Ignoring the debate of moral relativism and the banal idea that lust is bad, what is the morality of checking a man or woman out? Does it depend how they carry themselves? Is it a violation to do something such as staring at someone's rear end? Etc.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The morality of "checking someone out"
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Light bouncing off a bottom and striking your retina, in and of itself, is not a moral issue. Even you you intentionally look.
But are you affecting the subject? Are you gawking and drooling or otherwise making someone uncomfortable. Or do you offend your self? Are you casually checking someone out? Or have you lost self control and self respect.
But are you affecting the subject? Are you gawking and drooling or otherwise making someone uncomfortable. Or do you offend your self? Are you casually checking someone out? Or have you lost self control and self respect.
There's nothing wrong with checking someone out and enjoying human beauty. Just don't be a perv and make people uncomfortable by openly gawking and/or making rude or stupid comments.
We need to keep in mind that looking at someone and admiring someone is not the same thing as wanting to have sex with someone. Some people can't "check out" someone without thinking about having sex, though (my husband is one of those). Also, keep in mind, that if someone is not a Christian, they don't really need to worry about the rules we follow.
Christianity is only one moral system, and even it varies greatly between groups and individuals. The OP was open ended, not only for Christianity.
Of course: I was just using my faith, since Jesus was the one who said that a man who looks at a woman lustfully is the same as comitting adultery.
Levite
Higher and Higher
As long as one looks discreetly, and as long as the person being looked at is in a public place, I fail to see how there is anything immoral about checking them out.
It's because not everyone enjoys having people focus on their breasts, butt or bulge and it can be awkward if they catch you looking.
Nothing wrong with just looking, but I've seen people making wolf calls, saying all sorts of things, at times in a loud voice, to make the person who is being watched very uncomfortable. That, to me, is rather rude. Sometimes the person being checked out likes that, though. It can be considered sexual harassment, too.
But looking at someone's breasts is looking at someone's breasts whether or not they know you're doing it and irrelevant of how long you look. Obviously in some situations people flaunt their stuff, but otherwise you have no way of telling how an individual feels about being checked out. Maybe they don't like at and you are therefore violating their freedom to not be checked out, no matter if they're aware and despite how long.
Look, you can't help if you find someone attractive. I'm not sure what your point is.
Ah but we're not talking about simply finding someone attractive.
Once again: your point, please?
I was simply pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.
Too bad I'm not hung up on imaginary thought crimes.
Well I'm not sure how something everyone does is a "thought crime". Whether or not it's a crime is the debate. You made it vastly more interesting by morality relying not on the act, but rather if others are aware of the act.
Alceste
Vagabond
You can't tell if they want you gawking at their boobs based on how they dress, I'm sorry to say. My husband's way of putting when some stranger is dressed up in a very sexy fashion and people (guys, usually) take that as an invitation to gawk, drool, make comments or lecherous advances: "It's not for you!" He usually says it with his hands thrown up in the air in an exasperated fashion. He also used to pull women left, right and centre - to the outrage of his more lecherous friends - simply by treating them like human beings rather than pieces of meat.
To him, it's self-evident that when women flaunt their sex appeal, it's intended for the men they want to sleep with - men they will choose, or have already chosen. To others, apparently not so much. Other guys we've known seem to think that when a woman dresses up, it's for everybody and she is fair game for vomit-inducing lechery of every description.
That said, there's nothing wrong with looking. The reason it matters whether or not they notice is that the "immorality" only enters into the picture if you are making others feel uncomfortable, awkward or unsafe by your behaviour. In general, human morality is pretty basic primate stuff, however flowery the words we use to describe it. Empathy, reciprocity, community, fairness, bla bla bla.
In the internet age, certain types of lechery are immoral in a completely new way. For example, those pervy wankers who sneak around taking pictures up the skirts of passing women with their phones and sharing them online with their pervy internet wank buddies. This is immoral because people have a right to privacy, and a right to consent (or not) to sexual interactions, even online, even if they're never even aware of them.
Anyway, St. Frank said it best. Look all you want, but don't be creepy and weird about it.
Great post, Alceste. You explained it better than I.