward with your personal reasons for viewing the act as immoral, discussing it and discussing what exactly is it that you're proposing with all this. From early on in the thread you kept asking leading questions and using loaded words such as the one i took exception with, and when i did, you proposed the disagreement rather than getting to the gist of the matter.

And the fact remains, there are people who associate it with negativity no matter how much you try to tell them to drop such beliefs.

I wouldn't be telling anybody to "drop" anything. I would be explaining my perspective and addressing certain ideas. Some may change their minds and others might not.

No, seriously, I really didn't understand what exactly you were implying, just like I'm not sure what exactly your method of "educating" people would entail.

That's sweet.

Why would it get ugly exactly?

Because of your dishonest descriptions of what i say.

Sure, make it ugly. Make it as ugly as you want.

I think i will.

Are you implying that your method of education would involve things "getting ugly"? Sounds thuggish. Tell me more.

Now, on the other hand, that's just plain cute.

Do things like that again, and things may not get too ugly after all. See, i'd be forced to appreciate it's cuteness rather than get angered by it's dishonesty.

Okay, so do you realize what you're up against? You're up against classical feminists who are not only against stripping, but internet porn. I'd love to hear how exactly you plan to "educate them about the negative effects of shaming women". What kind of negative effects do you plan on teaching them about that they don't know about, and how would you do it exactly, and how would you deal with the counter arguments?

Reasonable discussions and debates are not as hard as you may think, especially when you have good basis for your views. Now, changing a cultural view is definitely very difficult, and it takes a lot of time.

Do you have a faster approach?

What a brilliant plan. I'm sure it will work. (Sarcasm.)

Feel free to share yours.

 

[Badran]

Okay, now that we've established that, I have my own personal experience that counters yours.

It doesn't counter anything. I never proposed mine to go for everybody else, or for the "grand majority of men". I asked you to speak for yourself, when you were generalizing your desire to be objectified towards all or most other men.

So let's say things like "In my personal experience" like I usually do when we're making assertions especially in a personal, condescending manner.

That's priceless.

No, seriously, stop it Shermana. You're killin me.

Ah, sounds just like the "Dominant" (As you said) reason why men go to Strip Clubs.

1) As i clarified above, that's not what i said.

2) I described other reasons.

3) The definition clearly necessitates someone being viewed "merely" as a sex object. Which addresses your question which i responded to with that, clearly identifying the difference.

But I don't think you read the rest of the article, as it goes on to explain the different views on this.

I was looking for what i already knew would be there; the definition of sexual objectification as i understand. I wasn't looking to read about it. I also don't neglect the fact that there are people who have a different definition. Feel free to share yours, and i'll address it accordingly.

Well hold on, there's a whole slew of relative understandings of how men view women, especially when it comes to porn and X-rated media, regarding their "personhood" and what that means exactly.

I'm talking about my own perspective, and judging by the definition. You asked me how my obtaining pleasure was not objectifying of women. I was explaining that.

Are you saying that sex objectification cannot result in pleasure if the person gets to know the personality of the person involved? I think you're misreading what "Without regard" means. All it's saying is that the objectification comes with or without acknowledging who they are as a person. Just because the stripper talks to them and makes them feel wanted doesn't mean they are regarding their personality and personhood. You are making assertions about a very subjective issue which I'd say the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the men who are there for the "dominant" factor of "BOOBIES!!!" are not too interested in the personhood of the possessor of said boobies.

Again, i was talking about my own perspective. There are others, which i will address, but it doesn't negate anything i've said, especially considering that you didn't specify what sense are you talking about.

Sounds like we have a different interpretation of what sexual objectification is.

What's yours?

In this case and definition, it sounds like these classical feminists who are against Strip Clubs and Porn have no basis for the idea that women are being "sexually objectified". Apparently the first paragraph in that article should be read as "Feminists have no idea what they're talking about".

Let's go further with this article.

As you can see, your idea of what constitutes "Sexual objectification" goes quite beyond the first sentence of that article. Try reading the whole thing. It's very, very subjective. But revolves around the same thing. So you may want to rethink what exactly constitutes "Sexual objectification".

I don't think i do, but feel free to tell me why i should. Start sharing your definition of it as well as your proposition in regards to how to handle this.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

**** shaming= jealousy

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

So what is the general consensus to this controversial question?

I wish the OP had provided us a poll upon which we could vote.

M.V.

 

[Pegg]

Now any man that enjoys seeing a topless woman is depraved? Quite a judgement from somebody who's supposed to love everyone as she does herself. WWJD dude...

if sex, and seeing women in such a context, is all a man is interested in, he is depraved and needs help.