Short Skirts and Dresses

[Trevor]

About aesthetic ideals. Short skirts belong to the hot/sexy ideal but dresses are elegant and beautiful. The different is hot/sexy is like fast food after a night out and elegant/beautiful is an evening with fine wine, food, and company. Short skirts don't get respect. They're leered over but aren't respected. Same with easy women too, they aren't respected, they're used, whereas a beautiful woman requires effort, there ain't no respect without effort.

There are a lot of fucked up relationships out there, I wonder how long it was before each fucked, one date? two? or does the fucking come before the first date nowadays? Maybe settling down with the "easy" partner merely sows the seeds of contempt and/or self-destruction (of the relationship) for further down the line...if there's no self-respect, how can there be respect of the other?

[anon]

I'm sort of confused about whether this is about aesthetics or not.

[Trevor]

I'm sort of confused about whether this is about aesthetics or not.

Of course it is. Aesthetics and ethics, or, aesthetics are ethics. Beauty is Good, so whatever isn't beauty therefore falls short of what is good. Short skirts aren't beautiful, they're hot, but not beautiful, they arouse a different kind of attraction than beauty, each ideal provokes different responses. From the aesthetic comes the ethic...

[TheJoker]

It's all about showing some skin.

[Trevor]

It's all about showing some skin.

Care to elaborate?

[TheJoker]

It's all about showing some skin.

Care to elaborate?

I was just joking. Don't mind me.

[Silhouette]

What's wrong with using?
When using goes to plan it's because there was an understanding that you too would be used in return. You respect each other's shallow intentions.

It's only a problem if one of the people involved was expecting something deeper, or came to want something deeper during/afterwards. This isn't a problem with using, it's a problem of naivety and inexperience. Ought shallow flings to be "not as good" as deeper relationships? Surely they have their place - they can be very appropriate and just what you needed.

Strikes me as though there is an underlying assumption that the lasting, meaningful, "true" is to be deemed more "good" than the fleeting, shallow glimpse.

This is absurd unless there is an assumed value such as the reliability of something lasting. The assumption that effort is more "good" has been suggested, along with respect only applying to that which endures.

Where is your justification for these values?

[Trevor]

What's wrong with using?
When using goes to plan it's because there was an understanding that you too would be used in return. You respect each other's shallow intentions.

It's only a problem if one of the people involved was expecting something deeper, or came to want something deeper during/afterwards. This isn't a problem with using, it's a problem of naivety and inexperience. Ought shallow flings to be "not as good" as deeper relationships? Surely they have their place - they can be very appropriate and just what you needed.

Strikes me as though there is an underlying assumption that the lasting, meaningful, "true" is to be deemed more "good" than the fleeting, shallow glimpse.

This is absurd unless there is an assumed value such as the reliability of something lasting. The assumption that effort is more "good" has been suggested, along with respect only applying to that which endures.

Where is your justification for these values?

For the most part I agree with your doubts and suspicions although I don't care for justifications. Ultimately my point of view may be beginning from an aesthetic point of view and therein lies an imbalance which you've hinted at but failed to respect. It's not naive not inexperience, I don't know what it is, I'll just say it is what it is, but ultimately I objectify. I objectify women, and I objectify their beauty thus it is true to say I am expecting something deeper, in a sense because I am not only expecting something deeper but I am finding something deeper, it's just that whence this comes into contact with the real, it has the potentiality to collapse. A woman in a short skirt is hot, I lust for her, I desire her, but a woman in a dress I do not lust after, I want her but I want her in a different sense, maybe I simply want o own her, I want her beauty within my command. I'm expressing nothing more than what I believe to be the under-currents of my thoughts. I know they're possessive, I know they're damaging, but that's what I believe is there nonetheless...whatever...I'm a wee bit drunk...

[Fixed Cross]

About aesthetic ideals. Short skirts belong to the hot/sexy ideal but dresses are elegant and beautiful. The different is hot/sexy is like fast food after a night out and elegant/beautiful is an evening with fine wine, food, and company. Short skirts don't get respect. They're leered over but aren't respected. Same with easy women too, they aren't respected, they're used, whereas a beautiful woman requires effort, there ain't no respect without effort.

There are a lot of fucked up relationships out there, I wonder how long it was before each fucked, one date? two? or does the fucking come before the first date nowadays? Maybe settling down with the "easy" partner merely sows the seeds of contempt and/or self-destruction (of the relationship) for further down the line...if there's no self-respect, how can there be respect of the other?

Excellent! I agree that a skirt has to cover a certain amount of space to be beautiful, as any work of art would require for itself to manifest in the mind so as to become ethically pleasing.
On a note to the side, are you saying that an object of attraction can't be hot and elegant both at once?

[Amorphos]

Nakedness can be elegant [long dress] or slutty [short dress]. ...So varying amounts of it can be?

…it can also address issues brought about by clothes ~ where nakedness is honesty, sincerity etc, and clothes are the things we use to hide behind or lie about in some manner.

[Trevor]

On a note to the side, are you saying that an object of attraction can't be hot and elegant both at once?

I'm not sure, possibly. I see them as two closely-related ideals, one being beauty (elegance) and the other sexiness (hot). It's a strange one but attractive women inspire different reactions, most are "hot," my eyes devour their figure as my mouth devours food, but the rare woman that belongs to the "beauty" ideal, I want her in a different way, not in a physical way...her "beauty" transcends her from the world of lust and desire...

…it can also address issues brought about by clothes ~ where nakedness is honesty, sincerity etc, and clothes are the things we use to hide behind or lie about in some manner.

Do we hide behind clothes or do we reveal ourselves from them?

A nicely cut dress suggests the figure beneath, a short skirt just reveals it.

[Silhouette]

Time for some sexist generalisations.

The manly man traditionally does all the pursuing, just like in any tournament species. He shows off his surplus strengths that show him to be the healthiest candidate for reproduction. Such behaviour crudely dominates his competition, nothing is held back - only forwardly exhibited and imposed.

The obvious perfect complement to such assertive/aggressive behaviour is the inhibited lurer, who allows the predatory male the best, longest and most rewarding chasing experience. The ideal appearance for such a woman is perfectly compatible with clothes and things like make-up. They simultaneously conceal and exaggerate reasons to be chased - the perfect challenge for the traditional manly man.

The "right balance" of clothing matches the girl with the healthiest guy. Being too slutty can deny the guy his chase, though too little sexuality will conceal too much and lower the incentive to chase - it won't seem worth the effort. Being too slutty is more fitted to matching the desperate guy, or supplying the healthier male with a quick meaningless fling. Often the slutty woman will be compensating for a lack of substance to justify a chase, or at least she might believe this to be the case. The more healthy female can afford to be less slutty and still be competitive. But even a slutty female can exhibit funness through her sluttiness, flashing a different kind of health. A surplus of sexuality can be attractive when combined with the right kind of confidence, just as it can betray an insecure woman.

Further complications are that such polarised sexist generalisation aren't always the case.

Often the girl wishes to do the pursuing, and is more matched to a less dominant guy. Perhaps the guy exhibits a more submissive health. You get all kinds of matches - though they tend to revolve around one person pushing and the other pulling, in appropriate compatibility.

There is no general rule for "slutty = always bad" and "beauty = always good".

[incorrect]

Time for some sexist generalisations.

The manly man traditionally does all the pursuing, just like in any tournament species. He shows off his surplus strengths that show him to be the healthiest candidate for reproduction. Such behaviour crudely dominates his competition, nothing is held back - only forwardly exhibited and imposed.

The obvious perfect complement to such assertive/aggressive behaviour is the inhibited lurer, who allows the predatory male the best, longest and most rewarding chasing experience. The ideal appearance for such a woman is perfectly compatible with clothes and things like make-up. They simultaneously conceal and exaggerate reasons to be chased - the perfect challenge for the traditional manly man.

The "right balance" of clothing matches the girl with the healthiest guy. Being too slutty can deny the guy his chase, though too little sexuality will conceal too much and lower the incentive to chase - it won't seem worth the effort. Being too slutty is more fitted to matching the desperate guy, or supplying the healthier male with a quick meaningless fling. Often the slutty woman will be compensating for a lack of substance to justify a chase, or at least she might believe this to be the case. The more healthy female can afford to be less slutty and still be competitive. But even a slutty female can exhibit funness through her sluttiness, flashing a different kind of health. A surplus of sexuality can be attractive when combined with the right kind of confidence, just as it can betray an insecure woman.

Further complications are that such polarised sexist generalisation aren't always the case.

Often the girl wishes to do the pursuing, and is more matched to a less dominant guy. Perhaps the guy exhibits a more submissive health. You get all kinds of matches - though they tend to revolve around one person pushing and the other pulling, in appropriate compatibility.

There is no general rule for "slutty = always bad" and "beauty = always good".

I like this post, you get +1 awesome points in my book

thanks

[Trevor]

Time for some sexist generalisations.

The manly man traditionally does all the pursuing, just like in any tournament species. He shows off his surplus strengths that show him to be the healthiest candidate for reproduction. Such behaviour crudely dominates his competition, nothing is held back - only forwardly exhibited and imposed.

The obvious perfect complement to such assertive/aggressive behaviour is the inhibited lurer, who allows the predatory male the best, longest and most rewarding chasing experience. The ideal appearance for such a woman is perfectly compatible with clothes and things like make-up. They simultaneously conceal and exaggerate reasons to be chased - the perfect challenge for the traditional manly man.

The "right balance" of clothing matches the girl with the healthiest guy. Being too slutty can deny the guy his chase, though too little sexuality will conceal too much and lower the incentive to chase - it won't seem worth the effort. Being too slutty is more fitted to matching the desperate guy, or supplying the healthier male with a quick meaningless fling. Often the slutty woman will be compensating for a lack of substance to justify a chase, or at least she might believe this to be the case. The more healthy female can afford to be less slutty and still be competitive. But even a slutty female can exhibit funness through her sluttiness, flashing a different kind of health. A surplus of sexuality can be attractive when combined with the right kind of confidence, just as it can betray an insecure woman.

Further complications are that such polarised sexist generalisation aren't always the case.

Often the girl wishes to do the pursuing, and is more matched to a less dominant guy. Perhaps the guy exhibits a more submissive health. You get all kinds of matches - though they tend to revolve around one person pushing and the other pulling, in appropriate compatibility.

There is no general rule for "slutty = always bad" and "beauty = always good".

I call this bio-psycho babble. My own babble is art-psycho babble. Each has it's own place.