Is Religion in America Improving or Degrading?

[Calm]

Quote

who doesn't see what other people can see

No one "sees" attractiveness, they feel it.  They see symmetrical features, a certain shape of the body, a skin tone, color of hair....and then they respond to what they see and that internal response is the measure of attractiveness that individual has for them (which can vary from hour to hour or even minute to minute due to other emotions involved or other physical sensations than sight, a guy will really not be attractive to me if he has persistent body odor or bad breath as I am very sensitive to smells, the wrong or more likely too much perfume on a woman and suddenly she seems tacky or overblown)...and that is why attractiveness is defined as subjective.

And only some people feel women are sexually attractive or Iow are sexually attracted to them, not all "other people".

Edited July 10, 2018 by Calm

[Ahab]

Just now, Calm said:

No one "sees" attractiveness, they feel it.  And only some people feel women are sexually attractive or Iow are sexually attracted to them, not all "other people".

Spiritual awareness is often referred to as being able to see, but still I think a lot of what people find attractive in others can also be seen using the physical eyes.  Whether it's the way a person smiles or the things they do that spark an interest in knowing more about them, everyone who can see what makes a person attractive can still see it even when others apparently don't.  I think it would be great though if everyone was able to see what I think makes someone attractive.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Spiritual awareness is often referred to as being able to see, but still I think a lot of what people find attractive in others can also be seen using the physical eyes.  Whether it's the way a person smiles or the things they do that spark an interest in knowing more about them, everyone who can see what makes a person attractive can still see it even when others apparently don't.  I think it would be great though if everyone was able to see what I think makes someone attractive.

I don't see how you can say things like "what I think makes..." and not see it as a subjective experience.

[Ahab]

Just now, Calm said:

I don't see how you can say things like "what I think makes..." and not see it as a subjective experience.

I do see what I see on a subjective level but I can also see the combined observations of other people, too.  Men generally see women as sexually attractive and women generally see men as sexually attractive and some people can even see that people of their same sex are sexually attractive... all of which points to the objective fact that both men and women are sexually attractive.  It isn't only about what I think.  You should also now be able to see the objective evidence indicating that both men and women are sexually attractive.

It's weird to me that I am getting so much flack about this.

[Calm]

If you put it as both men and women can be seen as attractive, that would be correct, but the way you are phrasing it means all men and all women are sexually attractive to all men and all women.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you put it as both men and women can be seen as attractive, that would be correct, but the way you are phrasing it means all men and all women are sexually attractive to all men and all women.

No, I obviously don't mean what you think my phrasing thinks I am saying. I'm simply saying that all men and women are sexually attractive and that everyone should be able to see that as an objective fact even if they don't feel that way subjectively.

Preferably, though, I think everyone should feel and see that every man and woman is sexually attractive even though they should not want to do anything immoral with their attraction.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Ahab

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

No, I obviously don't mean what you think my phrasing thinks I am saying. I'm simply saying that all men and women are sexually attractive and that everyone should be able to see that as an objective fact even if they don't feel that way subjectively.

Preferably, though, I think everyone should feel and see that every man and woman is sexually attractive even though they should not want to do anything immoral with their attraction.

Parts of this I agree with...the most attractive men and women are those who don't know how attractive they are.

[kllindley]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

As opposed to a man not having enough intelligence or spiritual awareness to see that he as a man, and other men generally, are sexually attractive?  And see that women would see that they are, too?  As well as being able to see that women are also sexually attractive?

I'm thinking of how increased awareness and the ability to see that truth would help everybody, both men and women, to feel good about how attractive they are, rather than some being shy or reserved or lacking confidence about how attractive they are to everyone, generally.

Instead of some men or women walking around feeling ashamed about seeing that members of their own sex are sexually attractive, as if there is something wrong with them for being able to see that, everyone would be supporting each other in that assessment and helping each other to see how best to capitalize on their own attraction to be able to attract the best mate they can have, which rather than being focused on which sex someone is would instead be more about which sex is best to hook up with, and why, with the increased intelligence and awareness leading to more and more men and women hooking up to create their own families that can reproduce their own children since that is the best possible reason for men and women to hook up with each other.

I think I agree, if I understand what you are saying correctly. However, I also think that, at least to this point, your meaning hasn't been very clear.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

No, I obviously don't mean what you think my phrasing thinks I am saying. I'm simply saying that all men and women are sexually attractive and that everyone should be able to see that as an objective fact even if they don't feel that way subjectively.

Preferably, though, I think everyone should feel and see that every man and woman is sexually attractive even though they should not want to do anything immoral with their attraction.

Yeah, I still agree. And your comments are still very confusing. The whole subjective-objective thing just derailed into the weeds.

I don't get why so many people are jumping on your case. It seems like they are trying to misunderstand what you are saying. 

[Calm]

Deleted for taking it personal rather than just dealing with comments...I am sorry to all for the diversion.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm simply saying that all men and women are sexually attractive....

While I believe the majority of people can be sexually attractive if they choose to be, I don't believe it is a given that all are.

For example, There are people with significant health issues like being in comas or whose mental age is quite low where it would be, imo, totally inappropriate for anyone to be sexually attracted to them because of total inability to consent.  There are people who don't want to be sexually attractive and definitely dress and convey themselves so they are not, to insist that it would be right to see them as sexual is wrong imo and turns them into sexual objects.

I know some women and a number of young teenaged girls who are relatively disgusted to be thought of as sexually attractive (which is different than being viewed as physically attractive) except in the case of a spouse...I am guessing there are some men who prefer not to be thought of that way either except by a person they choose to be thought of that way.

Think of how we feel if someone said they find children sexually attractive (it has nothing to do with what the children choose for themselves) and how many adults might not actually want others to look at them in an erotic way.

Quote

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.[1][2] Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal is an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interests of other people, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attraction

Edited July 11, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

Yeah, I can get that. I certainly wasn't referring to your comments though. Your responses really helped me name sense of what he was saying. I thought you were very fair and patient. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by kllindley

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

.

Edited July 11, 2018 by kllindley

[jkwilliams]

deleted 

Edited July 11, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

I am now thinking I should have avoided taking the thread personal.  JKW, maybe you and I could delete our posts and KLindley the quoting, etc.

I just think of how I would feel if someone was commenting on me this way and it is not good.  Addressing the specifics is one thing, .I went too far and made it about the person.

My apologies, Ahab.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am now thinking I should have avoided taking the thread personal.  JKW, maybe you and I could delete our posts and KLindley the quoting, etc.

I just think of how I would feel if someone was commenting on me this way and it is not good.  Addressing the specifics is one thing, .I went too far and made it about the person.

My apologies, Ahab.

Agreed. I apologize as well. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Yeah, I still agree. And your comments are still very confusing. The whole subjective-objective thing just derailed into the weeds.

I don't get why so many people are jumping on your case. It seems like they are trying to misunderstand what you are saying. 

I have to say, I am surprised.  If you agree with him, perhaps one of us is completely misunderstanding his confusing comments.

He is saying that 1) sexual attraction is objective (what?), 2) that there is something fundamentally wrong with a person if they do not personally find their own sex sexually attractive, 3) that simply having a specific gender makes a person sexually attractive.   That to me is total nonsense.  Individuals are attractive to other individuals, while sex/gender in general is not sexually attractive.  He is trying to make sexual attraction some universal objective thing simply because you have a P or a V.  That is one point where he totally contradicts himself - he is trying to argue that sexual attraction is about more then physical traits, while at the same time arguing that it is all about sex/gender.  I don't even find the opposite sex, sexually attractive!  I find individuals of the opposite sex sexually attractive, and I am yet to find a person of the same sex as sexually attractive. That is my truth, and he is trying to tell me that there is something wrong with that because his truth is different.

There was a point when I thought I might agree with him, but then he clarified that he is not simply saying that both sexes are sexually attractive to someone, but that they should all be sexually attractive to everyone.  That is why I so strongly disagree with him.  You cannot make sexual attraction simply about gender, and it is also entirely subjective.  There is no universal truth about what should and should not be considered sexually attractive.  There is no "should". 

Edited July 11, 2018 by pogi

[The Nehor]

It comes across as some weird demand that everyone be attractive to everyone. Creepy.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to say, I am surprised.  If you agree with him, perhaps one of us is completely misunderstanding his confusing comments.

He is saying that 1) sexual attraction is objective (what?), 2) that there is something fundamentally wrong with a person if they do not personally find their own sex sexually attractive, 3) that simply having a specific gender makes a person sexually attractive.   That to me is total nonsense.  Individuals are attractive to other individuals, while sex/gender in general is not sexually attractive.  He is trying to make sexual attraction some universal objective thing simply because you have a P or a V.  That is one point where he totally contradicts himself - he is trying to argue that sexual attraction is about more then physical traits, while at the same time arguing that it is all about sex/gender.  I don't even find the opposite sex, sexually attractive!  I find individuals of the opposite sex sexually attractive, and I am yet to find a person of the same sex as sexually attractive. That is my truth, and he is trying to tell me that there is something wrong with that because his truth is different.

There was a point when I thought I might agree with him, but then he clarified that he is not simply saying that both sexes are sexually attractive to someone, but that they should all be sexually attractive to everyone.  That is why I so strongly disagree with him.  You cannot make sexual attraction simply about gender, and it is also entirely subjective.  There is no universal truth about what should and should not be considered sexually attractive.  There is no "should". 

I think I get where you're coming from, and for the most part, I agree with you. Especially the part about "should."  Sexual attraction is not something that can be shamed into or out of existence. 

To your points: 1) I totally agree that the objective argument is confusing and nonsensical. 2) If that is what he means, then I withdraw any agreement. I'll explain what I understood him to mean (and what I agreed with) below. 3) This is also not what I understood him to be saying. 

I agree fully that attraction is individuals not to a gender. In fact, realizing that I'm NOT attracted to 95% of guys was a valuable insight in being able to accept my sexual attractions to some men without rejecting the Church. 

The main point of difference that I saw in what you wrote and what I agreed with is the distinction between seeing someone as beautiful and worthy of sexual and romantic love and personally experiencing the physiological response of sexual attraction.  This is something that I see as problematic with our current cultural and social discourse about attraction and attractiveness.  There are so many different facets of attraction: physical, emotional, sexual, romantic, and even within those: facial beauty versus . . .other parts of the body. Attraction and attractiveness are not some all or nothing prospect. I may find a person's smile beautiful and attractive even as I find another aspect of them unattractive or repulsive. 

I can't speak for what he was actually saying, but I did resonate with the idea that men benefit from being able to recognize the beauty of the male body. I don't think that means anyone "should" be sexually aroused by the male body. But I hear frequently from men that the male body is disgusting and unattractive. That does have a negative impact on a person's body image. 

I guess that distinction between physiological arousal and recognizing and "seeing" that every child of God is worthy of being loved, including sexually, is something that I had to read into Ahab's comments. It is very possible he does not accept this interpretation, in which case, I'll concede that he's way off base. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It comes across as some weird demand that everyone be attractive to everyone. Creepy.

Yeah, that does sound creepy. I think there is some validity in critiquing our current culture that oversimplifies attraction and often over emphasizes a narrow definition of sexual attraction. But I admit I read that into Ahab's comments. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I agree fully that attraction is individuals not to a gender.

This is a very important point. The idea of being sexually attracted to an entire sex is, of course, an essential part of the social construct of sexual identity, but it is damaging in both of its iterations -- a point too many Saints miss because of having embraced one-half of the social construct whilst attempting to reject the other half. (An untenable position, in my opinion.)

We had a missionary in our ward last year who joined me one morning doing some service for an elderly part-member family. We put up nearly 50 metres of fencing, so we had a good bit of time to just talk as we worked. I don't know quite how we got onto the topic (something about post-mission life), but he brought up his concerns that he isn't attracted to 'women' (as a collective). This had led him to worry that he isn't 'heterosexual', which is essentially correct. I then shared with him the history of sexual identity and how both homo- and heterosexuality are social constructs, unique in all known history, that were called into being near the end of the 19th century and which were only slowly adopted and eventually normalised by the emerging field of psychology -- and then only in the West -- over the first half of the 20th century. We also discussed how other societies constructed attraction in the past and -- in areas less heavily influenced by Western culture -- continue to do so.

He was so relieved to realise that he didn't need to be attracted to women but could simply be attracted to a single woman at some point in the future. I assured him that that was a perfect description of my own father and of many other men throughout the broad sweep of human history.

Many boys in the Church, of course, just succumb to the demand of the ascendant narrative that they be heterosexual in the fullest meaning of that term. (Was I the only one who, in the MTC, was told the damaging bull crap that if one didn't look upon a woman with lust the first time, then one wasn't a real man, but that if one looked with lust the second time, then one wasn't a real missionary?!?)

For many of our more thoughtful and sensitive boys, the assumption of this identity will be a matter of self-defence -- an outward attempt to demonstrate that they are not, literally, 'queer'. These boys are doomed to spend much of their lives worrying over what is clearly wrong with them. For other LDS boys, they will embrace this man-made identity with gusto, but this too will often complicate their lives as many of them struggle with issues of fidelity to spouse later in life -- if only in thought.

Quote

But I hear frequently from men that the male body is disgusting and unattractive. That does have a negative impact on a person's body image.

Interestingly, studies have shown that virtually all men are sexually aroused by erotic images of other men. Most importantly, those who most adamantly protest that they have zero attraction to other males often show more arousal than those who care less. To reach a point of stating that the male body is 'disgusting' is almost certainly a defensive posture assumed by those who don't know how to reconcile their lived experience with what they've been taught is 'normal' and therefore desirable. As recently as 75 years ago, 'normal' men even in the West were fully capable of describing another male as handsome, desirable, etc. without fear of what such language might imply.

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I think there is some validity in critiquing our current culture that oversimplifies attraction and often over emphasizes a narrow definition of sexual attraction.

I think it is essential if we are ever to push through this particular historical moment and regain our agency. Future generations are going to look back on us and wonder why so many of us submitted our wills to this particular 'mania' for so long. Of all people who should be able to see through to reality, it should be the Saints. Our prophets certainly keep inviting us to do so.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

I think I get where you're coming from, and for the most part, I agree with you. Especially the part about "should."  Sexual attraction is not something that can be shamed into or out of existence. 

To your points: 1) I totally agree that the objective argument is confusing and nonsensical. 2) If that is what he means, then I withdraw any agreement. I'll explain what I understood him to mean (and what I agreed with) below. 3) This is also not what I understood him to be saying. 

I agree fully that attraction is individuals not to a gender. In fact, realizing that I'm NOT attracted to 95% of guys was a valuable insight in being able to accept my sexual attractions to some men without rejecting the Church. 

The main point of difference that I saw in what you wrote and what I agreed with is the distinction between seeing someone as beautiful and worthy of sexual and romantic love and personally experiencing the physiological response of sexual attraction.  This is something that I see as problematic with our current cultural and social discourse about attraction and attractiveness.  There are so many different facets of attraction: physical, emotional, sexual, romantic, and even within those: facial beauty versus . . .other parts of the body. Attraction and attractiveness are not some all or nothing prospect. I may find a person's smile beautiful and attractive even as I find another aspect of them unattractive or repulsive. 

I can't speak for what he was actually saying, but I did resonate with the idea that men benefit from being able to recognize the beauty of the male body. I don't think that means anyone "should" be sexually aroused by the male body. But I hear frequently from men that the male body is disgusting and unattractive. That does have a negative impact on a person's body image. 

I guess that distinction between physiological arousal and recognizing and "seeing" that every child of God is worthy of being loved, including sexually, is something that I had to read into Ahab's comments. It is very possible he does not accept this interpretation, in which case, I'll concede that he's way off base. 

And I would withdraw any disagreement if your interpretation of his comments is correct. I agree with you about recognizing the beauty and magnificence of the male body, but that does not always equate to sexual attraction.  The male body is a work of art worthy of admiration and is often portrayed very beautifully in art, such as Michelangelo's David.  I can respect that. 

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interestingly, studies have shown that virtually all men are sexually aroused by erotic images of other men.

I'm not sure what studies you are talking about, but I highly question the results if they do exist, mostly because of personal experience, but also because there are other studies that corroborate my personal experience.

Quote

That research, says Bailey, showed that heterosexual and gay men could be distinguished on the basis of their erectile response to pictures of nude men and women. The effect is so robust, he notes, that it can be used forensically to detect men's sexual orientation, and it probably plays a significant role in shaping men's self-identification as gay or heterosexual.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr03/differences.aspx

As a recovering addict, I have seen plenty of images of both males and females.  I can testify that I have never even been slightly tempted to look at a male that way, not once.  There is literally no sexual draw or attraction for me in the same way that some females have on me.  

Several studies have shown that men’s sexual orientation is more closely linked to their patterns of sexual arousal than women’s sexual orientation i

Edited July 11, 2018 by pogi

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

While I believe the majority of people can be sexually attractive if they choose to be, I don't believe it is a given that all are.

For example, There are people with significant health issues like being in comas or whose mental age is quite low where it would be, imo, totally inappropriate for anyone to be sexually attracted to them because of total inability to consent.  There are people who don't want to be sexually attractive and definitely dress and convey themselves so they are not, to insist that it would be right to see them as sexual is wrong imo and turns them into sexual objects.

I know some women and a number of young teenaged girls who are relatively disgusted to be thought of as sexually attractive (which is different than being viewed as physically attractive) except in the case of a spouse...I am guessing there are some men who prefer not to be thought of that way either except by a person they choose to be thought of that way.

Think of how we feel if someone said they find children sexually attractive (it has nothing to do with what the children choose for themselves) and how many adults might not actually want others to look at them in an erotic way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attraction

You do realize that Ahab has stated in the past that he is bisexual.  Might explain his outlook on this subject quite a bit.

[Ahab]

Another attempt to try to clarity what I am saying:

1. Sexual attraction defined - I understand sexual attraction to be all about being attracted to a person because of their sex and particular things associated with their particular sex.  Like when some particular man says "I love women !!!" while he thinks of things that he associates with women that he is attracted to.  Also like when some particular woman says "I love men !!!" while she thinks of things that she associates with men that she is attracted to. And when I say sex I mean sex as in male or female. That is our sex.

2,. Objective view of sexual attraction - First an example: Suppose someone said to you about a particular women something like:  "Wow, what a woman! I think she (she referring to her sex which is female) is very attractive!"  Now imagine that you say in your mind something like: "Well, I don't think so, but I suppose the fact that she thinks she's attractive means that she is at least attractive to somebody, and maybe some other people, too.  She's just not my particular type - not the kind of woman that I am attracted to."  Now based on that example you should see both an objective view of sexual attraction as well as 2 subjective views.  In the objective view that particular woman is sexually attractive because of the fact that 1) she is a sexual object, with her sex being female, and 2) she is attractive to somebody. And the fact that people may agree or disagree subjectively doesn't change the objective view because all the objective view is about is what everybody thinks, collectively.  In this case the Yes to sexual attraction is not cancelled out by No of the subjective view of the person who doesn't think so.

3. Why I think everyone should see all men and women as sexually attractive - because of the objective fact that all are to at least one person who thinks so.  And if you don't agree on the subjective level I think you should agree on at least the objective fact.