to lust or not to lust

topic posted Mon, November 5, 2007 - 3:34 PM by  dasha
okay so, it's true that the vast majority of our known history has been played out by patriarchal societies. throughout much of that time, woman was subservient, her role made inferior, and was objectified sexually. and it's true that we have reached a new era when this is no longer appropriate. we strive for equality, and to appreciate women for her unique qualities that have been widely neglected before.

however, just because women have so much inner beauty that doesn't mean we have to ignore all the traditional aspect of our evaluation of them. women are precious not just because of their cunning, sensitivity, intuition, gentleness, whatever, but also because their bodies are so damn pleasing to look at. and just because we like to check each other out doesn't mean that it has everything to do with sex; often enough it's pure aesthetic value.

learning to appreciate one form of beauty doesn't mean we must condemn the other; as most seem to think, it is NOT a trade-off. rather, the two are completely intertwined and go hand in hand.

so, no: i do not agree that making a note of physical attributes is at all inappropriate or that "we should be past that."

and i'm not writing this only in response to the unnecessarily defensive comments i'm seeing pop up, but to generate a different discussion. woman has many many assets, and she can and should use all of them to her advantage. THIS is what constitutes true and full empowerment.
posted by:
dasha
New York City
  • Re: to lust or not to lust

    Mon, November 5, 2007 - 9:11 PM
    Dasha,
    I openly admit that I can't remember having checked out a handsome man for "pure aestetic value". Seeing someone beautiful is always accompanied by feeling, a woman is a not a museum piece.
    Any of you guys ever looked at a woman for her "aestetic value"? ; )
    Yes, you can look at someone and feel affection instead of lust, but people made of flesh and blood are not and should not usually be comtemplated for their "value".
    • Re: to lust or not to lust

      Tue, November 6, 2007 - 3:34 AM
      i see what you're saying. then again, rarely is anything either or, so maybe you don't even realize your aesthetic appreciation when you think of someone sexually.

      i'll answer for some of the guys i know and they definitely appreciate the aesthetics of women. think of the ancient greeks and their deep appreciation of the human body. or ask an artist. why do we paint nudes? it's not the same thing as porn, quite obviously. aesthetic appreciation is why we can be dating or married to someone and still point out the beauty of another person without feeling having impure thoughts and being unfair to our loved one....etc etc etc

      when i say evaluate i don't mean literally taking out measuring tools and grading on a scale. i mean our emotional reaction to attraction or enjoyment of beauty. my point was that beauty consists of both aspects and they are equally valid as they are intertwined.
      • Re: to lust or not to lust

        Tue, November 6, 2007 - 4:35 AM
        I see what you are saying too. But what I mean is, I really don't care much for people who meet the general criteria for "beauty", like super models, popular movie stars and such, and I find features that are all too even and smooth rather boring. What attracts me and intrigues me is an expression, something in the eyes, in the aura, in the whole "atmosphere" a person has around him/her. Like when someone's face expresses a dream of mine, something/someone I would like to be, in character, in feeling, in thinking... And this reaction is always accompanied by feeling. Even the line of a beautiful woman's body- to me it is not because she is a perfect 75 (34) B, has only the prescribed 23% of body fat or whatever is considered "aesthetic" a the moment, but rather, that she looks like a fairy, a nymph, a violin, a goddess of fertility or whatever...
        I just discovered "hexkitten's" profile, and the self portrait she has on it IS beautiful, to me...
        All this talk about "impure thoughts" that lucky somebody does not have on their mind sounds a bit like you are proud of managing to avoid that issue, meaning, the issue is still there... When the shoe fits, you forget about the shoe...
        I have no qualms about looking at other men. It mainly shows that one is still alive, even after marriage. Who wants to be with a man who never ever looks at another woman? It probably means that he does not easily get excited any longer...
        • Re: to lust or not to lust

          Tue, November 6, 2007 - 10:41 AM
          im not at all saying we should subscribe to the "popular" opinion of beauty. i think supermodels are ugly. because they are. like clothes hangers...

          also totally misreading what i said about impure thoughts..but it doesn't matter

          we're basically making the same points in different ways.
  • Re: to lust or not to lust

    Tue, November 6, 2007 - 6:11 AM
    I don't think I am a shallow person at all, and I have PLENTY of times checked out both men and women and was pleased by the act of appreciating their purely physical traits. There. I said it. I don't believe that I was denigrating their overall value or cheapening human interaction.

    Of course sometimes the moment comes when said Adonis or Aphrodite opens their mouth and that moment is gone. :)

    Sure, inner beauty makes all the difference and that is what I fall in love with. But ain't nuthin' wrong with appreciating a pleasantly proportional curve.
    • Re: to lust or not to lust

      Tue, November 6, 2007 - 6:49 AM
      "Of course sometimes the moment comes when said Adonis or Aphrodite opens their mouth and that moment is gone. :) "

      Haha, yes, that happens, Tree.. ; ) ; )
      However, when you learn to pick up on a person's vibe, I think, it happens less often... I don't care madly for Woody Allen but one of the truer things he said is:"The sexiest part of a man is his brain". The thoughts, however, tend to appear in the face. Why is Clooney so much sexier than Tom Cruise? Because of the eyes...
      • Jim
        Jim
        offline 2

        Re: to lust or not to lust

        Tue, November 6, 2007 - 8:14 AM
        I don't find either of those guys the least bit interesting.
        One because of his religious leanings.
        The other because of his politics.

        It's a shame they didn't continue doing what they were good at, acting, pretending to be someone else. Because, for me, their minds are most unattractive.

        I do like a fine body, but for me an attractive body is more generally a healthy body. If you care enough to keep fit physically, it's more likely your mind is working a bit better also. Not always, unfortunately not even usually. But, for me, it's a hopeful sign, when the one portends the possibility of the other. And when the mind and body are both fit, there lies the possibility of lust.
        • Re: to lust or not to lust

          Tue, November 6, 2007 - 10:46 AM
          amen. except when you say not usually, i say always. i really believe that our physical is merely a reflection of our self-opinion and our non-physical character. so, when someone is attractive to us physically it's likely they are attractive to us in other ways. sometimes not though, because we can be attracted to certain aspects physically while others non-physically, the two not intersecting.


          ......i know that probably made no sense, i'm not the best with words sometimes
          • Re: to lust or not to lust

            Tue, November 6, 2007 - 11:27 AM
            I think it does make sense... Our brains and our bodies form from our thoughts as much as the other way around. I would add that a big part of that physical expression is not just in our consciously-perceived appearance, but in the subtleties of behavior. And I'm not even talking about easily observable "body language" here, either. These are little things that eventually start to add up: a tone of voice, a tilt of the head, a repeated pattern of eye movements, a way of breathing, a whiff of pheromone, or a certain rhythm of movement. These are most definitely expressions of our thoughts, beliefs, self-opinions, etc. Whether we lust for someone or not is based, in part, of a matching up of their subtle bits of behavior with a pattern of such behavior that we have in our own minds.

            Now... does THAT make sense?
            • Re: to lust or not to lust

              Tue, November 6, 2007 - 6:46 PM
              hell yea that's precisely what i meant.

              thanks for putting it so well :)
              • Re: to lust or not to lust

                Tue, November 6, 2007 - 9:54 PM
                I personally don't think theres anything wrong with admiring a person purely based on looks. We admire the beauty in nature, eg flowers, plants, animals and landscapes all the time, it's considered completely acceptable to do so. Whats wrong with doing it in humans too? After all we are a part of nature, right? When we look at someone we find to be attractive, powerful things take place in our brain chemistry. We release high levels of dopamine, oxytocin, adrenaline and sex hormones. It makes us feel 'good', as well as having physical effects like increased heart rate and so on. I think when we see something we find to be beautiful/aesthetically pleasing, we are really seeing the rules of life/creation. Phi can be found in be found in plants, animals, people, galaxies and so on. To look at these things is too see our connection to the divine in the universe. It's no wonder it makes us feel good. =)

                I like what Phil had to say about seeing the persons thoughts, emotions and so on in the body/face, too. Everyone loves a nice warm smile, not only because of how it looks, but the emotion/thoughts attached to it.

                "Sure, inner beauty makes all the difference and that is what I fall in love with. But ain't nuthin' wrong with appreciating a pleasantly proportional curve."

                Exactly. =)
  • Re: to lust or not to lust

    Tue, November 6, 2007 - 11:35 PM
    i feel sorry for those whom cannot identify with admiration/observation in it's pure form, and have to associate it with some ego manifestation. i love to admire the human form like i would a flower or rock. i find myself, in the gymstitution(one of the only institutions HUman should have by the way) 'checking out' dudes all the time, and i am so totally not homosexual (though i feel this limits my compositiveness as a human). furthermore there are women i love to look at whom have no sexual attraction from me, but every curve and crevasse i would love to inspect thoroughly.
    and, why, just the other day i was looking at an abnormal(to me) penis in the locker room and was mulling over how it might be one or maybe many women's delight and could not help but inspect the thing, mulling over my knowledge and reflection upon biological circumstance with regard to female orgasm(the greatest phenomena on earth)- tthe subject had a penis head 3 fold in proportion to the shaft of any i'd ever seen; swoon ladies!
    moreover dasha,
    though the feminine power seems neglected and is most certainly suppressed throughout modern civilization, the elite, wielding the actual protocols for the general population most vehemently worship the goddess entity and regard it in fear. thus it's perpetrated assault upon we who would use it to empower ourselves.
    isis forever!
    -k
    • Re: to lust or not to lust

      Tue, November 6, 2007 - 11:50 PM
      Kaimbus is right, to a degree. However, to quote Zafon, the author of the delightful novel "The shadow of the wind" see my blog, her "oratory could kill a fly in midair". ; )

      this mere human from Germany, getting her pants in a knot over that "English"
      Astrid

      p.s.
      it would make my life so much simpler if you guys would just call a spade a spade, and leave "ego manifestation" to where it belongs . The sports club, for exemple...; )
  • Re: to lust or not to lust

    Thu, November 8, 2007 - 7:12 AM
    Alright.... having just read this whole page, one thing seems to be very clear to me... as it should be clear and I'm thinking it is to everyone else as well...

    While there are some that don't agree on how to view the asthetic value of another human/spiritual being, we all perform this "wonderment of the mind" in our own ways... We are all individuals, therefore we all see differently and think differently, thus we see the human form differently and in all it's different qualities as well... how is one person's way of seeing "wrong" from anothers, and when was it for us to decide that the way others see things is wrong just because it is different from our own?

    I can see beauty within and without a person, no matter their gender, age, hair color and all of those silly details our culture likes to have us believe are important... It is not on a sexual level, it is on a level of complete admiration and awe of the creational force that is within us all... when you make it into something negative, then it becomes just that...

    If for one person looking at someone without the boundaries of three-dimensionally-conditioned eyes and seeing the *whole person* ie spirit, aura, conscious mind, physical form, Universal Identity etc., is how you look at another.... and it sounds like most of you *see* this way... then how is that wrong/negative?

    As an artist you have to look at the value of everything, and find what everyone else has missed... so it is true when looking on another person... what is the one thing that no one else notices that is truly spectacular? To see these qualities and admire them is focusing on the purity in "it's" form... the purity in this instance would be the human physical self...
    Again it is only negative if you manifest it as such.... I have a hard time with the idea that the human body in all it's beauty-> in, out and around, should not be appreciated... I work with bodies everyday and am always awed at how negative our perception of our physical selves can be... that is part of my job, to facilitate a person's ability to re-unite the physical self with mind and spirit... I couldn't ask for a better job!

Recent topics in "La Femme"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
ah hah! dasha 2 December 4, 2007
another poem.... MerryMarie :D 0 November 14, 2007
describing the beauty of women in poetry offlineAstrid 4 November 9, 2007
the goddess dasha 10 November 9, 2007
favorite things dasha 27 November 9, 2007