I hate men who blame women wearing skimpy outfits for their sex addiction

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by sclguy, Nov 27, 2020.

  1. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    If a woman dresses in a sensual way you may not like it, but she's not hurting anyone, doesn't deserve to be demonized for it and is definitely NOT responsible for you struggling to overcome your sex addiction. You have the right to look away if it disturbs you so much.
     
  2. InTheWilderness

    InTheWilderness Fapstronaut

    142
    243
    63
    How I use my time and what I watch and consume has no effect on women. I can’t be blamed for it. So this whole argument that P consumptions by men fuels human trafficking can’t be true. Right?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2020
  3. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    Good for you, dude. Considering how you're a sex and/or porn addict (otherwise you wouldn't be here) you'll be the one who will have to real with your own personal consequences.
     
  4. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    And by the way, if you can't deal with a woman dressing whoever she sees fit that you're right, as well, but that also makes you somewhat of a misogynist.

    And it's important that people know that 'recovering sex addict' does not equal 'misogynist', and that that is only a PART of this community.

    Don't shield behind SA recovery or NoFap for things that are not directly linked to SA recovery itself, but rather your own POVs on sex and gender rights.

    I am somewhat ashamed to be here because I fear that people think I share the same beliefs as you, for example. But I also Need the support of my community, and there are luckily many great, supporting people on here who don't use women as their scapegoat.

    See it as a way to initiate a discussion on how there's two sides to NoFap, and how I disagree with one specific side of it. And so far many responses have done nothing but reinforce my ideas that instead of looking inside themselves and how to overcome this struggled, they are more focused on any scapegoats they can make up (in this case revealing women).

    And that's disappointing.
     
  5. InTheWilderness

    InTheWilderness Fapstronaut

    142
    243
    63
    BS. I’m not even addicted to P. And I don’t even care how a woman dress. We’re having a moral discussion and it makes people misogynist for intelligently discussing this? I guess that’ll make you a misogynist one day when you have a daughter and is teaching her on clothing.
     
  6. This is very similar reasoning to saying that people have the right to smoke, that they are not hurting anyone, and that you have the right to walk away if it disturbs you so much.

    But saying that it doesn't hurt anyone and the facts of the matter are not in agreement.

    It is a scientific fact that when men see sexually attractive women, their testosterone levels rise. This has a direct impact on the men's bodies--not merely limited to their thoughts, although one might argue that it was their thoughts that started it. Exactly how much of the testosterone rise was due to their thinking versus how much was autonomic (involuntary) has, however, not been quantified so far as I am aware. Many visual stimuli can affect us without any conscious thought process being present--for example, seeing the red-hued sunlight at dusk affects our emotions and moods, making us feel more sentimental, pensive, or moody. Conversely, bright daylight is cheering. We do not, perhaps, think: "Oh, it's bright right now--I should be happy!" The response is not directly related to any conscious thought; it is what we call "autonomic," meaning "involuntary or unconscious; relating to the autonomic nervous system."
     
  7. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    If someone smokes inside, where it's forbidden, I'll ask them to go outside, if they smoke outside I'm sure I can find a spot in which their smoke doesn't come my way. The world's big enough.

    And again, testosterone levels rising does not mean you need to whip your wiener out and squirt sperm as soon as possible.

    And since you people love making up asinine comparisons: people who think women should cover up or else they are a threat would be the same as alcoholics calling for alcohol to be banned. Yet I see no responsible, successful recovering alcoholic making their struggle and journey about the quest to abolish alcohol or demonizing bartenders.
     
  8. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    P.S.:

    "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
     
  9. No one is saying this. But you were assuming that women's actions had no effect on men. As a "sciguy," you might appreciate that there is actual science to say that their attractiveness does directly impact men physiologically. Men who, for example, teach or work with women at high-school or university level--young, attractive, nubile women--may have an elevated sex drive on account of higher testosterone levels. This is just an occupational hazard that comes with the territory. For those on a semen retention plan, at least, this would be seen as disadvantageous.

    Why should a man who does not wish to waste his nervous energy on sexual gratification want to struggle against an even greater inner desire for it? For a woman to put her "assets" on display, and then say it's a man's fault if he is offended by it, is as audacious as a smoker saying it's your own fault if you're offended by the smoke. Maybe the television stations should show every X-rated film in their files on the same presumption of innocence on their part--should it be your own fault if you're offended by them? After all, if what a woman wears is entirely up to her, and there should be neither shame nor guilt for it--she's entirely innocent and can wear whatever she jolly well pleases, then putting her on screen with such attire is certainly no more egregious than if she wears it in public, like at the beach, right?
     
    InTheWilderness likes this.
  10. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    A woman showing her assets does not belong to you in any way. She doesn't owe you any attention and doesn't have to reward to for noticing her. If you can't get over a sexy woman in revealing clothes, and also get mad because of that, it means you got A LOT of work to do one yourself and that you might want to focus on that instead of pointing the finger at your scapegoat.

    As for porn being shown on network TV: again, HUGE differences between that (porn) and real life sexuality and nudity.
     
  11. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    832
    8,705
    123
    This chart is accurate. Let's be realistic.

    However, you drew a weird conclusion. Of course whether or not a women is more likely to be raped depends on her actions. Are you not more likely to be robbed if you hang out in a high-crime area at night than if you don't? Are you not less likely to get into a car crash if you don't drive? Etc etc.


    Of course, it goes without saying, the act is always the man's fault, BUT what I understand you to be saying, which is that a women's chance of being rapped does not depend on her actions (and believing otherwise is "disgusting"), is absurd.
     
  12. We are talking about a specific action, and it's wearing certain types of clothes, not going to a certain location. This is a non-sequitur. I'm asking one person to show me the supposed correlation between dress choice and sexual assault.
     
  13. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    832
    8,705
    123
    In all honesty, you don't think its obvious?
    Which is more sexually attractive: a fully clothed women or a naked women?
    Obviously, a women with less (or provocative) clothes generally turns more more male eyes than one with more modest dress. Its not complicated, its not bigotry or whatever its simply a fact.

    In other words, which is a sicko more likely to choose: assaulting a women he finds sexually attractive or assaulting one he doesn't?
     
  14. Stating things as "obvious," isn't a proof, and the supposed obviousness of an observation shouldn't be relied on especially if said observation precedes some type of normative claim. My challenge to this point is: how do you know that the likelihood of assault is a function of the degree of attraction to the victim? And how much of a predator's actions are determined by their attraction to the victim? Maybe there is a much better predictor of assault that isn't based on the victim's superficial traits. I have yet to see a correlation based on anything other than intuition.
     
  15. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    832
    8,705
    123
    I'm judging this based on the motivation. Assuming that the rape was sexually motivated, that conclusion follows naturally.

    Of course, if anger or something else was the motivation it wouldn't necessarily be the case.
     
  16. Ok and why are you assuming that any given rape is sexually motivated?

    Your second statement is correct. So why are we pigeonholing the possible motivations to just one?
     
  17. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    832
    8,705
    123
    Well, consider this: if even a decent number of rapes are sexually motivated, does it not increase the chance of being raped to wear clothes that invoke sexual desire?

    Because of the topic of the thread. We aren't discussing whether any given action leads to a high or lower chance, we're talking about clothes in particular. Like I said earlier, it would also increase the chances of getting raped to wander around at night in a high crime area, regardless of the clothes. I think to maintain your position you would have to deny that basically any rapes are sexually motivated.
     
    Abzu and InTheWilderness like this.
  18. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    I think it's important to send out the message that revealing clothing IS NO EXCUSE for rape.

    This message should be telegraphed, broadcast, sent out daily: a woman mustn't feel guilty to wear revealing clothes. If you decide to rape or molest someone the responsibility's all on you.

    Let's stop with the excuses and the indirect victim blaming.

    Let's stop with the misogyny.
     
    fredisthebes likes this.
  19. InTheWilderness

    InTheWilderness Fapstronaut

    142
    243
    63
    that’s where the bs must end. You’re a white night. here’s what I said in another thread:

    It is important that we hear both sides so that we can make informed choice. But one tactic they have come up to silence anyone who opposes their view and to shutdown critical thinking/discussion are labels. For example:

    Disagree with Jews? You're anti-Jew or anti-Semitic!

    Disagree with Muslims? You're Islamophobic!

    Disagree with LGBT? You're a homophobic!

    Disagree with Black? You're racist!

    Disagree with the mainstream narrative? You're a Conspiracy theorist!

    You might have fallen into their trap. "Sorry, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. You're homophobic!" or "You're a conspiracy theorist!" It's a convenient way to dismiss others.

    and to add to the list: Having an intellectual discussion about woman clothing? You’re a misogynist!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2020
  20. sclguy

    sclguy Fapstronaut

    203
    216
    43
    I'm not a white knight by any means. But I tend to judge people, whether they're men, women, hetero, gay, trans, on their own merits and their ACTIONS as HUMAN BEINGS, rather than on their looks, appearances, preferences.

    You are dead set on demonizing women who wear revealing clothes, when it would be more important to look at them as human beings, and how they TREAT others.

    I have met 'exhibitionist' women who were superficial and empty, but also others who were exceptional human beings, empathetic, kind and generous.

    I have met shy, prude women, who one might consider more aligned with conservative views, and therefore more 'moral' and wholesome according to your standards, who were inherently good, but also others who, despite appearing almost saintly, were straight out appalling human beings.

    You like to stand a moral high ground, yet are quick to demonize people based solely on their external appearance.

    So go take a hike, dude. You might wanna take a more sincere look at yourself as a human being.

    I haven't seen much of an intellectual discussion in here. Mostly a bunch of grown men who are afraid of female skin to the point where they need to automatically categorize the women who are more revealing as some amoral hellraisers.

    BTW, you can stop right there in your tracks with your generalization and the "you may have fallen into the trap" bullshit. Is that all you've got?
     

Share This Page