View Full Version : The Schoolgirl Outfit...Guys P.O.V.
LoveComesFromWithin
02-15-2008, 10:55 PM
Can't say I care for it because of the creepy factor, but personally I have the same sense of creepy seeing men and women with absolutely no pubic hair. When I grew up that was abnormal. I know it is current fad, but it also makes me wonder if there is an aspect of being turned on by the pre-pubescent look.
Anyway, hockeydude, you really will sleep better if you do not read HH or SG. There is much in there that will end up leaving you feel disturbed, and maybe even ruin the SC fantasy for you. Read at your own risk.
i wish that can come back in fashion, everyday i risk nicking my clit.}:D lol, how many of you didnt want to hear that?
xdamage
02-15-2008, 10:58 PM
But it takes two to tango. If there's something morally wrong with someone on the demand side of a controversial transaction, then hence there ought to be something equally wrong with the party on the supply side who depends on that very wrongness in order to make a living.
...I have a relative, for example, who was a child prostitute. I don't think she is morally culpable; I think the men who patronized her services are. Completely unrelated facts - just an example of how two sides are not always equal
This is a valid counter example, but it does not come completely for free.
The cost here is that the child must acknowledge that the he/she was/is a victim due to immaturity, an inability to make fully informed decisions. So applied fully to doc's point, then we would also have to say that the women upstairs either are fully mature and responsible, or that they are victims to some degree, but it is due to immaturity. I don't think many of them would find that so flattering. What is not okay is having one's cake and eating it too. So that they can't argue that they are both fully mature, informed, adults while also believing themselves to be victims, used, at the same time when it is more pleasing to their egos.
Doc's point is more subtle though, and it is valid. The fact is that strippers make their money selling to customers who are often are much older, who are willing to pay money for sexual stimulation from women who are often much younger. This is the market demand that strippers enjoy. And he is right, they can only point fingers at the buyers so much while also enjoying the fruit of that market. If it wasn't so, if the demand wasn't there, strippers would have to find other work. And doc is right, when you look at it from a neutral 3rd party point of view, the situation is analogous to say, the people working at cigarette companies morally judging their customers while continuing to profit off the very same people. From a neutral point of view, it is absolutely crystal clear that they are responsible for benefiting from, even going out of their way, to increase the demand for their product. Applied to strippers, they do this by how they dress and behave to encourage "pervs" to buy.
Again, this comes down to a simple thing. Wanting to pick and choose views that leave one feeling good about oneself. So basically, let me profit from pervy behavior, but don't make me feel bad about myself for benefiting, even encouraging it. Cake and eating it too applies.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 02:17 AM
Really? Even keeping in mind that most jurisdictions have "buffer zones" - usually a period of two years? Like a 17 year old could have sex with someone between 15 and 19? You really think the law needs to expand to allow grown men to seduce and prey on teenagers?
Okay. Wholly divorced from the law - I think there is something seriously, seriously off about a grown man perving on a 15 year old, her breast size notwithstanding; it's perfectly legal, but I still find it off.
Those same jurisdictions think nothing of treating the teenager as an adult when the teenager commits a crime. Funny how that works. But I digress...
This issue really comes down to little more than how we define "children." I don't think adults should be preying on "children" anymore than you do. Where we disagree is on who we each consider a "child." Is it 14? 16? 18? 20? Like I said, physical and emotional maturity are better indicators of what constitutes and adult versus a child, but very difficult to legislate, so we go with an age. 16 happens to be the most common age, globally.
The whole age aspect is the legal side though. To me, sick = attracted to a child's body. Normal = attracted to an adult's body. Age and physical maturity are related, but age does not always define physical maturity.
Are you really saying that if a 20-year old girl somehow still had the body of a child, it would be perfectly okay for me to be attracted to her, but sick if I found a 16 year-old with the body of a fully-developed woman attractive? Really?
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 07:12 AM
oh, you're not exactly going out on a limb here. it's been well documented that i feel that way about any canadian. still, that isn't my point either.
Nonsense. Everyone likes Canadians. We're so polite and agreeable. Everyone knows that.
hehe...mr p, Jenny would probably charge you a lot of money to slap her. I'd give you the hockeybobby discount though. You could take the first shot for free. After that I'd have to make you pay though. ;)
hb
Jenny
02-16-2008, 11:00 AM
Those same jurisdictions think nothing of treating the teenager as an adult when the teenager commits a crime. Funny how that works. But I digress...
Yes. Funny how we can see people as being victimized by other people in some circumstances and not in others. Uncanny.
This issue really comes down to little more than how we define "children." I don't think adults should be preying on "children" anymore than you do. Where we disagree is on who we each consider a "child." Is it 14? 16? 18? 20? Like I said, physical and emotional maturity are better indicators of what constitutes and adult versus a child, but very difficult to legislate, so we go with an age. 16 happens to be the most common age, globally.
Technically, I said "teenagers." I don't think adults should be preying on teenagers just because they have breasts or because they are capable of achieving erection.
The whole age aspect is the legal side though. To me, sick = attracted to a child's body. Normal = attracted to an adult's body. Age and physical maturity are related, but age does not always define physical maturity.
Neither do boobs. Like, I'm sorry stat, but having breasts doesn't constitute having an "adult's body"; there is more to a person's appearance than boobs; I had breasts when I was 15. It didn't mean that I had "an adult's body" (I mean, by definition, since I wasn't an adult) and it certainly didn't mean that I generally resembled an adult.
Are you really saying that if a 20-year old girl somehow still had the body of a child, it would be perfectly okay for me to be attracted to her, but sick if I found a 16 year-old with the body of a fully-developed woman attractive? Really?
Do I think it is normal to be attracted to a 20 year old woman who might be diminutive in stature? Yes. Do I think it is normal to perv on a teenaged girl (like unless you are a teenaged boy)? No. Really. There is an inherent difference between a 16 year and a 20 year old. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 11:16 AM
^^^ I really don't see it. Do you define an adult's body by age alone then? Age and something else? What exactly?
xdamage
02-16-2008, 11:22 AM
There is an inherent difference between a 16 year and a 20 year old. I'm sorry if you can't see that.
There is, but there is also quite a difference between a 20 year old and say a 25 year old, or a 25 year old and 35 year old, and so on. Although few believe it until they reach those ages and then look back. Part of the reason we feel it is disturbing is based in good biological reasons. Part of it is the society you grew up in and the common social beliefs you were raised with. It is not black or white but a mix of both biological and social reasons that leave us believing that there is something not right by older people having sex with significantly younger people.
Bob_Loblaw
02-16-2008, 11:52 AM
hehe...mr p, Jenny would probably charge you a lot of money to slap her. I'd give you the hockeybobby discount though. You could take the first shot for free. After that I'd have to make you pay though. ;)
hb
HB, you forgot that Punk would be using a bag of loonies though
i wish that can come back in fashion, everyday i risk nicking my clit. lol, how many of you didnt want to hear that?
I appreciate the risks you take
Jenny
02-16-2008, 11:56 AM
^^^ I really don't see it. Do you define an adult's body by age alone then? Age and something else? What exactly?
Well. There is one very simple way of defining "an adult's body" - the body of an adult. I know; it just seems too easy. I quite simply don't think that because a young girl has breasts that she resembles an adult, whereas I do think that an adult who is small in size, even with small breasts, DOES resemble an adult. Breasts do not mark maturity. Even physical maturity. Like I said - when I was fifteen I had breasts larger than my mother; it certainly did not mean that I appeared to be more physically mature than my mother. Your conception of physical maturity is flat out wrong.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 12:11 PM
^^^ My science teachers disagree with you.
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 12:24 PM
Hey guys (and ladies) how about the Cheerleader outfits (there are many variations). I mean, is there any sporting event, or any event period, that isn't immediately improved by the presence of Cheerleaders?
I ask you in all sincerity....
hb
Jenny
02-16-2008, 12:35 PM
^^^ My science teachers disagree with you.
Okay. There is no way to apprise yourself of someone's age except breast size. Breast size is the sole physical measure of maturity. The bigger they are - the more physically mature the person. I'm sure your science teachers would be willing to sign on to that.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 12:48 PM
^^^ I'm not sure where your focus on breasts is coming from. Anyway...
Physical maturity happens when one goes through the entire process of puberty, the maturation of all primary sexual organs, the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and reaching one's full body size. In women, this is the start of their menstrual cycle, the development of breast tissue, the widening of the hips, and the appearance of body hair. In men, development of the testes, the start of semen production, a broadening of the shoulders, a deepening of the voice, the development of body hair. That's the difference between a child's body and an adult's body. It is related to, but not defined by, their age in years.
You defined an adult's body as the body of an adult. An adult is defined a few different ways, in some cases by physical maturity, and in other cases (the law) by age. For the purposes of what is legal and right vs. wrong, I would follow BOTH definitions. That is, unless one is both physically mature and of legal age, it would be wrong for an adult to have sex with them. For the purposes of arousal, I'm only concerned with physical maturity, and I reserve the "sick" label for those who find a pre-pubescent and not physically mature body, attractive.
Jenny
02-16-2008, 01:01 PM
My point stat, is just that some of the indicia you point to do not necessarily make the entirety of the body "mature". I have a 15 year old niece; she has breasts, that may or may not develop more. That hardly means that she is not visually identifiable as a pubescent child; that is, the fact that she is, in some ways, physically developed, does not mean that she has, generally, a woman's body. And, yes, I find something wrong with someone your age "lusting after" that body, and when she comes out with me, I would socially eschew any grown man who lusted after that body - as in I would be "what the fuck is wrong with you?". (When I was a young teenager one of my father's friends seemed to share your opinion on physical maturity. My father seemed to share mine, and thought that it was entirely unreasonable for him to look upon my body with sexual interest because I had (he assumed) pubic hair.) The options are limited to "teenaged girls" and "little children", stat. You have the option of lusting after actual grown women, who resemble in all ways grown women, as well.
And what; a 20 year old woman - even a 25 year old woman who is small and diminutive and has small breasts - hardly has a "child's body" or an "immature body." She is just small. What a dreadful thing to say.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 01:09 PM
My point stat, is just that some of the indicia you point to do not necessarily make the entirety of the body "mature". I have a 15 year old niece; she has breasts, that may or may not develop more. That hardly means that she is not visually identifiable as a pubescent child; that is, the fact that she is, in some ways, physically developed, does not mean that she has, generally, a woman's body. And, yes, I find something wrong with someone your age "lusting after" that body, and when she comes out with me, I would socially eschew any grown man who lusted after that body - as in I would be "what the fuck is wrong with you?". (When I was a young teenager one of my father's friends seemed to share your opinion on physical maturity. My father seemed to share mine, and thought that it was entirely unreasonable for him to look upon my body with sexual interest because I had (he assumed) pubic hair.) The options are limited to "teenaged girls" and "little children", stat. You have the option of lusting after actual grown women, who resemble in all ways grown women, as well.
Agreed, although I don't think you yet understand my opinion of what constitutes physical maturity. If a person has not finished puberty or finished becoming physically mature, then they don't have an adult's body and it is wrong to lust after. I listed many things, breasts alone don't cut it. Seriously, where is this breast focus of yours coming from?
And what; a 20 year old woman - even a 25 year old woman who is small and diminutive and has small breasts - hardly has a "child's body" or an "immature body." She is just small. What a dreadful thing to say.
Yes, so why do you keep saying it? I sure never did. I referred to a 20 year old with a child's body, which from my previous post is clarified as one that has not finished going through puberty and the physical maturation process.
Jenny
02-16-2008, 01:15 PM
Agreed, although I don't think you yet understand my opinion of what constitutes physical maturity. If a person has not finished puberty or finished becoming physically mature, then they don't have an adult's body and it is wrong to lust after. I listed many things, breasts alone don't cut it. Seriously, where is this breast focus of yours coming from?
Because you can hardly see whether or not she has pubic hair unless you are already being pretty inappropriate?
Yes, so why do you keep saying it? I sure never did. I referred to a 20 year old with a child's body, which from my previous post is clarified as one that has not finished going through puberty and the physical maturation process.
I'm sorry - what 20 year old who does not have an illness has not gone through puberty? Before you said that you thought it was "preferable" to lust after a 15 year who had "a woman's body" (although many of the indicia you listed are hardly visible to the naked eye) than a 20 year old "with a child's body." By that you meant 20 year olds who were suffering from pituitary gland related illnesses and not simply 20 year olds who were small in stature? I'm skeptical, lestat. In either case - you are then talking about rather notable exceptions in the human race which are not particularly useful for setting a baseline of "right or wrong" behaviour.
xdamage
02-16-2008, 01:24 PM
..
Physical maturity happens when one goes through the entire process of puberty, the maturation of all primary sexual organs, the development of secondary sexual characteristics, and reaching one's full body size. ...
I just recently attended a Bar Mitzvah for distant cousin. A ritual that is a reminder of a time when a post pubescent boy could be considered a man (and likewise the same for women), although the reality is he is still physically a boy in many ways, capable of procreating, but by no means finished physically changing. Still, evolution doesn't require that every creature finish physically changing before that creature can procreate. Whatever works works, and apparently being able to procreate before the entire physical maturity process has finished worked for humans.
Still, most of this discussion is a pointless one. The fact is that people go on physically changing after puberty. They also go on physically changing their whole life in fact as the genes don't stop at 16, at 18, at 30, at 40... we are always physically changing, and always mentally changing. People may hit a kind of physical peak around 18-20, but in evolutionary terms, that is about ideal if they had children at puberty, they would have many physically healthy years ahead to raise them, peaking about mid-way through their child's own life, around age 7 for the child, eventually aging a bit more themselves (declining?) until their own children reach puberty.
The main problem is we live in a modern society surrounded by technology undreamed of until very recently in history, and as such you have whole societies of people and academic 20 somethings that are VERY confused about human nature. They simply don't have any sense of the world in which our genes evolved, and have far too much time to live in academic wonderland. It's a nice time to live and wouldn't choose to live in the past, but there really is no way to understand human nature or our sex drives without understanding the world that our genes evolved in. Our modern society is a very twisted reality by comparison.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 01:24 PM
Because you can hardly see whether or not she has pubic hair unless you are already being pretty inappropriate?
Body size, hip shape, arm hair, voice. I think I can tell adult women from children by more ways than breasts and pubic hair alone.
I'm sorry - what 20 year old who does not have an illness has not gone through puberty? Before you said that you thought it was "preferable" to lust after a 15 year who had "a woman's body" (although many of the indicia you listed are hardly visible to the naked eye) than a 20 year old "with a child's body." By that you meant 20 year olds who were suffering from pituitary gland related illnesses and not simply 20 year olds who were small in stature? I'm skeptical, lestat. In either case - you are then talking about rather notable exceptions in the human race which are not particularly useful for setting a baseline of "right or wrong" behaviour.
You're correct that these are hypothetical extremes, but they're useful to illustrate the difference between the two definitions of adult, which is what I think this entire thread is really about. We have different notions of adulthood, one is biological and governs biology (attraction), one is legal and governs our actions.
Jenny
02-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Body size, hip shape, arm hair, voice. I think I can tell adult women from children by more ways than breasts and pubic hair alone.
It's not like children become adult women in one day. My point was that you are perfectly capable of telling adult female bodies from young teenaged bodies and that lusting after teenagers is not morally neutral.
You're correct that these are hypothetical extremes, but they're useful to illustrate the difference between the two definitions of adult, which is what I think this entire thread is really about. We have different notions of adulthood, one is biological and governs biology (attraction), one is legal and governs our actions.
Dude; I think that is a bit of of a faulty dichotomy. And no, I don't find them to be particularly useful; I think it is the equivalent of taking someone 9 feet tall and using them as a model for clothes for the rest of the human race. The clothes are really only going to fit the guy who is 9 feet tall. Comparing a hypothetical 15 year old who has experienced an accelerated puberty, and has no indicia of her actual age or real level of maturity with a hypothetical 20 year old suffering from a pituitary disease preventing puberty is NOT a useful illustration of "adult". And like I said - I'm skeptical that was your initial contention.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 02:00 PM
It's not like children become adult women in one day. My point was that you are perfectly capable of telling adult female bodies from young teenaged bodies and that lusting after teenagers is not morally neutral.
Yes, it's a lengthy process that takes years. I don't know how you can be so certain that a 17-year old does or does not have an adult woman's body by age alone. She may, she may not. It's why I find age to be a poor indicator (by itself and not counting extremes, like I'm fairly sure a 14 year old is going to look like or mostly like a child and a 25 year old is going to look like or mostly like an adult - but those are extremes).
Dude; I think that is a bit of of a faulty dichotomy. And no, I don't find them to be particularly useful; I think it is the equivalent of taking someone 9 feet tall and using them as a model for clothes for the rest of the human race. The clothes are really only going to fit the guy who is 9 feet tall. Comparing a hypothetical 15 year old who has experienced an accelerated puberty, and has no indicia of her actual age or real level of maturity with a hypothetical 20 year old suffering from a pituitary disease preventing puberty is NOT a useful illustration of "adult".
Oh. Kind of creates a impasee to the discussion then. Those two notions are sort of my entire point. I'm not making it up either; "adult" is defined with those different notions in dictionaries. What do you find faulty about it?
And like I said - I'm skeptical that was your initial contention.
I'm well aware that I have no ethos on the subject.
Jenny
02-16-2008, 02:05 PM
Oh. Kind of creates a impasee to the discussion then. Those two notions are sort of my entire point. I'm not making it up either; "adult" is defined with those different notions in dictionaries. What do you find faulty about it? I meant the dichotomy of "biology governing attraction:law governing behaviour".
seriously - looking at two people with what is essentially a deformity like they are a) normal representations and b) the only possible choices is not a useful model in determining a normal psycho-sexual response.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 02:27 PM
I meant the dichotomy of "biology governing attraction:law governing behaviour".
Now I'm really confused. I thought you said above that you didn't think the laws were an attempt at governing attraction, but of protecting legal minors from the adults who might prey on them. So what should govern attraction, if not physical maturity?
seriously - looking at two people with what is essentially a deformity like they are a) normal representations and b) the only possible choices is not a useful model in determining a normal psycho-sexual response.
That makes sense. How about a concrete example then. I own Heroes season 1 on DVD. While watching it, I found the actress Hayden Panettiere to be a very beautiful woman. During filming of season 1, she was 17 years old. That makes her rather emotionally immature compared to me at 29, and in my state a legal minor. It would be both morally and legally wrong of me to have sex with her. I do, however, find her attractive (as do all of my straight male friends). Does that make me "sick?" Does that answer change if I'm in a state or country where it is legal for a 21+ year old to have sex with a 17 year old?
Jenny
02-16-2008, 02:44 PM
Now I'm really confused. I thought you said above that you didn't think the laws were an attempt at governing attraction, but of protecting legal minors from the adults who might prey on them. So what should govern attraction, if not physical maturity?
I don't think that biology is what governs attraction; I certainly don't think biology is ALL that governs attraction. Nor do I think law is the only thing that governs behaviour. (At least I rather hope not, since the age of consent up here is 14). I also don't think that "physical maturity" in the complete sense is really what you were talking about. I don't think you are attracted to someone because of hair on her arms. I think it has more to do with breasts. (Remember when you asked me where my obsession with breasts was coming from? It is because I straight up do not believe that you are as attentive to some of this other indicia that would not readily visible or available to you; I think what you are interested in is the breasts.)
That makes sense. How about a concrete example then. I own Heroes season 1 on DVD. While watching it, I found the actress Hayden Panettiere to be a very beautiful woman. During filming of season 1, she was 17 years old. That makes her rather emotionally immature compared to me at 29, and in my state a legal minor. It would be both morally and legally wrong of me to have sex with her. I do, however, find her attractive (as do all of my straight male friends). Does that make me "sick?" Does that answer change if I'm in a state or country where it is legal for a 21+ year old to have sex with a 17 year old?
I think my 15 year niece is very pretty. I don't think that means I have to lust after her. My sister's boyfriend also thinks she is very pretty; I am DAMN sure that he is not lusting after her (my sister and the niece are very close; she has grown up with him). When I was 15 many of my dad's friends probably thought I was nice looking. He only fell out with the one that couldn't stop staring at and making comments about my ass and who kept trying to inappriopriately flirt with me. (note - it's not illegal. Just really inappropriate).
Anyway - I do not think, in the context of the show, that you would be "confused" about her age. I think she comes across as a teenager, not an "adult woman". Therefore, I would suggest that she is lacking at least some indicia of "adult womanhood" either in her face, body or demeanour. What does that mean to you?
Here's an interesting thing too - she is an actress, on your screen, not a girl living in the apartment next to you. I think that makes a difference. As for "21+" - that gets into more specific legal questions. I mean, there is a big difference between a pretty, 17 year old girl with a 21 year old boyfriend and a 30 year old boyfriend; make the boyfriend 40, and there seems to be something pretty wrong, right? So, maybe 2 years isn't an adequate buffer? Maybe it should be 4? I don't know. There is a legislative question on which you would want a whole bunch of social science evidence. Putting it simply - if she was a girl living next door to you, I think there would be something wrong with you perving on her. I'm not sure it is similarly wrong to think she is pretty while watching her on TV.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 03:37 PM
Anyway - I do not think, in the context of the show, that you would be "confused" about her age. I think she comes across as a teenager, not an "adult woman". Therefore, I would suggest that she is lacking at least some indicia of "adult womanhood" either in her face, body or demeanour. What does that mean to you?
Yeah this is just where we disagree, though I think I do understand now about how you define adulthood; requiring a culmination of many things greater than just physical maturity. I think her body is womanly. She can act like a "teen," but she's physically mature and that is what largely governs my attraction. There are, of course, other factors that make one adult more favorable to me than another, but as far as whether an attraction is "right" or "wrong" for me, is a question of physical adulthood or not. Acting on it is a different matter.
Here's an interesting thing too - she is an actress, on your screen, not a girl living in the apartment next to you. I think that makes a difference. As for "21+" - that gets into more specific legal questions. I mean, there is a big difference between a pretty, 17 year old girl with a 21 year old boyfriend and a 30 year old boyfriend; make the boyfriend 40, and there seems to be something pretty wrong, right? So, maybe 2 years isn't an adequate buffer? Maybe it should be 4? I don't know. There is a legislative question on which you would want a whole bunch of social science evidence. Putting it simply - if she was a girl living next door to you, I think there would be something wrong with you perving on her. I'm not sure it is similarly wrong to think she is pretty while watching her on TV.
Oh definitely on the 40 & 17 year old; that goes back to the question of emotional maturity and the much older person being more predatory in that situation. That's where, for me, acting on it becomes wrong (even where it may not be illegal), but not the attraction itself.
Hmm, interesting about TV versus next door, but not a distinction I'd really make. Well you'd definitely find things wrong with me. I see where we disagree, but I at least understand your point of view now. Thanks for clarifying Jenny :)
Even though Miss D is 28, I bet she would look pervvy badass on one. I might suggest it to her. She will probably expect me to buy the outfit and likely charge me more money but at my age if there is a chance to perk up this ancient appendage, I'm on it :)
xdamage
02-16-2008, 05:12 PM
..Oh definitely on the 40 & 17 year old; that goes back to the question of emotional maturity and the much older person being more predatory in that situation. That's where, for me, acting on it becomes wrong (even where it may not be illegal), but not the attraction itself.
The problem with this is that unless you believe people magically all emotionally mature on their 18th birthday, in effect the argument comes at a cost... in effect you both just agreed that most younger stripper women are less mature than the 40 something men who use their services. Are you sure that is a conclusion the 20 somethings would agree with?
Jenny
02-16-2008, 05:20 PM
Yeah this is just where we disagree, though I think I do understand now about how you define adulthood; requiring a culmination of many things greater than just physical maturity. I think her body is womanly. Can I just point out that I think there are things about "physical maturity" besides her body? Like there is a whole physical face on top of that. I'm also not entirely sure that "demeanour" is always "non-physical". Like I don't think that has to do with emotional maturity; I think that has to do with how she is perceived and "visually negotiated" by you - and would probably have a much more significant effect on you than her arm hair.
lestat1
02-16-2008, 06:09 PM
Can I just point out that I think there are things about "physical maturity" besides her body? Like there is a whole physical face on top of that. I'm also not entirely sure that "demeanour" is always "non-physical". Like I don't think that has to do with emotional maturity; I think that has to do with how she is perceived and "visually negotiated" by you - and would probably have a much more significant effect on you than her arm hair.
By body, I include the face, although I'm not sure if you meant that non-literally. I'm using the term "physical maturity" very literally. But I agree that demeanor can be physical. I think if I were with a woman who started rolling around on the ground and pounding her fists like a petulent child, that would be weird and not at all arousing. The way one carries themselves is partly physical, although in my example just there, I'd have to say that's being both physically and emotionally immature.
I don't know if I wasn't clear, but the list of physical attributes I presented was to offer up the notion that there is more to physical maturity in a woman than just the presence of breasts. It was unordered and unweighted. Obviously I'm going to notice a woman's breasts before her arm hair. For that matter I'm going to notice a person's overall height, size and body shape before breasts. One can tell a child from an adult at a distance before even knowing their gender, so I'd have to rank body size/shape first. Body hair would be last, that takes being very close. Breasts versus butt/hips? All depends on angle of approach. Although for that matter breasts and butt are kind of a subset of "shape."
lestat1
02-16-2008, 06:10 PM
The problem with this is that unless you believe people magically all emotionally mature on their 18th birthday, in effect the argument comes at a cost... in effect you both just agreed that most younger stripper women are less mature than the 40 something men who use their services. Are you sure that is a conclusion the 20 somethings would agree with?
Hehe, they (meaning any 20-year old) would disagree with it...until they turned 40. :P
xdamage
02-16-2008, 06:50 PM
Hehe, they (meaning any 20-year old) would disagree with it...until they turned 40. :P
In general true ;)
The reality is that maturity is one simple word, but it is a complex "thing" involving many aspects of growing, and while it is true that in general 40 somethings are more mature then 17, or 20 something, we find people all over the place, a vast gray scale, of maturity in the various emotional and intellectual ways.
Physically, we all grow older, our bodies never stop changing, not at 13, not at 17, not at 21, not at 25... it just goes on until we die. So there is no magic point where we become fully physically formed, where we become "men" or "women". But we can look at some things like when are we capable of reproducing? When have our brains finished wiring themselves? When have our pubescent hormones peaked, or started to cool off?
Still, I think doc hit on the real hot spot in this discussion and it is the one few want to face because the implications are, strippers are people too, and capable of benefiting from what they also see as detestable behavior. The so called "pervy" desire, which might be behind the school girl fetish, which is also a very successful stripper outfit many strippers use to cash in on the fetish.
See the thing is, it doesn't matter if you are 20 something or 40 something. We all want what we want, and many people are quite good at hustling others to get it, whether it is wanting money, or sex, they can be contradictory in their beliefs, blind to their own contradictory nature, while still working hard to get what they want. Such is human nature.
Jenny
02-16-2008, 08:30 PM
By body, I include the face, although I'm not sure if you meant that non-literally. I'm using the term "physical maturity" very literally. But I agree that demeanor can be physical. I think if I were with a woman who started rolling around on the ground and pounding her fists like a petulent child, that would be weird and not at all arousing. The way one carries themselves is partly physical, although in my example just there, I'd have to say that's being both physically and emotionally immature.
I don't know if I wasn't clear, but the list of physical attributes I presented was to offer up the notion that there is more to physical maturity in a woman than just the presence of breasts. It was unordered and unweighted. Obviously I'm going to notice a woman's breasts before her arm hair. For that matter I'm going to notice a person's overall height, size and body shape before breasts. One can tell a child from an adult at a distance before even knowing their gender, so I'd have to rank body size/shape first. Body hair would be last, that takes being very close. Breasts versus butt/hips? All depends on angle of approach. Although for that matter breasts and butt are kind of a subset of "shape."
Okay, well, if we're going to be all reasonable about it... I understand what you are saying that sometimes, particularly when young women are on the cusp of adulthood, finding them attractive is not abnormal. I'm a little more comfortable with 17 and 18 than 15, however. However I must stress again that I do not think finding a schoolgirl outfit attractive is actually related to finding schoolgirls attractive. I mean, if you are essentially supporting the argument on the pink side that strippers in schoolgirl outfits are proxies for schoolgirls, but with the exception that you think it is normal and positive... I cannot get behind that, and I don't think it is.
I'm pretty impressed that while you seemed miles apart in the beginning your opinions have coalesced into something we can all accept. This is exactly the kind of cooperation we need to solve our problems.
I wish you guys were running together on a presidential ticket. Well, Jenny can't because she's Canadian but still, one can wish.
FBR
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 09:04 PM
I gotta say FBR, the boys and girls of SW have done yeoman work. They have discussed the bejesus out of the Schoolgirl outfit, and all it's connotations...on the Pink and the Blue.
I threw this out in an earlier post on this thread:
Is there any sporting event, or any event period, that isn't improved by the presence of cheerleaders?
Do you think this is worthy of a seperate thread??
hb
Jenny
02-16-2008, 09:16 PM
I have no inherent problem with the outfit but I think cheerleading is stupid.
I gotta say FBR, the boys and girls of SW have done yeoman work. They have discussed the bejesus out of the Schoolgirl outfit, and all it's connotations...on the Pink and the Blue.
I threw this out in an earlier post on this thread:
Is there any sporting event, or any event period, that isn't improved by the presence of cheerleaders?
Do you think this is worthy of a seperate thread??
hb
Oftentimes opinions do coalesce. But in this situation, I suspect it had more to do with the strain of the debate (unless you are X...he will debate forever :P ) rather than folks actually coming together. But I tossed out my comments in jest because I thought it was cute that stat was able to keep Jenny engaged. I mean, she usually loses interest after two or three posts.
As far as a cheerleader thread goes, post away if you want. You are established here and I'm sure know that the members will embrace it or not. Lord knows, I've started many that got the sound of crickets chirping in response. Obviously those threads deserved the ignoring.
Jenny has already stated that a cheerleader thread would be stupid. She always wants to get to the head of the line ;)
FBR
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 09:58 PM
I have no inherent problem with the outfit but I think cheerleading is stupid.
Ok, wait a second...attractive women in sexy outfits dancing a sexy dance to loud music. That can't be the part you find stupid. Are you thinking of the traditional college cheerleaders that you see tossing each other in the air on tv cheerleader competitions?
hb
crizgolfer
02-16-2008, 10:00 PM
Reading through this thread has led me to one conclusion. You people know how to beat the crap out of a schoolgirl outfit fantasy...whew...
HB....please don't start a cheerleader thread...that is the only fantasy I have left....:O
Jenny
02-16-2008, 10:13 PM
HB - I just think cheerleading is stupid. I cannot get behind a... pasttime that involves organizing little dance routines and little outfits to do a "go team go" kind of effect. If you are not "go team go"ing... it seems even more pointless.
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 10:17 PM
Reading through this thread has led me to one conclusion. You people know how to beat the crap out of a schoolgirl outfit fantasy...whew...
HB....please don't start a cheerleader thread...that is the only fantasy I have left....:O
;D No worries criz, I won't start a cheerleader thread. I take it your answer to the question: "is there any sporting event, or any event period, that isn't improved by the presence of cheerleaders?" would be a resounding NO?
hb
HB - I just think cheerleading is stupid. I cannot get behind a... pasttime that involves organizing little dance routines and little outfits to do a "go team go" kind of effect. If you are not "go team go"ing... it seems even more pointless.
This could be profound, folks. I mean, little outfits and dance routines sounds strangely familiar. I'll hedge on the pointless, though :P
FBR
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 10:36 PM
HB - I just think cheerleading is stupid. I cannot get behind a... pasttime that involves organizing little dance routines and little outfits to do a "go team go" kind of effect. If you are not "go team go"ing... it seems even more pointless.
I think the term "cheerleader" is almost a misnomer when it comes to the modern professional sporting event. There's no longer any "gimee a J, gimme an E", etc. They don't bother with that anymore. They are just dancers, doing choreographed routines during TV timeouts, and other breaks in the action. They fill gaps in the entertainment and keep the patrons excited and vocal. It improves the overall sense of being entertained for the paying customer.
Beyond a mild curiosity in the gymnastic abilities, I have no interest whatsoever in the college/high school traditional type cheerleaders (let me be VERY clear about this). They are not at all like the pretty, sexy, dancing girls of which I referred to above.
In terms of being pointless or not, I suppose that would depend on what other entertainment might be offered to fill a time out. Funny mascots riding around on scooters, scoreboard games...and whatnot. You might find that more entertaining, and I couldn't argue with that.
hb
Jenny
02-16-2008, 10:41 PM
In terms of being pointless or not, I suppose that would depend on what other entertainment might be offered to fill a time out. Funny mascots riding around on scooters, scoreboard games...and whatnot. You might find that more entertaining, and I couldn't argue with that.
hbI think that comparison is about apt - and about why I think it is stupid.
hockeybobby
02-16-2008, 10:52 PM
Good night all...hockey early tomorrow. Thanks for all the interesting and thoughtful discussion.
hb
Bob_Loblaw
02-17-2008, 12:10 AM
When your team is getting their ass kicked, sometimes the cheerleaders are all you have.
lestat1
02-17-2008, 01:12 AM
I'm pretty impressed that while you seemed miles apart in the beginning your opinions have coalesced into something we can all accept. This is exactly the kind of cooperation we need to solve our problems.
I wish you guys were running together on a presidential ticket. Well, Jenny can't because she's Canadian but still, one can wish.
FBR
FBR, I'm of the opinion that by around high school to college, most people have pretty much made up their minds and opinions. You're very rarely going to change an adult's mind. Every once in a while my opinions change, but it's usually due to ignorance on my part where I learn more about a topic and as a result change my mind. So I discuss things to get someone else to understand my point of view and to understand theirs. If you're lucky and both are reasonable, you can even reach a middle ground. As an extreme moderate, I like reaching middle grounds. :)
lestat1
02-17-2008, 01:23 AM
Okay, well, if we're going to be all reasonable about it... I understand what you are saying that sometimes, particularly when young women are on the cusp of adulthood, finding them attractive is not abnormal. I'm a little more comfortable with 17 and 18 than 15, however.
Absolutely; it's only a few years, but the difference between 15 and 17/18 is typically pretty big! 15 is kind of caterpillar, 17/18 is more butterfly.
However I must stress again that I do not think finding a schoolgirl outfit attractive is actually related to finding schoolgirls attractive. I mean, if you are essentially supporting the argument on the pink side that strippers in schoolgirl outfits are proxies for schoolgirls, but with the exception that you think it is normal and positive... I cannot get behind that, and I don't think it is.
Ooh I'm going to have to think about this one. The first three thoughts that come to mind are (1) that the outfits are skimpy and therefore hot. (2) Going way back to my first post in this thread; that they're not about schoolgirls in the sense of "hey she looks 15; hot!" but that there may be a connection made somewhere in the brain to youth and heath. (3) Kind of like how smelling oatmeal raisin cookies might elicit positive memories of one's grandmother, there may be feelings and memories that bring a man back to his teenage days of tremendous lust and arousal. I mean, I'm only 29, and the difference between my sexuality now and at 19 is logarithmic. Things that make me feel 19 again could trigger that same libido. But I'm going to sleep on this one (after some World Of Warcarft - I have my priorities). :P
EDIT: Note that I am not saying oatmeal raisin cookies or my grandmother are arousing.
lestat1
02-17-2008, 01:25 AM
On cheerleading - well, I attended a college basketball game last December. Possibly due to the fact that I find sports insanely boring, the highlight of the afternoon were the college cheerleaders, their outfits, their dancing, pretty much every last thing about them. Yeah, I enjoyed that a lot.
mr_punk
02-17-2008, 07:30 AM
How about a concrete example then. I own Heroes season 1 on DVD. While watching it, I found the actress Hayden Panettiere to be a very beautiful woman. During filming of season 1, she was 17 years old.WTF? 17 y.o.? you should be ashamed of yourself, stat. LOL. seriously, this series of exchanges reminds me of the time a group of friends (all middle-aged pervs..er..males) pondered the age old question: "generally, women reach their physical peak in beauty between the ages of?". IIRC, the range varied from 17-28. 30 seemed to be the kiss of death.
Beyond a mild curiosity in the gymnastic abilities, I have no interest whatsoever in the college/high school traditional type cheerleaders (let me be VERY clear about this). They are not at all like the pretty, sexy, dancing girls of which I referred to above.LOL. a mild curiosity in the gymnastic abilities? FYI, gymnastics is another perv favorite. young and fit women pulling the spandex of their leotard stuck between their ass cheeks is hot.
HB - I just think cheerleading is stupid. I cannot get behind a... pasttime that involves organizing little dance routines and little outfits to do a "go team go" kind of effect. If you are not "go team go"ing... it seems even more pointless.sure, but who cares? it's entertaining eye candy. besides, nursing students, cheer leading and gymnastics seems to be the feeder industry for strippers.
doc-catfish
02-17-2008, 08:50 AM
HB - I just think cheerleading is stupid. I cannot get behind a... pasttime that involves organizing little dance routines and little outfits to do a "go team go" kind of effect. If you are not "go team go"ing... it seems even more pointless.
Well dayum, Jennifer and I actually agree on something. Watching "Bring It On" must have been hell for you.
Although I don't feel cheerleading is completely pointless. I see it as merely a banal activity that society offers to attractive girls (and to a lesser extent gay boys) in hopes that their normal life dreams will get derailed and they're lured into the sex industry.
Jenny
02-17-2008, 09:32 AM
WTF? 17 y.o.? you should be ashamed of yourself, stat. LOL. seriously, this series of exchanges reminds me of the time a group of friends (all middle-aged pervs..er..males) pondered the age old question: "generally, women reach their physical peak in beauty between the ages of?". IIRC, the range varied from 17-28. 30 seemed to be the kiss of death.
Well, that's true. I mean especially if you are just looking at bodies. 30 is about when most people start becoming less attractive; they put a little weight, they are working more so they are more sedentary for more hours and their hair gets less shiny, they are less strong and generally less flexible and physically capable (count the number of guys who can touch their toes at 20 and then at 30 - see what you find) - I mean that is obviously true for men as well as women. I think 17 seems like an oddly young age though. I mean girls are still going through puberty at that age. I think if we're just discussing bodies, I think somewhere in the vicinity of 22 sounds about right for both sexes.
LOL. a mild curiosity in the gymnastic abilities? FYI, gymnastics is another perv favorite. young and fit women pulling the spandex of their leotard stuck between their ass cheeks is hot.
Except for aren't most of those girls like 13 years old?
sure, but who cares? it's entertaining eye candy. besides, nursing students, cheer leading and gymnastics seems to be the feeder industry for strippers.
Well... okay. I mean those women who walk around in boxing movies with the round signs (since I would never actually watch actual boxing) seem stupid to me too. I mean I watched Bring It On - I even enjoyed it; but I won't deny that part of me spent the movie thinking "for god's sake, take up track or something; why are all of you spending your time like this?"